Minor things that bother you

[1995hoo]

(I don't think of him as "Springsteen, Bruce", he's "Bruce Springsteen")

Well, I generally think of him as just plain "Springsteen," but it doesn't much matter in the scheme of things because alphabetizing has been by last name forever (see bibliographies, indices, libraries, etc.), so there's nothing confusing about properly sorting by last name. (To say nothing of people who think bands like the Beatles should be sorted under "T"!)

I gather young people apparently find that confusing simply because Apple's programmers were not sophisticated enough to put in a sorting field when they first rolled out iTunes or because online metadata services like Gracenote were not quick enough to mandate using the sort field.

Edited to add: What REALLY irks me is that iTunes has the sorting field, so you can set it to sort by last name and your iPod will respect that, but then the Music app on an iPhone ignores it for some reason. Why have the sorting field if your own hardware refuses to honor it? (On my Astell & Kern player I wound up just setting all the non-band entries to be last name comma first name because it ignores sort-by fields.)

[7/8]

(I don't think of him as "Springsteen, Bruce", he's "Bruce Springsteen")

Well, I generally think of him as just plain "Springsteen"

I'll give you that one, not a great example! How about Katy Perry? No one says just "Perry", not that I've heard anyway.

I gather young people apparently find that confusing simply because Apple's programmers were not sophisticated enough to put in a sorting field when they first rolled out iTunes or because online metadata services like Gracenote were not quick enough to mandate using the sort field.

It may very well be a generational thing.

[1995hoo]

(I don't think of him as "Springsteen, Bruce", he's "Bruce Springsteen")

Well, I generally think of him as just plain "Springsteen"

I'll give you that one, not a great example! How about Katy Perry? No one says just "Perry", not that I've heard anyway.

....

I'll take your word for that one, as, perhaps unsurprisingly, I don't generally refer to her at all (nor do I know anyone who does....maybe our niece in Florida who is 13 or 14?). 

[Scott5114]

I imagine part of the problem here is databases that just have a field for "artist" rather than "first" and "last". That makes proper sorting ambiguous, because there's no way to distinguish a proper "Springsteen, Bruce" from a "Zeppelin, Led" or "Airplane, Jefferson".

[kkt]

I imagine part of the problem here is databases that just have a field for "artist" rather than "first" and "last". That makes proper sorting ambiguous, because there's no way to distinguish a proper "Springsteen, Bruce" from a "Zeppelin, Led" or "Airplane, Jefferson".

Even "first" and "last" would be a poor choice of field names.  In some countries, China for example, the family name is written first and the given name is second, and in a list the family name would be the most significant field.

[Scott5114]

I imagine part of the problem here is databases that just have a field for "artist" rather than "first" and "last". That makes proper sorting ambiguous, because there's no way to distinguish a proper "Springsteen, Bruce" from a "Zeppelin, Led" or "Airplane, Jefferson".

Even "first" and "last" would be a poor choice of field names.  In some countries, China for example, the family name is written first and the given name is second, and in a list the family name would be the most significant field.

Of course there's no way of knowing without more context whether a Chinese-looking name is [family] [given], or if the person lives in a Western county and has reversed their name to a Western-style [given] [family]. (And without more context it may even be hard to tell whether a name is Chinese and not from some other country.) Certainly nothing that can be discovered procedurally.

[Bruce]

Even for Western names, there can be some issues. When I cite articles with bylines that include a name in the middle that could either be a surname or given name, I just have to guess sometimes.

[kurumi]

Regarding names: https://shinesolutions.com/2018/01/08/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-names-with-examples/

Almost any assumption you build in to a system will have an example that breaks it.

[SSOWorld]

(I don't think of him as "Springsteen, Bruce", he's "Bruce Springsteen")

Well, I generally think of him as just plain "Springsteen"

I'll give you that one, not a great example! How about Katy Perry? No one says just "Perry", not that I've heard anyway.

That's Mr. Springsteen and Ms. Perry to you.

Honestly, I'm not a fan of honorifics and titles - seeing them in newspapers (NYTimes, I'm looking at you) - makes me want to puke.

[1995hoo]

I imagine part of the problem here is databases that just have a field for "artist" rather than "first" and "last". That makes proper sorting ambiguous, because there's no way to distinguish a proper "Springsteen, Bruce" from a "Zeppelin, Led" or "Airplane, Jefferson".

That's why I referred to the "sorting" tab, which is intended to account for exactly the issue you note.

(I don't think of him as "Springsteen, Bruce", he's "Bruce Springsteen")

Well, I generally think of him as just plain "Springsteen"

I'll give you that one, not a great example! How about Katy Perry? No one says just "Perry", not that I've heard anyway.

That's Mr. Springsteen and Ms. Perry to you.

Honestly, I'm not a fan of honorifics and titles - seeing them in newspapers (NYTimes, I'm looking at you) - makes me want to puke.

What I find weird is when the Washington Post uses an honorific in a "news obituary" (an article about a recently-deceased person, as opposed to the paid "death notices" commonly referred to as "obituaries" that appear in the same section) to refer to the decedent but then doesn't use those honorifics in the same piece to refer to other people. For example, something like "Cosell was the first major media personality to refer to Mr. Ali by his new name," or "Mr. Reagan defeated both Carter and Mondale in consecutive elections."

With that said about honorifics, a few weeks ago a potential job applicant sent a question via e-mail. I responded and began the e-mail with "Dear Ms. [her last name]." She responded by using just my first name. I therefore flagged her as someone I'd be inclined not to hire unless she proves exceptionally strong. When someone at the office where you're seeking a job uses the more formal salutation to address you, responding by using that person's first name displays poor judgment.

[CtrlAltDel]

With that said about honorifics, a few weeks ago a potential job applicant sent a question via e-mail. I responded and began the e-mail with "Dear Ms. [her last name]." She responded by using just my first name. I therefore flagged her as someone I'd be inclined not to hire unless she proves exceptionally strong. When someone at the office where you're seeking a job uses the more formal salutation to address you, responding by using that person's first name displays poor judgment.

Often that sort of thing is done to avoid misgendering people. So, it's possible there's some degree of thought in that choice, even if it's not the thought you would have had.

[1995hoo]

With that said about honorifics, a few weeks ago a potential job applicant sent a question via e-mail. I responded and began the e-mail with "Dear Ms. [her last name]." She responded by using just my first name. I therefore flagged her as someone I'd be inclined not to hire unless she proves exceptionally strong. When someone at the office where you're seeking a job uses the more formal salutation to address you, responding by using that person's first name displays poor judgment.

Often that sort of thing is done to avoid misgendering people. So, it's possible there's some degree of thought in that choice, even if it's not the thought you would have had.

My name is utterly obviously a male name.

[wanderer2575]

With that said about honorifics, a few weeks ago a potential job applicant sent a question via e-mail. I responded and began the e-mail with "Dear Ms. [her last name]." She responded by using just my first name. I therefore flagged her as someone I'd be inclined not to hire unless she proves exceptionally strong. When someone at the office where you're seeking a job uses the more formal salutation to address you, responding by using that person's first name displays poor judgment.

Often that sort of thing is done to avoid misgendering people. So, it's possible there's some degree of thought in that choice, even if it's not the thought you would have had.

My name is utterly obviously a male name.

These days, nothing about identity can be assumed to be utterly obvious.  Had Ms. [Last Name] laid eyes on you or otherwise had firsthand knowledge and then addressed you by first name, I would agree with you in that scenario.

[1995hoo]

With that said about honorifics, a few weeks ago a potential job applicant sent a question via e-mail. I responded and began the e-mail with "Dear Ms. [her last name]." She responded by using just my first name. I therefore flagged her as someone I'd be inclined not to hire unless she proves exceptionally strong. When someone at the office where you're seeking a job uses the more formal salutation to address you, responding by using that person's first name displays poor judgment.

Often that sort of thing is done to avoid misgendering people. So, it's possible there's some degree of thought in that choice, even if it's not the thought you would have had.

My name is utterly obviously a male name.

These days, nothing about identity can be assumed to be utterly obvious.  Had Ms. [Last Name] laid eyes on you or otherwise had firsthand knowledge and then addressed you by first name, I would agree with you in that scenario.

Well, put it this way: Regardless of this "parenthetical pronoun" fad to which some people subscribe, a job applicant acts at his or her own risk by assuming it is acceptable to use just the first name of a person he or she has never met. It's hardly unusual for the presumption to be that an applicant needs to stand out in some positive way to get an interview, and if the applicant does something that offends the people to whom he or she is applying or that causes the applicant to stand out in a negative way, the "no interview" presumption kicks in all the more. Some younger people apparently have a problem with that, to which there are two responses: (1) Too bad, it's how the real world works; (2) If you don't like it, then the odds are the workplace in question is probably one where you would not have been happy, so maybe it's just as well you didn't get the interview.

If the applicant is so afraid of using "Mr." or the like, then just use the person's full name without a courtesy title. Traditionally, most style and etiquette guides recommended doing exactly that when encountering a name that could be male or female (e.g., "Robin," which is typically masculine in the UK and feminine in North America, or "Taylor," which has obviously surged in popularity for females in recent years) or a foreign name where you're not sure of what is the first name and what is the last name (Chinese names are perhaps the classic example–it was weird recently when the Washington Post referred to F1 driver Zhou Guanyu as "Guanyu Zhou"). Most style and etiquette guides have said that you would just address your letter as "Dear Zhou Guanyu:" or "Dear Taylor Jones:" if you don't know whether the name is masculine or feminine or you don't know which is the first and last name.

I would still look askance at someone who used my full name in a salutation, but it's a lot less objectionable than assuming a level of familiarity that does not exist and that is inappropriate.

[The Nature Boy]

With that said about honorifics, a few weeks ago a potential job applicant sent a question via e-mail. I responded and began the e-mail with "Dear Ms. [her last name]." She responded by using just my first name. I therefore flagged her as someone I'd be inclined not to hire unless she proves exceptionally strong. When someone at the office where you're seeking a job uses the more formal salutation to address you, responding by using that person's first name displays poor judgment.

Often that sort of thing is done to avoid misgendering people. So, it's possible there's some degree of thought in that choice, even if it's not the thought you would have had.

My name is utterly obviously a male name.

These days, nothing about identity can be assumed to be utterly obvious.  Had Ms. [Last Name] laid eyes on you or otherwise had firsthand knowledge and then addressed you by first name, I would agree with you in that scenario.

Well, put it this way: Regardless of this "parenthetical pronoun" fad to which some people subscribe, a job applicant acts at his or her own risk by assuming it is acceptable to use just the first name of a person he or she has never met. It's hardly unusual for the presumption to be that an applicant needs to stand out in some positive way to get an interview, and if the applicant does something that offends the people to whom he or she is applying or that causes the applicant to stand out in a negative way, the "no interview" presumption kicks in all the more. Some younger people apparently have a problem with that, to which there are two responses: (1) Too bad, it's how the real world works; (2) If you don't like it, then the odds are the workplace in question is probably one where you would not have been happy, so maybe it's just as well you didn't get the interview.

If the applicant is so afraid of using "Mr." or the like, then just use the person's full name without a courtesy title. Traditionally, most style and etiquette guides recommended doing exactly that when encountering a name that could be male or female (e.g., "Robin," which is typically masculine in the UK and feminine in North America, or "Taylor," which has obviously surged in popularity for females in recent years) or a foreign name where you're not sure of what is the first name and what is the last name (Chinese names are perhaps the classic example–it was weird recently when the Washington Post referred to F1 driver Zhou Guanyu as "Guanyu Zhou"). Most style and etiquette guides have said that you would just address your letter as "Dear Zhou Guanyu:" or "Dear Taylor Jones:" if you don't know whether the name is masculine or feminine or you don't know which is the first and last name.

I would still look askance at someone who used my full name in a salutation, but it's a lot less objectionable than assuming a level of familiarity that does not exist and that is inappropriate.

I manage and hire people in the same geographic area as you and in an adjacent field (public policy). I've honestly never given a crap whether someone calls me Mr. [Last Name] or my first name. Maybe that's a generational thing, I don't know, but I've had older bosses who never cared either. Is it safe to say "Mr./Ms. [Last Name]?" Sure, and I deferred to that convention as a young professional but as I've gotten older, I've learned that fewer and fewer people care about that. I disagree with your flat assertion that "it's how the real world works." Cultural norms differ between offices and industries.

I don't mean to be rude here but this seems like splitting hairs for no reason. If the applicant is otherwise good, I don't care if they call me Mr. Jones or Mike, I want them on my team.

[CtrlAltDel]

Well, put it this way: Regardless of this "parenthetical pronoun" fad to which some people subscribe, a job applicant acts at his or her own risk by assuming it is acceptable to use just the first name of a person he or she has never met.

True, but there is also a risk of negative reaction that can come from misgendering, and so you pays your money and you takes your chances. It clearly was the wrong choice for you, but that won't be the case for everyone else in your shoes.

If the applicant is so afraid of using "Mr." or the like, then just use the person's full name without a courtesy title.

This is what I usually do. I also have a tendency to leave off the "dear," since I think it's weird.

I would still look askance at someone who used my full name in a salutation, but it's a lot less objectionable than assuming a level of familiarity that does not exist and that is inappropriate.

And it's better than 50/50 that I wouldn't notice. So, again, I think it's a question of guessing one's audience.

[jeffandnicole]

With that said about honorifics, a few weeks ago a potential job applicant sent a question via e-mail. I responded and began the e-mail with "Dear Ms. [her last name]." She responded by using just my first name. I therefore flagged her as someone I'd be inclined not to hire unless she proves exceptionally strong. When someone at the office where you're seeking a job uses the more formal salutation to address you, responding by using that person's first name displays poor judgment.

Often that sort of thing is done to avoid misgendering people. So, it's possible there's some degree of thought in that choice, even if it's not the thought you would have had.

My name is utterly obviously a male name.

These days, nothing about identity can be assumed to be utterly obvious.  Had Ms. [Last Name] laid eyes on you or otherwise had firsthand knowledge and then addressed you by first name, I would agree with you in that scenario.

Well, put it this way: Regardless of this "parenthetical pronoun" fad to which some people subscribe, a job applicant acts at his or her own risk by assuming it is acceptable to use just the first name of a person he or she has never met. It's hardly unusual for the presumption to be that an applicant needs to stand out in some positive way to get an interview, and if the applicant does something that offends the people to whom he or she is applying or that causes the applicant to stand out in a negative way, the "no interview" presumption kicks in all the more. Some younger people apparently have a problem with that, to which there are two responses: (1) Too bad, it's how the real world works; (2) If you don't like it, then the odds are the workplace in question is probably one where you would not have been happy, so maybe it's just as well you didn't get the interview.

If the applicant is so afraid of using "Mr." or the like, then just use the person's full name without a courtesy title. Traditionally, most style and etiquette guides recommended doing exactly that when encountering a name that could be male or female (e.g., "Robin," which is typically masculine in the UK and feminine in North America, or "Taylor," which has obviously surged in popularity for females in recent years) or a foreign name where you're not sure of what is the first name and what is the last name (Chinese names are perhaps the classic example–it was weird recently when the Washington Post referred to F1 driver Zhou Guanyu as "Guanyu Zhou"). Most style and etiquette guides have said that you would just address your letter as "Dear Zhou Guanyu:" or "Dear Taylor Jones:" if you don't know whether the name is masculine or feminine or you don't know which is the first and last name.

I would still look askance at someone who used my full name in a salutation, but it's a lot less objectionable than assuming a level of familiarity that does not exist and that is inappropriate.

There's a lot of opinion and personal preference here...and generation views.  Regarding young people...the "real world" you grew up in is different than the "real world" they're growing up in.  And the "real world" you grew up in was different than what your parents grew up in.

Preferences and standards change.  In interviews, the dress can be oddly relaxed.  On a recent interview someone was practically in gym clothes.  I made mention of it to the other interviewees afterwards, and most of them said they paid no mind to it; they were much more interested in hearing the answers given.

So, your view of what they should've said is going to be different than their view of how to address people.  They may be just as happy they didn't get an interview or job if their potential boss or company is set in their ways from 30 years ago.  And frankly, the Mr/Mrs can become an HR issue if you insist on calling someone by what they don't want to be called.

[hbelkins]

I imagine part of the problem here is databases that just have a field for "artist" rather than "first" and "last". That makes proper sorting ambiguous, because there's no way to distinguish a proper "Springsteen, Bruce" from a "Zeppelin, Led" or "Airplane, Jefferson".

Or "Halen, Van" or "Morrison, Van?" 

[roadman65]

How is Tommy Tutone filed? Being it's a band name and not a specific person, but many think the one hit wonder was the name of a person and not a band, that one would be confusing.

[1995hoo]

How is Tommy Tutone filed? Being it's a band name and not a specific person, but many think the one hit wonder was the name of a person and not a band, that one would be confusing.

Heh, I don't have a copy of that song, although I may come looking to seek vengeance if it gets stuck in my head this afternoon! 

[mgk920]

How is Tommy Tutone filed? Being it's a band name and not a specific person, but many think the one hit wonder was the name of a person and not a band, that one would be confusing.

Not a 'one hit wonder'.  They had two titles in the top 40 of the Billboard Hot 100 Singles chart ('Angel Say No' and '867-5309 (Jenny)'.

As for me, I generally try to get those artists who used their personal names as their headlines as 'last name first' and the names of groups as they are presented, but getting down to the basics of it, every case is unique.

Mike

[roadman65]

I once remembered seeing Pink Floyd categorized as Floyd, Pink. Can't remember where, but seems ironic as a man named Pink Floyd was the title character in Roger Waters' Rock Opera The Wall.

[7/8]

I once remembered seeing Pink Floyd categorized as Floyd, Pink. Can't remember where, but seems ironic as a man named Pink Floyd was the title character in Roger Waters' Rock Opera The Wall.

There's also the famous line in Have a Cigar: "The band is just fantastic, that is really what I think. Oh, by the way, which one's Pink?"

[Big John]

? and the mysterians

[roadman65]

I once remembered seeing Pink Floyd categorized as Floyd, Pink. Can't remember where, but seems ironic as a man named Pink Floyd was the title character in Roger Waters' Rock Opera The Wall.

There's also the famous line in Have a Cigar: "The band is just fantastic, that is really what I think. Oh, by the way, which one's Pink?"

Vocalized by Roy Harper as neither Gilmor or Waters sang the vocals on that track.