OK, I'd just like to clarify the rules on such things before I do anything drastic. With one source giving Pitcairn's name as Nils and another giving it as Glenn with no deciding name elsewhere, means that we move the article to Pitcairn until another source gives a decider. Is this correct? --The Doctor 10:58, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Generally, yes, although its kind of unfortunate to not be able to use either name in the title. Sometimes there is a "gray" area such as a probable use of a nickname or middle name that can be logically deduced to be reconciled with another name, but I don't see one here.

Possibility: Nils could be a given name that is on his service record (that's where it was derived from), but because he dislikes the formality of that name, he goes by a middle name "Glenn" in everyday conversation. There's not enough evidence in this case to narrow it down that much, but its a possibility. -- Captain MKB 13:08, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

One possible argument might be that Nils comes from a larger body of work; Early Voyages, which has seventeen issues. However, Pitcairn himself is only in one issue, so I don't think that really stands up and so agree we should move to Pitcairn if we have no majority used name. --8of5 16:24, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

The issue and novel in question seem to allow Captain Mike's interpretation. In "Flesh of My Flesh", he's introduced to Pike (via his service record) as 'Nils Pitcairn', which may be his proper name. The use of 'Glenn' and 'Glenn Pitcairn' in "The Children of Kings" is, by contrast, entirely familiar (and, implicitly, within Pike's thoughts). --Columbia clipper 04:19, September 30, 2010 (UTC)