I have Person sources now being named oldmastersourcename: personname (Person) with the intention of extending that pattern to oldmastersourcename: personname (eventname). I'm not sure how well that will work from a user perspective but it is programmatically appealing. Any comment?
I would probably have to see some examples to be able to determine what seems to work and what doesn't. When understanding how pieces of things fit together to make a whole, I think most people either start with a general pattern and work their way to specific examples, or else start with specific examples and work their way to a general pattern. I find that I have to work the problem from both directions, more or less at the same time. The general rules feed off the examples, but the examples also feed of the general rules in a feedback loop.
I do like your use of the colon. I'm kind of a stickler about certain kinds of punctuation issues, and I often find myself at odds with the English teachers and English professors of the world when it comes to punctuation. Here's just one of many examples. Suppose you have a citation for a book that's of the form "author, title" without the quotes. A real citation of a book ought to contain some additional items such as publication date and place etc., but to keep things simple let's just restrict ourselves to the author and title. So we might have something like "John Doe, The Doe Family of Boondock County" without the quotes - or maybe depending on the citation authority the title needs to be in italics or underlined or in bold or some such, viz. "John Doe, The Doe Family of Boondock County" without the quotes. But I'm not so worried about the italics as I am the comma. Here's what happens if the author's name becomes inverted for proper alphabetization in a bibliography: "Doe, John, The Doe Family of Boondock County" without the quotes.
There is a quote from the famous mathematician John Von Neumann which can be repurposed slightly to convey how upset I am with this bibliographic entry. The quote is
Anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin.
Whether you know anything about arithmetical methods of producing random digits is beside the point. Von Neumann's point is that if you are producing random digits in this manner you shouldn't be, to the extent that you should be considered to be in a state of sin if you do so (with a huge tongue in cheek, of course). Similarly, if you produce a bibliographic entry such as "Doe, John, The Doe Family of Boondock County" without the quotes then you are so abusing the poor comma that you must therefore be considered in a state of sin.
Which is to say that the first comma has one purpose and the second comma has a different purpose. In fact, it looks like you have a list of three items: 1) Doe, 2) John, and 3) The Doe Family of Boondock County, when in fact Doe and John are a part of the same item. So my naming conventions for Master Source names and my footnote sentences and bibliography sentences use a semi-colon to solve the problem, viz., "John Doe; The Doe Family of Boondock County" without the quotes and "Doe, John; The Doe Family of Boondock County" without the quotes, respectively. Strictly speaking, the footnote form doesn't need the semi-colon and the bibliographic form does, but I think they both have to use the semi-colon in order to make any consistent sense.
I just checked Evidence Explained p.77. It appears that I'm much more in accord with Elizabeth Shown Mills on this comma issue than I expected. I quote: "Semicolons are used to mark the major divisions. Within each of those units, commas separate the smaller parts."
But to me, this still begs the questions of extra commas that you get, for example, when you invert first and last name for alphabetization or when there is a comma before a suffix such as Jr. or Sr. Those extra commas still can throw the whole universe out of balance.