To me, in the end, it is more like an art than a science. ( I guess this can be generally agreed upon )

I, like you, I suspect, see the need for complexity to be saved, like a precious resource,
so that it is not being used up before it is really needed.
For me this also includes starting with short names / using short names where possible.
(UIGNI - You ain't gonna need it)

But that doesn't mean that I'm not willing to use long names where I see fit. The opposite is more likely,
I see the possibility of using long names in contrast to short names as an asset.

It's just that I want to keep things as simple as possible for as long as possible,
so that it can grow gracefully. (KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid)

Nonetheless, I'm still willing to ignore my feelings in this regard in order to be able to work with other people and
their sense of order and complexity.

Although, I have to admit, it is kind of a neat idea (albeit not a necessity) to be able to follow my own conventions
in the packages/systems I'm responsible for except for the public interfaces, these would follow traditional conventions.

That, of course, would only work when starting from scratch.
When editing others people work the old style has to be preserved, that, even I'm able too see :)

Whatever ...

Regards,
chris