Talk:Beauty and the Beast (Beauty and the Beast anthology by Rhonda Collins)

Why is the title abbreviated if the whole text uses either the full name or initial & last name?--Ratcreature 06:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Because I'm constantly running into trouble with full-name usage rules and direct quotes from the qfer. This one was simply a mistake I hadn't weeded out. Mrs. Potato Head 12:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see how this would be a pain. Though I think in this case the full name is okay, not just because Qfer is online as well, but because a quick google shows that she has an author page for her BaB fiction under her full name, so she is obviously fine with using it online and does so herself: http://rhondacollins.tripod.com/ I just want to avoid confusion for readers if possible.--Ratcreature 12:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a complete pain and has made cataloging qfer pretty hellish both in terms of the work, but also in terms of history and with wikilinks. I've been weeding out the pre-1995 names on qfer, but you're saying I don't have to? *MPH perks up* I mean, I've been thinking it's pretty silly to truncate names when anyone can tap into qfer and see the whole thing. Same with all the authors on Agent With Style I neutered. Same with Proctor's Blake's 7 and Halliday's Star Trek? If these sites use the full name, do we have the go-ahead here? Mrs. Potato Head 13:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. I mean, I have no idea what the wiki committee's position is if some other widely indexed resource site already uses the full name (I think it is different if the name is found on some obscure site or via WBM) and the author's preference is not otherwise known (if it is like Gayle F for example is often mentioned by full name on the Halliday site, but from what I gathered prefers it shortened so that is how it is listed here). Mostly I want this wiki itself to be consistent for each author name.--Ratcreature 13:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a lot easier to take information out than it is to add it after the fact. For instance, I don't have very high hopes that anyone will come and fill in the full information for 90% of the Beauty and the Beast zines. Why not make this information as accurate as possible right off the bat and deal with the tiny percentage of folks that don't like the way it's entered later? I worry constantly about stepping on toes with names, but think its rate of incidence is actually pretty low, low enough that it shouldn't get in the way of accurate, historical information. Then again, it's all a slippery slope... I think that with the big indexes, I'm going to use the information they have there as is. And for the obscure sites, truncate. It's inconsistent to be sure, but no more than how it is now. I think this wiki has been very respectful and quick in redacting names when asked so hopefully this won't be an issue. Mrs. Potato Head 14:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)