![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: [ACAT] The identity crisis of Lady Emily : a tale of authority control
*snerk* Just an interesting choice of example; it's always amusing how slightly nerdy examples like Harry Potter, Doctor Who, and LotR pop up on Autocat. Although Aragorn is his given name whereas Strider is a nickname, so not choosing Strider for the 100 seems obvious. Since I don't do authority work, though, I'm not sure what principle governed choosing the later (in-universe) form with the title rather than something like Aragorn, son of Arathorn (if indeed the patronym would be included and not just the mononym; "fuller form of name", perhaps?).
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Vicki [...] wrote:
> 150 |a Ashton, Emily (Fictitious character). As I preceded [sic] to add this
> subject heading to the appropriate records in our catalog, I was reminded
> of the existence of name authority heading nb2017000521:
> 100 1 |a Hargreaves, Emily, |c Lady (Fictitious character).
>
> Apparently the subject heading and the name heading are for the same
> character. Should sh2008005745 be slated for deletion because of the
> existence of nb2017000521 or should they both exist? Lady Emily didn't
> become Lady Emily Hargreaves until the fourth book in the series.
On 1/5/2018 12:35 PM, Jon [...] wrote:
Well, if precedent is anything to go by:
Aragorn isn't crowned King of Gondor until the end of The return of the
king, but *his* authority record prefers Aragorn II, King of Gondor over
Strider.
*snerk* Just an interesting choice of example; it's always amusing how slightly nerdy examples like Harry Potter, Doctor Who, and LotR pop up on Autocat. Although Aragorn is his given name whereas Strider is a nickname, so not choosing Strider for the 100 seems obvious. Since I don't do authority work, though, I'm not sure what principle governed choosing the later (in-universe) form with the title rather than something like Aragorn, son of Arathorn (if indeed the patronym would be included and not just the mononym; "fuller form of name", perhaps?).