Thread:Kyletheobald/@comment-3419446-20130422084653/@comment-3361105-20130422132118

1) there are plenty of staff who have more than one pseudonym that aren't necessarily the most common name. While I think it makes the most sense to have the most common working name used as the page-name in ALL cases instead of these weird full name pages, where nobody even knows the person's full name.

So, what I'm saying is that I agree with using the working name, but I don't want to have to have a bunch of arguments about which working name deserves to be used, etc. And, I don't think changing that field's name is necessary. It's the same thing.

2) The Title field is for job titles. DC Database:Staff Template explains that. People who don't put that are just not reading that.

3) We have pages for a few publishers, because they're relevant to the wiki because of crossovers etc. It's a relatively recent thing where we have people adding flippin' HUNDREDS of past employment like they were standing over the guy's shoulder for all sixty years that he was inking comics. Ideally, if we don't have a page for the publisher, we don't CARE that they worked anywhere else.

On the other hand, you could just list those hundreds of past employers, and be okay with the red links, because - as you can see, our staff pages get next to no traffic, and contain almost no useful information (like history sections).