If one encounters: an AACR2 personal name authority record lacking a 667 field, and based on a paper thesis and the cataloger: has a "publication" in hand by the same person and is adding an 053 field and an additional 670 field should the authorized access point be: changed to represent the author's name-preference for publications (presumed to eventually become consistent) or should the presumed "one-off" thesis representation be retained? Another question: some time ago it was said that the rule to NOT provide known fuller forenames as qualifiers to names with forename initials (when there is no conflict otherwise) was going to be eliminated. Has this gone anywhere? Incidentally, "known" includes presence in preexisting AACR2 "compatible" headings being changed to RDA authorized access points. Thanks! jgm John G. Marr Cataloger CDS, UL Univ. of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask] ** Forget the "self"; forget the "other"; just consider what goes on in between. ** Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but sharing is permitted.