Thanks, Bob. Sensible advice. I counted up the unique usage by title and they’re essentially even. I think I’ll go with Antonio, since it is his given name rather than a nickname, and that authority record has established an author number for him under that form of his name, which is what he appears to use for works aimed at an older audience.
But I’m still curious about the justification for preferring a single record when the author very clearly separates his works into two personas. Is that any different from a case I just came across today of an author who uses two different names for works aimed at different audiences, but in this case using different surnames. There are two established authority records with no references between them:
Her website, under the name Jo Cotterill
acknowledges “Don’t be alarmed! I am Joanna Kenrick AND Jo Cotterill!” The site joannakenrick.com redirects to jocotterill.com, and she lists works published under both names on this one site.
Is there justification for leaving these two authority records in place (adding see also links), but not for authors who use different given names but the same surname?
University of Utah
Choose the most common form. From your evidence it looks like it might be Antonio. However, be sure you’re looking at usage in OCLC, not access points. There are 67 English-language records, as you say, that use the access point “Malpica, Antonio, 1967-“ but I notice the usage on some of those (as evidenced by transcriptions in 245 fields) is Toño. Also a lot of the records under both access points are duplicates so you can’t just count up records that use one or the other access point. You need to use your best judgment and decide which form appears the most often.
Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
In previous discussion on this list in response to a question I asked about an author who uses two different forms of her given name on books for specific audiences the predominant opinion seemed to be that such usage didn't merit separate authority records. I now have the exact same situation, but two authority records are already established (apparently with no realization that the two refer to the same person). My basic question is which to prefer and which to report for deletion.
is for Malpica, Antonio, 1967-
is for Malpica, Toño, 1967-
The author's website explains his purpose in using two different forms of his name:
The wikipedia page https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Malpica doesn't mention this variant usage, listing all of his titles under Antonio, including two that I have in hand published as Toño. In one of these, the CIP and copyright statement call him Antonio Malpica Maury, in the other the CIP and copyright statement call him Toño Malpica. The third piece I have in hand, published as Antonio Malpica, doesn't have CIP but the copyright statement uses Antonio Malpica. There are 67 OCLC records for Antonio, 32 for Toño.
University of Utah