ANSTHRLD - Too much documentation?!

[Timothy A. McDaniel]

For the most thorough research, I suggest the Academy of S. Gabriel,
    http://www.s-gabriel.org/
I suggest that you not say it's a "runic" name, because as I understand
it, runes are a method of writing, not a language.  Also, you should
tell them the meaning you want: "Cuniwardingar" is a patronymic?

Cyniric / "Richard Culver" <rbculver at hotmail.com>
> If Laurel, or Kingdom for that matter, is going to reject it for too
> much documentation

?!?  How did THAT urban legend start up?!?  That's actually harmful!

Too *much* documentation is never a cause for return!  The most that
will happen is that Asterisk will heft the packet, sigh, and read thru
it to try to condense out the applicable bits.  And the local's
postage budget will take a hit.  If Bordure is competent, probably
only a few sheets of paper will reach Laurel.  If a ton-o-docs reaches
Pelican, then Pelican will heft the packet, sigh, and read thru it to
try to extract out the applicable bits.  (Structure note: Pelican King
of Arms currently handles names.  Laurel currently does admin and
armory, and can overrule Pelican but I don't remember it ever
happening.  At least, that's the divvying between Pelican and Laurel
in *this* tenure, and at the end of Da'ud's.  When Jaelle was Laurel,
Pelican handled only admin and Laurel the rest.)

Sometimes it is said that a name is returned for "too little
documentation", but that's actually not cause for return.  We've
registered plenty of names with just a few lines of text -- but they
were citations of common reliable texts in well-known languages.  The
problem is better called "insufficient documentation to justify the
name in question" -- not too little by weight, but the stuff that's
there (however much of it there may be) does not support the name
desired.

Now, too much documentation does have some correlation with returns --
but only because if there's way too much documentation, the submitter
probably doesn't understand how to document.  That means that they
tend to give, for example, 10 different and unreliable sources for a
name that's significantly different from the name they're submitting
and they give no justification for their significant spelling change.
You can photocopy a book and still have it returned for insufficient
documentation.

A reasonably solid name shouldn't need many sheets of paper.

Daniel de Lincolia
-- 
Tim McDaniel is tmcd at jump.net; if that fail,
    tmcd at us.ibm.com is my work account.
"To join the Clueless Club, send a followup to this message quoting everything
up to and including this sig!" -- Jukka.Korpela at hut.fi (Jukka Korpela)
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.