Il giorno 12/ago/2013 05:26, "Tom Morris" <tfmorris@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> Is it intentional to restrict the definition to personal pseudonyms?  That doesn't cover all uses of them  For example, there are house pseudonyms used by publishing houses which are associated with a series and the publishing house contracts with writers to write effectively anonymously (although it's often known who they are).
>
> Another example of a relatively well known collective pseudonym is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki  There's a whole category of them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Collective_pseudonyms
>
> Tom 

Well, quite intentional. I am perfectly aware that collective pseudonyms exist: one of the most important Italian writer is in fact a collective of writers, that started as "Luther Blissett", and that is now known as "Wu Ming".

However the property does not - was not intended to - address those articles. It is reserved, so to say, to actors or writers or musicians who have a stage name and a real name, like Nicholas Cage or P.Diddy, in order to treat their pseudonym as a data.

Luca "Sannita"