All these examples are making me laugh! Imagine telling the Queen of England, that it's unprofessional for her to be called to "Your Majesty"!
Can you just imagine news reporting in the UK if she had to be referred to as "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her Other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" Every Single Time they referred to Her Majesty?
The Times would have to add pages.
Heh. No matter who's telling them they have
to do it, no newspaper is going to do that. Colossal waste of newsprint.
I agree with Calypso on settling on a name, but I think it's most important to have a full name, then a recognized abbreviation or nickname and only use those two. But always insisting on the full name is just silly and impractical.
I used to deal with a small college at my last newspaper job. The administration insisted they MUST be called Certain Full Long Name in any reference. They got a little snotty about it. But here's the thing ... NO ONE except for the administration called them that.
Not the students, not the rest of the community, not other colleges. If we had bowed to them and only used Certain Full Long Name, half the people would have read it and said, "Who?" and the rest would have rolled their eyes.
We kept using Certain Full Long Name on first reference and CFLN on subsequent uses. They whined, but realized that if they wanted to keep the level of coverage they were getting out of us, they couldn't refuse to deal with us over it.
I'm in a different city, different paper now, but every once in a while, I see press releases from them. They still write out Certain Full Long Name. And everyone else still knows them as CFLN.