Misuse of Alternative Titles?

I have just noticed that alternative titles is being used for contents cataloguing by some people.

Example Pwning Tomorrow - all those alternate titles are not for the work, but for the individual stories in the anthology.

But I also see it in Grantville Gazette II and Colossal - Volume 4 which seems to have been edited by different users.

I have also seen it for some omnibus items for example A Taste of Decadence (found through CK exploration).

FWIW most of the users I think have been on LT for a long time and have lots of books catalogued.

So I just wanted to see if someone (especially the people who are doing it) thinks this is a valid use of "Alternative Titles". If not and the consensus is that it is misuse I will go and delete the offending data (after recreating it in Work-To-Work Relationships where possible).

Being here for a long time and knowing what to do with/in CK are two very different things

I agree with you - this is a misuse of the field.

One proposal - add these to the disambig message -- makes it easier to decide when two collections need combining. Especially for the ones that cannot get their work to work built (not that this helps with combining but at least the data is there to see)...

I agree that this is a misuse of the field.

Looking at the four examples given, I can honestly say the one user doesn't understand the fields and frequently changes things around. Another has only been here a little over a year. Third... I don't recognize the name.

I like >2 AnnieMod: suggestion. Put them in the disambig notices.

I concur.

When no one's LT catalogue has an edition of a work, we can't add the work to relationships. I think users guessed about where to add those titles. We're supposed to note those related works in the Disambiguation field (if anywhere in CK).