Silly choices surrounding nomenclature

By their very nature, posts on this blog tend to be Dan-centric.
But this post is going to take the biscuit.
You see, when I was filling in all my paperwork in my "The West Australian New Employees Kit" there was a little note asking me whether I wanted to be known as Dan or Daniel. They needed to know so they could set up my email.
Well I don't know why but this sent me into a bit of a crisis. I hadn't thought about it really.
I became Dan when I started in radio as it was easier to say "Dan Hatch" than it was to say "Daniel Hatch". I had always tripped over my tongue with the longer name.
I kept it when I went to the paper and now it has stuck. I've built my reputation as Dan Hatch.
But for a year or more I've been wondering whether it was kiddie and it was time to change it.
Hence the quandry.
So I sought advice from friends.
"I say embrace the status quo, and keep that laid-back attitude that exudes with the shortened name. Also, Daniel doesn't quite fit with the rhyme.... Dan, Dan, he's our man......".
"Dan. I like Dan".
"Well you're already known as Dan Hatch so I'd stick with that. I like it. It's immediate and no-bullshit....".
"i think daniel becomes you very nicely".
So yeah, the response was reasonably overwhelmingly in favour of maintaining the status quo.
Which makes the fact I've decided to change my byline to Daniel Hatch all the more interesting.
I just imagined the front of the paper and couldn't see "Dan Hatch" written on it. No matter how hard I tried I couldn't imagine it there. So I had to change it. It was too strong an omen. I feel like Daniel Hatch might succeed. But Dan Hatch will not.
Told this would be an indulgent post.
And what a ridiculous thing to worry about.