Guillaume Néel, SV/PROG 1 - How should the surname of the first generation be shown?

And. actually, we should also talk about using his signature as his profile pic - and maybe put the Nel coat of arms on the Nel family Project?

I see 'Willem Nel' is now being used in the display name field, but I confess I'm not really happy about this. Even if this ancestor signed his name as Willem Nel in 1696, he and his family arrived at the Cape of Good Hope in 1688, so this suggests the name change took place over time, and I feel it's problematic to lose the original name on the tree. My ten cents' worth ...

Could we maybe consider 'Guillaume Néel (Willem Nel)' in the display name field?

We could, doll :-)
We could also use Guillaume / Willem in the First Name field and let that extrapolate to the Display Field. Trying that now...

The problem with profiles that everyone descends from is the consensus! (As the curator of Charlemagne, I have had to become an expert at this, tho! :-)

Geni still partially down, and so is the undersea cable to Africa - will update on Monday.

Shall I try?

Yes!

Done! I put 'Guillaume Néel (Willem Nel)' in the Display Name field; 'Guillaume/Willem' in the Name field; left 'Nel' in the Surname Field; and left 'Néel' in the Birth Name field - hope that works! He wasn't coming up in the name search as Willem Nel, but I find he's coming up again as Guillaume/Willem, so hope this is a good compromise for everyone.

Go girl :-)

Could we have general consensus on how we will handle these changes.
We have Luttrell to Lottering to Lotriet to contend with.

Last say.
You put the name / surname with the original spelling of the SV/PROG in brac.
kets next to the modern one. Like (Guillaume) William (Neel) Nel It is just with S/Vprog and from there you uses the modern variations of the names.

In olden times in South-West-Africa a birth was registered at the police office and the outcome depends on how good the constables spelling was.
Till William The Conqueror the English had not a name William As the kings french name was Guillaume and they in some way have to pronounce it the nearest they come to it was William and nobody complained not even the king. and WILLIAM IT HAD SINCE BEEN.
Dries Potgieter.

This undersea cable to Africa is driving me nuts as well.
Sorrry Sharon still a problem wit that.

About the consensus I don't want to be a wet "vadoek" but I would rather like to see the SA names spelled as commonly know in SA from the start. Whether it be the policeman, the deacon, the minister, the VOIC official or who that spelt wrong. I would hate to see Marias and Marays all over the place. and irrespective of that I am feeling like crawling under the bed just thinking of all the merges AGAIN.
I am begging, asking, on my knees if needed again,
1. Leave the past in the oversea countries.
2. Let us move forward in the South African spelling as commonly known.

Just think Niel/Neel/Nel.
Meyer/Meier/Mayer
Doebel/Doubel/Doubelle
Potgieter/Potgeiter/
du Preez/du Pres/de Pre
That is but a few.

Then there are the names:
Madeleine - all became Margaretha or Magrietha
Jacques became - Jan,Johannes,Jacobus
And then the best of all the Johannes like me dear old hubby who is baptised Johannes but I don't think anybody knows him by that name, he is Jan- so called.
My brother is baptised JAN - so we don't want to see him changed to Johannes,
Then there is the poor Judith - Judik,Judy, Judie, Judi, etc
And that only covers one family.
Please. As from SV/PROG the common SA spelling that we agreed years ago over and over - June, Daan and myself.
Please,please, please.
Dankie. Bitte. Danke je. Thank you. And sommer "sie" as well.
Written with all my love and concern and caring in my 2nd language. So take it in good humour pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I understand that, at some point (either in Holland or after he'd been at the Cape for some time), Guillaume began using the name Willem, and persnally I'm pretty easy about how we record this fact. There's no doubt that he became known as Willem Nel and signed his name that way in later life.

As this is a genealogy project, though, I do feel we need to record his given names at birth as that's part of the historical record. He may ultimately have been known as Willem Nel, but it's important not to lose the information about his birth names because that's the information which connects him to older branches of the tree, and enablse international users to find him.

I had hoped that using 'Guillaume Néel (Willem Nel) in the Display Field would be a good solution to this issue, as it shows his birth names and then the names he later used. I don't feel this compromises the fact that he was known as Willem Nel when he lived at the Cape of Good Hope, and that his children were almost certainly baptised/known by that name.

As far as the Name fields on the profile itself are concerned, I'm more than happy with Guillaume/Willem in the Name field and Néel/Nel in the Surname field, but will leave it to Sharon to mediate ...

Oops, my post crossed paths with Judith's - it's in reply to Dries's post, and basically makes my position clear. As I say, I'll leave it to Sharon to mediate this issue ...

I think its a personal thing. I strongly believe that you must use the name given to you at birth by your parents whatever country you were in at the time and add a aka. It is interesting to see how the name changes over time and also helps when you are tracing your family trees. Guillaume Neel is what he was baptised as - Willem Nel is what he chose when he joined the dutch.

I agree, although I don't feel it's a personal thing. I feel it's about accurately recording events that occurred in the past, which is really what any genealogy project is all about.

In this case, recording Guillaume's birth names on his profile doesn't detract from the fact that he changed his name and surname, and doesn't compromise the later Nel line in any way. So I feel we'd be remiss not to record his birth names as they were given, as well as the names he later used, because both are valid. To do anything less is to manufacture a history that didn't exist, and would also make it very difficult for other researchers to make the connection to earlier lines in the world tree.

Peter Dennis: Could we have general consensus on how we will handle these changes. We have Luttrell to Lottering to Lotriet to contend with.

Dries Potgieter: You put the name / surname with the original spelling of the SV/PROG in brackets next to the modern one. Like (Guillaume) William (Neel) Nel It is just with S/Vprog and from there you uses the modern variations of the names.

Judith Susanna Hendrika 5 Marais b2c1d6e5f2g7h7i12j2 C Whether it be the policeman, the deacon, the minister, the VOIC official or who that spelt wrong. I would hate to see Marias and Marays all over the place. and irrespective of that I am feeling like crawling under the bed just thinking of all the merges AGAIN.
1. Leave the past in the oversea countries.
2. Let us move forward in the South African spelling as commonly known.
Just think Niel/Neel/Nel.
Meyer/Meier/Mayer
Doebel/Doubel/Doubelle
Potgieter/Potgeiter/
du Preez/du Pres/de Pre
Madeleine - all became Margaretha or Magrietha
Jacques became - Jan,Johannes,Jacobus
And then the best of all the Johannes like me dear old hubby who is baptised Johannes but I don't think anybody knows him by that name, he is Jan- so called.
My brother is baptised JAN - so we don't want to see him changed to Johannes,

Lee Alison Francis Cahill: As this is a genealogy project, though, I do feel we need to record his given names at birth as that's part of the historical record. He may ultimately have been known as Willem Nel, but it's important not to lose the information about his birth names because that's the information which connects him to older branches of the tree, and enables international users to find him.

Catharine Petro Nel: I think its a personal thing. I strongly believe that you must use the name given to you at birth by your parents whatever country you were in at the time and add a aka. It is interesting to see how the name changes over time and also helps when you are tracing your family trees. Guillaume Neel is what he was baptised as - Willem Nel is what he chose when he joined the dutch.

Lee Alison Francis Cahill: I feel we'd be remiss not to record his birth names as they were given, as well as the names he later used, because both are valid. To do anything less is to manufacture a history that didn't exist, and would also make it very difficult for other researchers to make the connection to earlier lines in the world tree.

1) Use modern spelling no matter what. Put all historical spellings in aka.
Reasons:
-Standardized appearance - so better to look at
- Easier to track on / as a South African tree
- Easier to Search modern names
Objections:
- Manufactures facts, making our tree ahistorical
- Harder to search if you're using documents
- Removes possibility to see name changes over generations
- Breaks with the standard used on the world tree

vs

2) Use historically accurate spelling for Birth Surname Field (First documented surname) and for the Last Name Field (Last documented surname) If more than these 2 documented spellings in one person's lifetime, put those in aka. Also put the modern spelling in aka
Reasons:
- Historical accuracy . The genealogy is an archive
- Easier to search if you're using documents
- Provides possibility to see name changes over generations
- Is respectful of the international context of thecollaborative world tree
Objections:
- No conformity of appearance – so not standardized to look at
- Not so obvious to track as a South African tree
- Harder to search your own surname

Wow! This is complicated, and for my part, I'm happy to be guided by the curators and others who have more knowledge and experience than I do.

My feeling about this kind of thing is that, for a man, the birth name and surname should be in the name and surname fields, and all later variations should be recorded in the AKA field. The display name could then include the birth names and the most common variation behind that in brackets.

This seems to guarantee historic continuity as well as accommodating later variations. But, as I say, I'm happy to be guided by those who have more knowledge about this stuff than I do ...