Naming Conventions for the Historical Tree on Geni

Remi,

You wrote:

"Then you can display it any way you feel like afterwood by using your preferences. A womans name after marriage, if she ever changed it, will be reflected in her husbands last name during the timeperiod they are married or while she is his widow, until she marries again or dies. That is the way it should be in a genealogical database, even in USA"

I don't understand where in the Geni profile the (husband's last name) would be entered. Are you saying in the marriage event? What if you don't have one to document?

Malc.,

You wrote:

"I personally use a convention that IF the "Maiden name" field is empty, then the "Last name" field is contains the name at birth."

That is the convention I use also.

Cool, our records will reconcile / merge with no issues!

I think the conclusion so far is that we should put a pressure on Geni to support more alternate name fields, and if married name - with a time period is one of these the married name should go there.

As I mentioned to Remi before: I recommend to put the birth name in both last and maiden name field as a "backup" in case someone during a merge or deliberate put something else in the last name field. Technically, if following the genealogical standard, the maiden name field could be left empty in Geni.

[...] and the field is put under the heading Alternate names, why, do you think, is it put there?

There was a zombie software developer? No, really!? :) I'm new to much of this very high-level stuff but want to thank participants for providing an interesting read & insight so far into the annals of genealogy, Geni's intentions, the higher schools of logic, interpretation methodologies, agendas & whatnot. Not putting a maiden name in a maiden name field & categorizing it as a persons alternate name makes total sense in this context, I'm sure. It'll probably just take a while before I too manage to bend over like that. But still, just keep'em coming, the edutainment value is all good. So say we all. I assume (!)

Remi,

I not only interpret Geni field names differently from you, I interpret the English language differently.

There can be no question as to the meaning of the phrase "maiden name", nor can there be any question as to what the field of that name should contain: it is for the name prior to marriage, i.e. the name at birth (usually, there are a few exceptions).

There can also be no question that Geni anticipated the preferences of people like you, which is why they they have an option:

* Maiden name instead of last name

If your idea was in any way correct, then you are claiming that Geni created an option that effectively reads:

* Birth name instead of birth name

Obviously, that is NOT what they did, so regardless of your assertions about The Way It Should Be or The Way Every Program Does It, your position is incorrect.

What IS obvious is that Geni anticipated people like you whose purpose is primarily the production of pedigrees. Which is why they provide the options they do.

What that means to you is that IF you get off your high horse and place the name at birth in the field explicitly named for that information, i.e. "Maiden Name", and then set the option listed above, everything you need and want is provided.

Meanwhile, for those of us whose interest is broader than just pedigrees, e.g. those who want biographical genealogy, they can select another option and see MORE DATA! Cool! How fabulous is that? You get what you want, those who want more get more! Brilliant!

But you want to deny those whose purposes are different from yours. You want to avoid using the field that by its name and by the display options is specifically designed for your needs, and abuse another field.

This is not complicated, Remi. I think you are primarily confusing minor aspects of display with the critical aspects of the database design. In particular, you seem, with no obvious basis, to be acting as if one of the fields is somehow a "primary key": if so, you don't understand: NONE of the fields are primary; the primary key is something that Geni creates and is invisible to us (except in some links).

Bjorn,

Abusing the obvious purpose of a field as "backup" is pointless. If someone somehow does The Wrong Thing (whatever that may be), why on earth do you believe that the won't do The Wrong Thing consistently, and put something you don't like in all fields?

The solution to your issue is far simpler than trying to force mismatched data into other fields. DOCUMENT IT in the profile -- I'd suggest using a free-form field such as "About Me".

Then not only do you get a place for "backup" information, but ALSO a place to annotate why that information is correct!

The alternative is to take your practice to logical (but ridiculous) extreme: put the name in EVERY field you can! First, middle, last, suffix, maiden names should always contain every piece of data you can dig up, just in case someone merges the profile incorrectly (by your standards).

Yes, that's ridiculous. But so is your notion.

Any names entered into any of the fields can be changed by a collaborator who does not agree with the merged information and finds that the information provided at the merge is in conflict with what they think is correct.

Erica, the husband's last name is ofcourse entered in the husbands profile, where it belong, as his wifes last name belong in her profile, both last names are the name(s) they got at birth. And in every way I have printed my genealogical information, wetter pedigree, ancestor- or descendantstree, or the several ways of printing biographies it always comes out correct according to the genealogical standards.

So, Michael, I think you and everyone else now understand how the genealogical standard is when it comes to writing names in a genealogical program. Some of you diagrees with this standard, that's too bad, but you can ofcourse choose to write a person's name anyway you like. If you still how questions about writing names according to the genealogical standard, then take a course in genealogy, it will probably help you understand better than I can do, and it and the teaching will also be done by a person whose language is the one you yourself speak, so any misunderstandings due to language should be out of the way.

I have told how genealogists write names in northern Europe, Reg have done the same about the english-speaking countries and Pam has said the same goes for America.

And if you don't believe me, you can check out Pams ancestral tree, where almost everyone has their last name as their birthname.

Since I now think you understand how genealogist wants names written, I'm not going to say much more about. I want ofcourse that you write the names accordingly, but at the same time you are free to choose whatever way and form you wish. But don't be surprised if/when a genealogist is merging a profile, that the names will be according to genealogical standard after the merge.

Have fun with your genealogy and good luck.

I agree with Pam, Remi and the others re surnames/birthnames. The standard IS the birthname for both male and female. I'm American, have been doing genealogy for years, and have seen the birthname of women as the standard. For instance, in a family like mine, where the surname is Weeks, why on earth would I want to use the surname Weeks for a wife? It just makes her that much more difficult to find. Whether people like it or not, the birth surname is the standard regardless of sex: in genealogy women retain their family names.

So if we have a best practice that should be used I guess we all like to benefit from that standards in the 1000:s of merges that are done!

I suggest for profiles not managed by curators the managers in bold change to the standard, when they approve or request the merge.

At least for historical persons this would make the merges much easier and accurate.

Knut

Very good - I think we are getting there.

The problem is programming. Geni should be programmed to be able to generate the married names (upon request, if a person so chooses that option) by pulling the surnames of the husbands. We should not have to enter the married names of women. What if a woman is married four times--what names do you enter in "Last name" field then? I think the solution is for Geni to reprogram the naming options to generate married names for women and then we could all agree to leave the birth names as the standard entry name.

So yes, I enter birth names as last name in all ancestral cases (living people are different--I allow them to enter whichever name they desire if they manage their own profile, of course). That serves my purposes as a genealogist and I have not had any reason to need it otherwise in the two years I've been on Geni. If there is a need for people to be able to display married names, then I do suggest that Geni generate those from the marriages rather than having people enter them, since married names change--but birth names never do.

On the left under "Profiles Mentioned" is 'Anne of Kiev"

You will note that this name is in English.

I have to ask you - what is her connection to England or the English speaking world for her name to be thus displayed?

It's curated by Калоян Иванов Иванов, Reg, so you will need to ask him why he has written the name as it is.

Pam, you are totally wrong. It is just a minority in the world that uses a married name and it is definitely nothing that should be automated. Using a married name should ONLY be based on having a source showing that it is fact. Anything else is history falsification.

Bjørn, Pam follows the standard and agrees with us. She's just asking for an option for those who want it to DISPLAY and/or ADD to DOWNLOADS (as options) the husband's name to a wife as an ADDITION - for those who feel this is what they want, in spite of genealogical standards. :-)

Randolph and others: because of all the people involved in merging, there are a LOT of names that are not currently up to standard - espacially regarding languages. Those who have the language skills and competence: please help us all fix.

Adding the husband's name to a wife without any sources is not and will not be a standard and should not be offered as an option.

Bjorn,

260 million americans is a minority in the world?

Allow me to attempt to carry through my curatorial tasks in the simplest and most efficient manners possible.

The truth is in the American tree I leave it alone with whatever the user has done to trace their family history. Let's stick with that for now.

Thank you.

I reiterate that I find the development of standards for the pre-1600 tree name conventions enormously helpful. I was at a loss on how to best enter those ancestors without it, and now have a clear guide.

So thank you all very much for that effort and initiative, and look forward to the Wiki being updated to cover the *many* areas NOT currently covered. For instance French and Spanish language conventions are not on the Wiki so much, nor do I believe there is much about Welsh, Gaelic, Dutch, or German.

German is particularly relevant and helpful to me personally -- I have a German line I would like to be able to follow back correctly.

Yiddish and Ladino names are not on the Wiki either and again, those are directly relevant to me.

I wonder if there are any takers to Projects for that?

We also need American Indian naming conventions on the Wiki. There are several Projects to work with those trees: I know a little about the "Royal" families of the Cherokee, and if you think European Royalty has a lot of names and titles, they can give you a run for the money. :)

I might be able to get Tsagali speakers to help out. But they wouldn't touch it with the current state of Eurocentricity.

The Wiki page is here:

http://wiki.geni.com/index.php/Naming_Conventions

I believe anyone can make a Wiki ID and help contribute to the enterprise.

Bjorn,

I was just thinking.

Are there any from the "translation team" Project who can / should be helping out on the "naming conventions" Wiki?

Maybe we can generate an invitation? The Wiki is well organized, it may be fairly easy and natural for those who contributed to so much to the "translation project" to update the Wiki appropriately?

Maybe use the Project tool for this? What do you think?

What I try to pinpoint all the time in these discussions is that you in any case should not fabricate facts. If you don't have sources on a married name don't add it even if Geni makes a specific field for that.

Yes, it is a big problem in the world that Americans think that they are the majority in the world and US laws and traditions are valid everywhere.

Bjorn, please do not dismiss my suggestion as "totally wrong" when I am in agreement with you but trying to find a solution that will satisfy the different needs of everyone. When you respond that way, it makes me feel that you did not even read my ideas thoroughly but just had a knee-jerk reaction to one part of what you glanced at.

We are all here to find COMMON GROUND, right? Not just to argue our own ways! And so we need to listen to each other and try to find a way for Geni to accommodate the cultural needs as well as personal preferences of the various users.

For historical reasons, it is essential that the birth name of each person be entered into the profile. We all agree on that. Some people are arguing that the married name of a woman needs to be entered. I am saying that as long as Geni has a program that can "read" the name of the person to whom she is married, then there is not a need for the person creating the profile to enter the husband's name in the wife's profile. That is, IF Geni engineers would make a small change to allow users WHO SO CHOOSE TO DISPLAY IT to display a married name (husband's surname) for a woman--it could be the same for men if it is a cultural practice for a man to take a woman's name.

Geni already is ethnocentric in calling the field "Maiden name" which I personally find offensive--it should be changed to BIRTH NAME and it should NOT be hidden for men. I imagine most users are not even aware of the trick of how to access the "maiden name" for men.

As I have said before: I use traditions and laws as a guide to decide if it is unlikely that using a married name is correct. In any case it is fundamentally wrong to turn it around and use a married named based on traditions if you don't have any sources on that..

BTW: In the Norwegian translation we don't use the direct translation of maiden name either, simply because there is no tradition anymore that, if any name change takes place in a marriage, that it is the woman who changes her name.

The Naming_Conventions is by the way a guide on where to put the facts you have on a person. Please don't twist it as an argument to fabricate facts.

Pam,

Agree *in principle.*

However since I am not in charge of geni development schedules or priorities I suggest what we do is put it on their plate as a project for them (I believe it already is).

In the meanwhile as users we have the *existing* database and display fields to work with and / or workaround.

That was the reason for developing the "naming standards" Wiki to begin with, wasn't it?

Now the truth is the geni data entry user interface is amero-centric, I don't think there's any argument on that. So my suggestion is that since its design is intuitive for Americans, let's leave that pretty much alone in the 1600-current time trees, and concentrate on "standards/ corrections" for the areas that are *not so* intuitive for Americans, including the American *languages other than English" descent.

In my own direct ancestry tree, I could use Wiki guides for these areas:

- German, Austrian
- Russian, Latvian
- Yiddish, Modern Hebrew, Ladino
- Non nobility English 1400-1700, minor nobility English 1400-1700
- Welsh, Cornish, Scottish, Irish 1400-1700, probably differences in nobility / non nobility naming conventions (?)

From looking at other people's trees, I think major areas not covered for building their trees:

- French (big gap!)
- French Canadian (big gap!)
- Louisiana, Barbados and other West Indies 1400-1700
- Spanish for the Americas (are there differences by country?)
- Dutch, Boer, other South African languages
- Hungarian
- Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian, other European languages
- Italian (big gap!)

And that's just a dip in the world tree.

Surely this is more important?

Many thanks.

Bjorn,

The source I gave you was the Social Security Administration, the legal entity in the United States for names. To me they say that American names are based on English Common Law, and English Common Law assigned (?) (grasping for the correct term here so bear with me) the name of the larger property holder to the family. In more cases than not that was the husband, and that became the "family" name by convention.

I think that is a reasonable guideline for historical truth in broad strokes / principles to apply. Each family of course becomes more specific and more granular as we work from the top down and bottom up at the same time.

Trust me, it's been drummed into my head about Norwegian naming conventions. If only I had Norwegians in my tree! But not until I hit the Frost Giants ...