Consensus on using Maiden Names

Agreed, David. Something must be done about the name fields.

Keep up the good work. :-)

David, your suggestions make sense to me. Please alert me if you need a yes vote on anything on the geni help/zen space place - I forget what it's called again ;->

Bravo to Ms K...

Instead of adding fields....just name at birth (first, middle, last)..

People do strange things when they use husbands name...mostly misspelling it, hyphenating it, etc....

So-called 'maiden' can be found almost anywhere in some files...even first name is found in some profiles as 'maiden'.

Obviously, whatever the RULES, people will misinterpret and slap the name anywhere they darn well please

If the 'relationships' field were used (which is not often the case) the man standing NEXT to the woman is the last husband...and I fail to understand WHY people get all in a huff to know who she was married to and when when the data is available in:notes, relationship , and document fields....

So, for the time being the ONLY field that definately should be added is PREFIX....since everything under the sun is now plunked into the suffix, whether correct or not.

All information and 'alternative" about a person can be sourced "About me" in one shape or form no matter where it is located -

Saying you can't do genealogy with out documentation just because it is added as "alternative" information is totally absurb - you still want to document it - in some way shape of form -

Oh well...

Well I decided awhile ago to use a double last name. Got tired of people asuming I was Irish background, because of the mc Carthy, not that there 's anything wrong with being of Irish background, if you happen to be. However, I wasn't., plus it was my x husband's name. So I decided to use Loubris Mc Carthy , no hyphen. Now I am wishing instead of doing that I had ttaken my mother's maiden name and added it to my maiden name and dropped the Mc Carthy and become Parker Loubris but that would entail doing it legally. Too much trouble. So for the time being I will stay loubris mc Carthy. So I guess, in this day and age, it's up to a person's personal needs and wants.

Remi , I don't think it's a good idea to mess with peoples family names. It is there family dead or alive and it is there right to have it the way they have always known it. Would you like it if someone decided the way you have you family names were not common to their idea of how it should be. I don't think you would! Listen ,my Grandfather's last name is spelled Loubris, but it gets all kids of spelling. Hell, most people can't even pronouse it!Well, this is how the family spelled it and this is how it should be. Sometime no one way is the right way.Like it or not no one group of people have a right to tell another group of people what to do. There has to be a compromise, don't you think?!

Ofcourse I think people should choose a way to write their names, and I know that different sources write names differently, even the same name. That is very common in genealogy. The only thing I want is that everyone have a common ground when it comes to which name you choose to be the main name in a profile, and the most common name, mkost searchable and most used name in a genealogical database is the name at birth.

It's not falcifying anything, it's historically correct, the person used and was known by that name and it's the way genealogists do it, and to me, with my years of experience, it makes most sense to use name at birth as tha main name in a profile. The name at birth is the womans family name, Judith, or don't you think so? If it's not a womans faily name, then what is it? You are even arguing for my proposal by saying that Loubris is YOUR grandfathers last name and that is tha name you use, not the last name of a husband. So what do you really want? Your way (which by the way is my way) or that every woman is known by her husbands last name?

Well, I prefer in genealogy to use the birth name. It makes it much easier to follow the line that way, I always have, but I think some people are resistant to this. I was just making the point that that's how I like to do it for my own personel use. If you notice, in my tree I do use my maiden/ birth name. but when I sihn things I use both. It seems strange for a mother to have a diferent name then her son, in my case, unless of course I re-married and I don't see that happening at this point in my life. Althou you never know do you? Judy

Then, Judith, in my point of view, you are doing it the correct way.

I think everyone agrees that name at birth is the most important name. But if you have more information than that (meaning additional names the person had during their lifetime) , it's even better. The problem continues to be that there does not seem to be a concensus about which fields to use for recording all of those names.

I wish somebody from Geni would chime in and tell us that they are working on a proposal to straighten all of this out. The inconsistencies in how people are using the Last name and Maiden Name fields is pretty intolerable.

Agreed, David.

For now....as far as the woman is concerned I use name at birth....if the husbands are coded right then the last man standing is cloest to her.....if marraige dates are entered then the John Smith (last man) who was married to her from 1640 on would indicate that documents signed from 1640 on would be under HIS last name....and most likely she is buried in a plot with him....(etc for prior husbands)

Since there is no other place at present to put things I tend to put title of 1st Earl of Sowden in suffix position....I know it is NOT the best of all answers but it does put it in an area that does not interfere with the FULL name....and at least it is in the proper sequence.

And...again I know it is not according to Hoyle but I put Dr, Sir, Sgt etc in front of the first name....it seems to me that if Geni ever gets a program for prefixes then they can do an alphabetical run and the Capt/Lt/Sir/Ensign/Dr etc could be segregated and placed in proper prefix position....

But like you, David, I wish Geni would at least let us users know that they are listening and working on SOMETHING that will be of help....

Last thing....

Again I know what Geni says but everyone seems to use different ways to show that a first name or birth surname is not known...

I hear 1 question mark, 2 question marks etc/also 1 dash, 2 dashes etc.
or LNU, UKN, Ukn, FNU, etc....

Geni says to use NN.......but it gets confusing as to whether it is NN (first name) or NN (surname) or NN (middle name)....

Is there ANYONE who does NOT know that Unknown means Unknown???...no brackets, no parentheses, just Unknown!

Geni instructions seem to imply that only English speaking people understand the word Unknown...is that true??

As a curator I tend to use (I believe this was agreed upon) ? for the unknown name(s) but I also add "unknown" or "unknown wife of....." for extra information. If the person is completely unknown then you don't really need to enter anything just don't add a profile at all.

I've seen cases where a person's marriage date is known, but not the name or any dates of birth or death for the spouse. Geni does not allow you to enter this marriage information into a single profile. That's a common reason for some profiles with every filed appearing to be unknown. You need to click around to find the info in the buried screens.

@Fay, Unknown is an English word and we have many Non-English people sharing the tree. NN is universal code for Unknown.

Mrs K...that is the most concise answer I have gotten to the question....and it makes perfect sense. I will start using it an modify any that I can find to read as indicated.....

Now if everyone else would do so.

NN is probably universal code for Unknown for those who use the latin alphabeth, - I would therefore not call it universal...

I am using ??...

I agree, Bjorn which is why I thought we curators had agreed on a ? as I said above. Certainly more internationally understandable.

David, I see you battle with the fields but if you have any information out of the ordinary these are in the realm of 'notes' and should at least go in 'About me'. The best researchers I know would make a specific note if they only have a married name to explain what/how/why.

Also if you have different names list them and the sources in 'About me'.

Married names or different names also belong in the Nickname/AKA field.

Could I risk saying that common consensus seems to be that 'Maiden name' should be made available for men and renamed something like 'Name at Birth'?

In any case if I only have married name I would use ?? Or NN (depending on convention used in particular area of the tree) in 'Maiden Name' and the married surname in 'Last Name'…

My take on the 'Name fields' is that we should work to keep the data in these fields as concise and simple as possible and again it seems we do have some sort of consensus from the discussion and a stated objective from Geni to follow 'genealogical standard' in setting profiles.

I've done my fair share of merging over the last few years and since we started applying the recommendations in our project here: http://www.geni.com/projects/South-African-Stamouers-Progenitors things are becoming easier and easier for us.

We have dropped using married names completely and "name at birth" is set in 'Maiden name' and 'Last Name' fields in line with our 'generally accepted' genealogical approach. Things are just so much simpler and easier without having to maintain multiple surnames. What a pleasure it is then too when someone builds into the tree using this same convention.

I would invite anyone interested to try building a few parallel trees and test the concept for yourself.

The other need expressed seems to be recording information from a research perspective. For instance the need to record different names of a person through their lifetime. I support Bjorn in the idea that this is the purpose of timelines and quite like the idea of a separate name timeline. But until something like that comes along the best field to use for all this in first instance must surely be good old trusted 'About Me'…?!

So here is a Proposal:

If we could agree to use the ;About Me' me as the information "Master" and all fields are set as per the information contained therein, we will all save ourselves and each other a lot of time. And this must also surely be a shared key objective?

So, 'About me' will 'LEAD ' in respect of how I would maintain the information on any particular profile. In this respect I advocate listing also the base genealogical data.. dates, locations, parents, children in 'About me'. This means that anyone else who wants to collaborate on a profile also has a base data to work from and can help set the fields correctly.

If you want to send up a name timeline you should be able to do it from About me...

Information is protected from the merge where it is always possible the incorrect data is selected in data conflicts.

And would solve the expectation for additional fields expect maybe for "prefix"?

To expand on what I am saying about saving time in setting up and maintaining additional surnames in seperate new fields. Imagine having to fix and choose the data conflicts for someone with the following recorded names when doing merges.

Name at birth in 1898: xxx
Name at naturalization in 1914: yyy
Name after marriage in 1920: zzz
Name on some obscure document ccu
Name at death in 1987: zzz

...Not convinced .. try the same thing on profiles 200 or 500 years earlier..

The last comment on married names is that if you do not use married name explicitly in a name field, you are still able to tell the married name for anyone based on the full names of spouses on their profiles. Pro users are able to use advance search based on the names of spouses.

OK..I guess we are back to square one..

I would suggest leaving whichever field blank (like they do in genealogies) but I'm not sure the Geni program would accept that.

Question marks would be fine EXCEPT we would HAVE to agree on how many...One (1) would be logical but every one would have to agree....and, let's face it...agreeing to anything is our biggest hurdle.

I don't use NN either because it presupposes the Latin alphabet whereas ?? or ??? are more widespread. I stopped using FNU and LNU for this reason.

I don't use NN either because it presupposes the Latin alphabet whereas ?? or ??? are more widespread. I stopped using FNU and LNU for this reason.

I don't use NN either because it presupposes the Latin alphabet whereas ?? or ??? are more widespread. I stopped using FNU and LNU for this reason.

P.S. The name timeline, Mauritz, applies ONLY to women your proposal would, in my opinion, only make the system MORE confused than it is.

I have said this before...look at the relationship field to determine the 1) order of husbands and 2) timeline for events under that husbands name. and 3) most likely name at death.

Adding more only makes things MORE confusing, not less.

Many times I got a woman's new last name from the death notice or obit of her parent, grandparent, or sibling -- with me usually assuming this was due to marriage - but no other hing to husband's name - and marriage is not always the only reason for a name change, so that it was due to marriage was just a guess. When it was the death notice of a married sister, I wouldn't even necessarily know if it was a "new" name, or the "maiden" or "birth" name.

I also have relatives who went thru life using a different first name from that on birth certificate -- often with they and/or immediate family having no idea of this -- perhaps I really am supposed to go back and change their name if and when I find birth record -- but so far it seems stupid to me. Or am I not supposed to put in, for example, first names of my first and second cousins unless and until I see a birth certificate?

What about my cousin who legally changed her middle name?

Is Geni really planning to tell folks that on their claimed profile they must list their name the way Geni likes it done?

I really think a different set of rules should apply to public profiles with gobs of managers versus private profiles with one manager or perhaps a few family managers - or at least be just a mild suggestion in these latter cases. Or do you really want to chase away the folks just starting to enter their own family info, and just be a playground for those into historical profiles and/or steeped in genealogical correctness?

Fay, I'm with you on MORE is MORE confusing... That's what I am saying. I'm agreed with your previous comments too.

If you have more, put it in the 'About Me'... Keep the name fields to the minimum.

Lois, also agree with you, for close famliy it is really up to each individual how they prefer their profiles and different parts of the tree require different strategy. As you move up the tree and share with more and more people though, we need some approach to make things simpler and save us all time. This is where genealogical correctness starts becoming invaluable. These systems are the way they are because of intrinsic wisdom on what works and what doesn't based on years of combined experience.

Again, all this is because in the long run we want things to be as correct as possible and to save us all as much time and effort to keep it that way.