First names, middle names, surnames
Hi. My name is Johanne Hernes and I am from Norway. At the time being, I am a service missionary for FamilySearch. I became a member in 1986 and have developed a huge collection of names since then. I will try to do my question short, but it needs some explanation first.
Name traditions are different from country to country. Here in Norway, we have different periods with different ways of describing our names. Since the laws for names were so vague a person could be cited in different ways, depending on the Clark who wrote it. We also have an oral tradition for saying names. Then they usually use the person's first name and then with a surname that describes the place where they lived. The trouble comes when we want to write the names in only two boxes. First name and surnames. We have also "middle names". The twist here is what is a middle name and what is a surname. As it is now the factor of finding a surname here is difficult. Many use the name of the place they live as a surname even if it never has been that. If that is the case, when they moved from one place to another, the person could in fact have got two or more surnames!
So: Would it be possible to have more boxes than only for first names, and surnames? Why do I want that?
In some of our areas, there are so many Ole Olsens or Peder Pedersens, that we have no way of separating them from each other other than use the oral tradition with the place for surnames. Today I use the title books for suffix to help med differentiate. I know it's wrong, but I needed to find a way to see it clearly when I look in my index record searching for Ole or Peder.
From my experience talking to many members, there are so many different opinions about names and how to make the record straight. I look at it as if it is a filing cabinet where you need to keep track and make the system so it will be easy to find them.
First names are first names files.
Middle names are middle names files.
Surnames are in the surname files.
My thoughts about title suffixes are that we can easily set all titles (especially suffix) under other options. Then there would be space for at least 3 to 4 boxes for different types of names.
Our name traditions are for 3 types of names. Eg.:
A box for first name (proper names): Johanne.
A box for middle names: my is Torill, but some may have more than one proper name as a middle name, and some have middle names of places or other kinds of names like Dahl, Vik (places), or even mother's surname as a middle name.
A box for surnames. The variety can be different from place to place. Some have inherited surnames that you may find through many generations, but before 1923 they used patronymic names as surnames. But already in the 1860s or in towns or cities they started using surnames from places they had a connection to.
So the 2 million dollar question is:
Is it possible to adjust the number of boxes for different kinds of name types?
Sincerely
Johanne Hernes
Comments
-
No, please, don't add more boxes.
A name is a label, and it comes in two broad types: those that label you as an individual, and those that label you as part of a group (usually a family). No naming scheme needs any more boxes than that, especially not when a profile can have dozens of alternate names. (The limit may be in the hundreds. I haven't checked.)
Most of the world -- Europe included -- has either no concept at all of middle names, or a wildly-different concept of them from anyone else. For example, in the U.S., they're a fuzzily-defined category that can hold just about anything -- and which isn't actually considered to be part of your "official" name. (Very few people are aware of this fact.) In Russia, there are three name "slots", but the middle one is your patronymic -- your father's name with a gender-specific suffix added. You can't stick an American-style mother's maiden name or additional given name in there. In other words, if there were three boxes for profile names, it would become impossible to compare like with like: the algorithms would need to be re-written to compare box 1 with boxes 1 and 2, and box 3 with boxes 2 and 3, and box 2 with every box, because it really could be playing any of those roles, depending on the language/culture and the choices of the person entering it.
The beauty of FamilySearch's simple two-box but many-entry system is that when faced with the question "is his name X or Y?", you can just answer "yes". You'll need to make a choice about which one goes in the Vitals box, but you can make that decision by coin-flip if you need to. The algorithms will find the profile either way.
2 -
Hi Julia.
Thank you for your answer. The challenge with not having a box for middle names is the search quality. In my opinion, it must be easier to have only one factor to search through rather than having many. Three boxes are enough.
Johanne Hernes
0 -
As you note, the tree already has four boxes for parts of a name: "Title", "First Names", "Last Names", and "Suffix".
And that's true for the "Name" field in the "Vitals" section of a record, as well as each "Alternate Name" fact in the "Other Information" section.
I don't support the change of adding a field for a fifth part of a name.
For your problem, I think more use of Alternate Names might help.
I'll compare it to some lines I've been working on in Mexico. Before about 1870, most available records are Catholic church records, and children usually received at least two given names (sometimes as many as five!), but the priest generally wrote only two names for every party on a record other than a christened child or a bride and groom, never wrote a surname for a christened child, and only occasionally wrote a surname for anyone else.
Then from about 1870 to the mid-20th-century, the civil records generally did include surnames, but the clerk was still usually filling just two "slots" as he wrote each record in longhand (or, in some places in the 20th century, typed it out). The 1930 census generally recorded one given name and one surname for each person.
And since the mid-20th century there has been a convention, enforced by preprinted government forms and now by offical computer systems, that each person has exactly two surnames, one from their father and one from their mother.
Generally the Name field should be a person's "true complete" name, one that avoids confusion. So for someone born in the 20th century who lived an uncomplicated life, that might indeed be their birth name, divided into First name and Middle Name as the given names and Last Name as the surname; but for someone who moved around, or lived through a change of naming conventions, that might not be the best choice, and it's reasonable to use the extra fields or bend the rules about what's a "name":
- Include a "nickname" in quotes
- List one alternative OR another althernative
- Put a locative phrase in the suffix field
But when doing so, also give Alternate Names as appropriate. For example, for the people I've been working with, I often give an Alternate Name "Birth Name" of just their given names from christening, and an Alternate Name "Also Known As" of each given name/surname pair that was actually used on later civil or church records. Where some other researcher has given a double-surnamed name, even though that's an anacronism (in most cases), I make that an Alternate Name.
Also compare to https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/126908/please-have-just-one-name-section , which seems to be requesting just one field within the Name and each Alternate Name (but with per-user control over which one is shared).
1 -
I did not request only one field for a name. I requested having one section for names on the details page rather than the current split between Name and Alternate Names.
But you do point out an interesting fact. When just looking at a page one really has no indication of how a name is divided between the current four fields. That can only be seen when the editing box is open. Which is just fine with me. It eliminates deciding if a person had a first name and a middle name or if they actually had two first names.
1 -
@Johanne T. Hernes, I believe that another box would badly degrade search quality. Because no two cultures agree on the role of a middle name, the extra box would have to be compared to every other name box, and its presence would mean that every box of the input would have to be compared to at least two boxes on every name on every profile. In other words, it would increase the number of comparisons between any two pairs of names from as few as two (given to given, surname to surname) to a bare minimum of seven (given to given, given to middle, middle to given, middle to middle, middle to surname, surname to middle, surname to surname).
1 -
Thank you for all responses. I can see the challenge clearly. In Norway we have challenges with similar surnames. The only thing that may differentiate is by using name of place to be sure of correct person. If we could be allowed to use the suffix to clarify it, it would be wonderful. Also as alternative names. Yes, I am aware of alternative names. Let me clarify one thing. Even if the church records only write children's first and middle names, you will have a surname added on in your birth certificate. All are borne with surnames. We have been thought by the clergy of Lutheran churches that the names of places written in church record indicates an address not a part of the surname. At the same time I understand why those who choose to do so in their records. BUT! As I have discovered, later it can be a challenge. Not all lived their lives at one farm or whatever place. Eg. If they were poor they might move several times during their lives. Norway has a long coast, and sailors travelled a lot and made themselves new homes elsewhere. So if we should write name of place as a surnames, then the person will be found several times with different variations. The goal is to have them in the records only once. My end point must be that something needs to be done with this specific challenge. What will we teach our users? For me it is important that we are one voice.
0 -
The main thing that users need to be taught is that:
- A single name does not identify a person.
- People can have many names during their lifetimes.
- All the names a person ever used are equally valid.
- Always look at a person's entire record before deciding who they are.
- Enter every single name a person ever used in Family Tree if needed for full identification, making full use of the Alternate Names section.
- Enter the names in a manner that helps the Search engine work most efficiently.
- Ignore and forget every bit of old guidance or standards regarding names that were developed when using paper forms that had a fixed and limited space to enter information.
People should be able to understand all this with a simple analogy: When I apply for a passport, the form doesn't want just my name. It wants my name, birth info, social security number, and every name I have ever had in my life. That is what it takes to identify me.
A couple of years ago I tested out the Family Tree Find function and discovered that it worked best if I entered Norwegian names as:
- Main Name: First - Ole Hansson, Last - Brandvik
- Alternate Name: First - Ole, Last - Hansson
That made it so that searching for either Ole Hansson or Ole Brandvik brought him highest in the search results in both searches. If I used a last name of "Hansson Brandvik," the search engine seemed to get confused and he would be much lower in the results list. I use the longer form as the main name because that is what appears in the banner and other users get a clear message: "This is not your Ole Hansson!"
2 -
"All happy families are alike, but every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way" Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina, 1878
Regarding being of one voice in teaching users, all that voice can really say is: "Be careful, be clear, be accurate, be precise, be flexible, be thorough, be kind, be open minded, be curious, be willing to learn. Then work lovingly with all your living family no matter how distant of a relation to document your family history in a manner that works for your family."
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." William Shakespeare, Romeo and juliet, 1597.
No single set of rigid guidelines will fit both a farmer in Norway in 1800 and a fisherman in China in 500. They won't even fit a farmer in Norway in 1800 and a banker in Norway in 1800. Fortunately Family Tree gives us the flexibility for each family to work together to determine what is best for their family based on their family's time period, location, social status, and personal family customs which may or may not have paid attention to any governmental decrees or social norms and to determine what are the best names for their rose.
2
