Standardization changes for location and/or "birth name" fields?
Came back, after being less active, to work parts of the tree after viewing several recent changes discovered in my following/watch list and wonder if I need to update my understanding of how best to collaborate and accept entries such as following:
- Birth name field to now include "Nickname"? ok?
- Birth name field on female now to include her married surname also?: e.g. Mary Josephine Smith JONES (Mary Smith married Bob Jones)?
- Burial location field to include Lot location in the location field such as "St. Vincent Cemetery, Chicago, Cook, United States, Lot 2" (vs. the Lot 2 being added to reason field).
- In years past, it was my understanding, not standardizing name field and maybe the location field would reduce the FamilySearch Family Tree computer source/content search capabilities for finding new unlinked sources. Still true?
While I don't miss the sometimes irritating standardization messages of a year or two ago, I'm wondering if I'm missing the boat, or articles, as to relaxed standards?. Either way, am fine, just like to understand what tools and aspirations need to be aware of for moving forward to work my small part of the tree.
As an aside, before coming to seek the community input guidance, attempted searching threads here and also help articles.
eg. found 2 name articles and wonder if article 1186 is still current?:
Article Id: 1186
Article Id: 22426
Thanks in advance to any clarifications, missed articles or threads that might answer some of the above...
Cindy Hecker ✭✭✭
This article is current on how to enter names in Familysearch. https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/how-to-enter-names-in-family-tree?articleVariant=public
It has not changed much, Still use birth name and maiden names.
For standardazation it has always been OK to enter the vital detail in great details (if known) then you standardize it to the more broad location such as the cemetery name. Standardization is a good thing for the program and should be encouraged especially to help features such as mapping and it helps in searches as well.2
@Cindy Hecker Thanks for quick affirmation/answers on the quesitons. This will help me help others when I run into similar changes and collaboration. Will generally attempt to send messages with help guidance and or links, when known, when see repeated "new user" type behavior to assist their sharing at FamilySearch Family Tree collaboration journey ....as others did for me.
Much appreciated. Pay it forward.1
Just trying to clarify something here: you are aware, right, that the process of associating a database/computer value with a displayed value, which FS calls "standardizing", only applies to dates and places? It does not in any way apply to people's names. There exists no database of "standard" names for people. That's simply not possible.
People use the name fields on FS in all sorts of different ways, with differing levels of orneriness about their ideas for what's right. You and Cindy have found the articles that summarize FS's vague guidance on the subject, but as you've seen, people ignore those wholesale. (Some of it one has to ignore: "[Given names] precede the surname".... except in languages where they follow it....)
As I've written somewhere before, most of what's in FS FT is there because a user believes it to be correct, and no other user has come along to take issue with it. Yet.2
Thanks for clarifying for newer users just dropping in seeking help on just the primary birth name field "rules" or "website guidance" articles. I broadly used the word "Standardization" for my saved up list of questions which included two questions to the vitals birth name field. Yes, the word "standardization" for the FamilySearch family tree is better associated with location field, etc. NOT the primary birth name field. (lots of threads in this community, with input from tenured users such as yourself in. re location field "standardization")
I think I understand the FS FT "infancy stage" expected deviations and hiccups and messiness at times. Two steps forward, one step backwards at times, but it does get better as the profiles mature. Smile. I believe it is normal and comes with the collaborative tree, one profile per person, experience. My prior work experiences includes close work with top corp. American and international companies taking same journey of moving silo databases/multiple records down to one central profile type record. Am hopeful and encouraged as I see Wikitree and FS FT as options to do the same with genealogy.
Thanks for your guidance in the community! recognize both you and Cindy's profile names and commitment to elevating the conversation. I learn each time I drop in here. cheers!0