Ambiguity with Last Name on the "How should I enter names in Family Tree?" help page
"Last Names. Enter the person’s family name or surname. If a woman changed her surname after marriage, enter her maiden name."
Can this please be amended to clarify that the field should remain blank if maiden name is unknown? That's implied in the new person dialog itself, and by the fact that there's a dedicated field for married name.
Comments
-
Paul said: As with your other posts relating to how we input names, titles and suffixes you raise good points. I stand to be corrected, but do not think FamilySearch is adhering to "standard practice" with these guidelines. Perhaps these matters are treated differently from country to country, however, and genealogical societies in the USA would agree with the guidelines highlighted.0
-
Juli said: I agree that it would be good to have explicit instructions to leave the maiden name field blank if the name is not known. Many, many people do not realize that you can leave name fields blank, because in genealogy software and on other websites, you often can't.1
-
The original suggestion in this thread is very much needed. I had a message exchange this morning with someone complaining that a married surname should haven been added as the surname for a woman with a known given name and an unknown maiden surname. I pointed out that the surname field in the Vitals section ought to be left blank because the maiden surname is unknown and that there was already a married name entered as an alternate name in the Other Information section. The alternate name is also indexed so that the profile is retrievable when searching that name. I went looking for some back up to what I was saying to provide to my correspondent, and as is usually the case, there are no rules, no guidelines, and no best practices to point to. That is really frustrating, and it happens far too often. After an exchange of just of couple of messages, my correspondent said "I've tried reasoning with you", the implication being that I am being unreasonable and that he changed the name and saw no need for further discussion. These kinds of discussions and edit wars are real turn off to working in Family Tree, and while there have been purposely few rules laid out in Help by design, it is rules and standards that make any collaborative effort run smoothly. When people do agree on something (like a maiden surname being unknown), then there are constant questions of how data should be entered. Lack of a known maiden surname is a common situation. Can't we some explicit instruction to address that? In the meantime, the record in question was edited today by someone else to delete that married surname and add variant forms into the given name field to become Joan Jane. Other people will misinterpret that into a first name and middle name for a 16th century person that only had one name. There are far too many Hannah Annas, Anna Hannahs, Esther Hesters, and Hester Esthers in the database, and now Joan Jane. This is just another common situation that ought to be addressed in connection with entering names, i.e., variant forms belong should be entered as alternate names in the Other Information section with only one name selected for the name in the Vitals section.
0 -
I clicked on Help, then Help Center, then inputted "last name" in the Search field. The first result produced was headed "How should I enter names in Family Tree?" The link leads to https://www.familysearch.org/help/helpcenter/article/how-to-enter-names-in-family-tree, which provides the clear instructions - including leaving the last name blank if the maiden name is not known. Perhaps you might wish to share this with your contact.
1 -
I am not seeing where those instructions make it clear that if the maiden name is unknown that the surname field is to be left blank. This text:
- Last Names—Enter the person’s family name or surname. If a woman changed her surname after marriage, enter her maiden name. If the person has no last name, such as for Native Americans, leave the Last Name field blank.
makes it clear that the surname field would be left blank in the case of people who do not use surnames. It does not indicate that if the maiden surname is unknown to then leave the surname field blank. My correspondent was insisting that the married surname be entered in that case.
0 -
Yes, sorry, you are correct. This rule is a generally accepted one amongst genealogists, but I can see how you could have a problem convincing someone who appears to be very stubborn over the issue. I now agree that FamilySearch really needs to add the required detail to this article to make to position completely clear.
0 -
One way of ending such an edit war is to just walk away. At least for a few days, weeks, months. This often does wonders for ending a dispute.
Another way, and the one I like when the profile in question has not been well researched, is to find the missing maiden name. Of course, if it is an early Colonial American ancestor, that's a hard problem. Fortunately, there is always the other way.
0 -
A better way to help fix this would be to just make it absolutely unambiguous in the documentation. There are so many problems on this site that could be solved just by being specific in the documentation and improving the help system. There are so many, many conflicts created by the lack of clarity and thorough style guidelines: What exactly belongs in the "Title" field, what's appropriate for "Alternate Names", what to enter when the name isn't known at all and whether a profile should even be created for somebody for whom we don't have a name or any sources, etc.
0 -
The trouble is, as soon as you get absolutely unambiguous dozens of exceptions to the rules will pop up. There are so many widely varying situations that historical accuracy require, that there is no way to codify every possible combination that may come up.
1 -
I completely disagree. Clarifying the rules will not create those exceptions. Those exceptions already exist and always have, but we just call them inconsistencies because we lack any standards to compare them to. Formalizing those standards will get rid of most of those inconsistencies; a small number of those inconsistencies will become 'exceptions', but those are much more easily managed than what we have to deal with now.
Saying that there will be exceptions really doesn't seem like a valid excuse for not making an effort to improve the guidelines and documentation. I mean, if guidelines create exceptions, why have guidelines at all?
0 -
Ryan
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Just in passing ...
I understand, your ORIGINAL premise of this 'Post', of yours ...
Especially, with regard to, SOME, "Western" Societies/Cultures ...
But ...
That Said ...
I am not aware, if such is true, for EVERY Society/Culture, in the WHOLE World ...
Now ...
That Said ...
In relation to your last 'Comment', in this 'Post' ...
I am sorry ...
But...
You have failed to consider something ...
"Rules", ARE meant, to be BROKEN ...
And, 'Yes', there are EXCEPTIONS, to EVERY, "Rule" ...
Formalising; and/or, making MORE, "Standards"; and, "Rules", will NOT, get rid of "Inconsistencies" ...
In fact, I would humbly suggest, that such, would exponentially, INCREASE, the number of "Inconsistencies" ...
And, those "Inconsistencies", will NOT, be so easily managed ...
Please understand, that ...
"Exceptions"; and, "Inconsistencies", are NOT an "Excuse" ...
"Exceptions"; and, "Inconsistencies", are FACT, they EXIST ...
They will NOT, go away ...
Seriously ...
One is not, just referencing, "Western" Society/Culture, here ...
One is, referencing, the WHOLE World, here ...
Things, DO NOT, "Fit", into one neat, little, "Package" ...
They NEVER have; and, they NEVER will ...
As, a Programmer (and, not from 'FamilySearch'), once said to me ...
You CANNOT, make a "System", FOOLPROOF; as, FOOLS, are so INGENIOUS ...
[ And, that is so true ... ]
Things, are NOT; as, SIMPLE; as, most of us think ...
Sure, there are, "Guidelines"; and, "Knowledge Articles"; and, the like ...
But, they are ONLY there, for GUIDANCE ...
Nothing more, nothing less ...
They are NOT, meant, to RESTRICT ...
Plus ...
More IMPORTANTLY ...
Things, "Change"; and, "Evolve"; as, 'FamilySearch', has been doing, all-be-it, very slowly, over time ...
IF, you think, that "Names" (and, the recording thereof), from ALL around, the World, can be wrapped up, in one neat little "Package"; THEN, you are "Seriously" MISTAKEN ..
Even with, the various "Naming Conventions", throughout the World ...
"People" DO NOT (nor, do they have to), "Conform", to ANY particular "Convention", if they choose not to ...
[ And, that DOES NOT make them, a "Pariah" ... just different, a non-conformist ...
[ And, has not there been, MANY, non-conformists, throughout recorded history/time ... ]
One, CAN, "Lead"; and, "Guide"; but, one CANNOT, "Direct"; or, "Restrict" ...
Otherwise, Users/Patrons, will just NOT, want to, use; or, participate, in ANY "System", that is so "Autoritative"; nor, one, that is TOO "Restrictive" ...
Now ...
That Said ...
"Ambiguity", EXISTS, "Everywhere" ...
"Ambiguity", needs to be embraced; and, worked with; and, different "interpretations" provided/clarified, where possible ...
But, "Ambiguity", will NOT (in fact, NEVER) be totally, corralled, in one neat little package.
Just my thoughts.
Brett
0 -
Brett, I'm sorry, your writing style is awkward and difficult to read. You don't need to introduce yourself on every reply, insert random single and double quotation marks or haphazardly insert line breaks.
- "In fact, I would humbly suggest, that such, would exponentially, INCREASE, the number of "Inconsistencies" ...
How? How exactly would providing better guidance lead to more inconsistency? That's like saying we'd have safer roads if we got rid of all our driving laws.
- As, a Programmer (and, not from 'FamilySearch'), once said to me ... You CANNOT, make a "System", FOOLPROOF; as, FOOLS, are so INGENIOUS ...
I've done QA for 25 years. My career is being the better idiot. You really don't have to tell me what the public is capable of. I know first-hand, and I know they do much worse when they're given insufficient guidance. And if you want some true horror stories, ask your programmer friends about projects they've worked on that had insufficient product and engineering requirements.
- Sure, there are, "Guidelines"; and, "Knowledge Articles"; and, the like, but, they are ONLY there, for GUIDANCE ...
Just so I'm clear, you're saying the guidelines are for guiding users on how to use the site? And they're only suggestions, so if somebody wanted to add "My 8GG" to the suffix field and add their pets as children, that's all OK?
- Otherwise, Users/Patrons, will just NOT, want to, use; or, participate, in ANY "System", that is so "Autoritative"; nor, one, that is TOO "Restrictive" ...
I guess excessive documentation and strict formatting requirements must be why IMDB, MusicBrainz and Discogs have been abandoned. Oh, wait, no, they're exceptionally popular, probably because of how reliable and consistent they are.
Users are absolutely willing to follow rules and guidelines if they get something out of it, which users of this site do. Go and look at the Wikipedia Manual of Style, for example, It's incredibly thorough and useful, and makes the site much higher quality and much more usable. It doesn't dissuade users from working on whatever they're passionate about, even if they do have to follow structural and formatting guidelines they wouldn't voluntarily follow.
- "Ambiguity", needs to be embraced; and, worked with; and, different "interpretations" provided/clarified, where possible ...
We're talking about how to structure and manage factual information here, not reviewing performance art.
Look, nobody's talking about turning this site into a police state, but if you look at how often the exact same questions keep getting raised on this board and how they're never fully answered, or the amount of time wasted edit warring because there's no it's clear there's a problem here. I'm not saying somebody should have to pass the bar examine to use the site, but it shouldn't be open mic night either.
0 -
Ryan
My 'Style' is MY 'Style'; and, that will NOT "Change" ...
[ I DO NOT, like OTHER Participants, 'Style'; but, regardless, I DO NOT, bother, to attack such ... ]
Your Question: How exactly would providing better guidance lead to more inconsistency?
That is an easy one ...
Short Answer: By, Formalising; and/or, making MORE, "Standards"; and, "Rules".
People inherently, DO NOT, like TOO many, "Standards"; and, "Rules" ... that is a 'Given'.
People, do their own thing, regardless.
I have worked; as, a "Users Representative"; &, on "Help Desks", on "Systems" (&, those being Redeveloped) ...
Not too many; even, "Read", the, "Training Material"; or, "Guidelines"; or, "Knowledge Articles"; or, the like ...
[ ie. In the FIRST Place ... ]
And ...
NOR, do they even follow, what is ON the page/screen, right in front of them ...
And, especially, in 'FamilySearch' ...
I am sorry, I do not agree ...
'No', on the contrary, MANY Users/Patrons, are NOT, willing to follow, rules; and/or, guidelines ...
"Rules"; "Standards"; and, "Requirements", DO dissuade User/Patrons, from participating (in the first place); and/or, continuing to participate.
'Yes'; but, you are LIMITING, structure; and, information, to a SMALL number of Users/Patrons, you are NOT 'looking', the DIFFERENT Cultures, for ALL the User/Patrons, from ALL the MANY, "Countries"; and, "Unions", from ALL around the World - which, the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', is used.
ie. HOW "Difficult", DOES the "System", have to be ...
'FamilySearch', was Created; and, is maintained, by the Church ...
'FamilySearch', is FREE to ALL ...
[ ie. There is NO, "Fee"; "Subscription"; or, any form of "Payment", required ... ]
'FamilySearch', is NOT a "Commercial" Website ...
"Improvement", is always a TOP Priority; but, there are MANY factors, that need to be taken into consideration.
Whereas ...
"Perfection"; and, 'getting the balance right', is another matter ...
Plus, "Participation" is paramount ...
The EXACT Same 'Questions', keep getting raised, in ALL "Systems".
MOST, User/Patrons, just jump, straight in, WITHOUT, doing any, "Reading"; or, "Training".
[ Or, even, following, screen prompts ... ]
That is just 'Human' nature ...
We think, that we know ALL ...
Enough Said ...
I am out ...
I would rather get on with helping/assisting others ...
Good Luck.
Brett
0 -
I'm afraid I would still ignore any guidelines that advised I should always input the birth name as the main one. One of my ancestors is shown by his mother's maiden name in every record I have found, except in his baptism record. I would not wish to go along with any "best practice" on this matter, as I don't even have any evidence his named father was the individual named - there being no other evidence for his existence, than in this one parish register entry.
As far as other users are concerned, many will not even bother to read any "Help" articles on this and other matters - as is evident by the amount of users who input "Mrs Elizabeth White", if "Elizabeth" married a man called "White" and her own birth name remains unknown. (Some even ignore the advice to use a known birth / maiden name and still insist on showing a woman in her husband's name.)
As others have suggested, users will carry on using their preferred methods of adding names, regardless of any advice / instructions - sometimes for "common sense" reasons, but often because their obstinacy stops them from conforming. I agree that no amount of "clarity" on this issue will prevent users still doing exactly as they please.
Also, perhaps you could explain what you mean by:
"...what to enter when the name isn't known at all and whether a profile should even be created for somebody for whom we don't have a name or any sources, etc."
Do you have any specific examples (to be honest, I can think of one myself) whereby one would want to create a profile for someone of whom there is no name, or known detail? Your arguments (here and in other recent posts) would be far better understood if you could just provide some simple examples to explain your reasoning.
0 -
We are a stubborn bunch, aren't we? I guess it stems from sitting too many years with our own pieces of paper. Collaboration is such a new concept in genealogy it's probably going to take a few decades to overcome decades of isolation while we all learn to read suggestions in the help center articles and work together with our relatives while actually listening to each other to get the best information here we can. It doesn't help that just as a convention is starting to be accepted, such as using ? for an unknown name, it is banned.
However, as a starting point @RTorchia, if your skin is thick enough, you could always take that article on how to enter names: https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/how-to-enter-names-in-family-tree, edit it to add or fix things you feel are unclear or too ambiguous, and post the result for comments from other users on what they have found actually needs to be done when working in Family Tree that violates your rules since practicality, clarity, and accuracy will always override standard guidelines of any sort. Maybe if such a process leads to a consensus, FamilySearch will adopt the resulting document.
0 -
"...what to enter when the name isn't known at all and whether a profile should even be created for somebody for whom we don't have a name or any sources, etc."
I very often create a placeholder profile for an unknown parent. At a minimum I can estimate their age and where they were resident when the child was born. Usually I know a surname. On occasion, when I have nothing else for a mother I use "Mrs His Name". Census records often give the birth places of a person's parents.
Usually, within minutes of my creating the profile Family Tree hints provide sources, the parent's full name, and other details.
0 -
@Paul W :
One of my ancestors is shown by his mother's maiden name in every record I have found, except in his baptism record. I would not wish to go along with any "best practice" on this matter, as I don't even have any evidence his named father was the individual named - there being no other evidence for his existence, than in this one parish register entry.
The guidelines absolutely allow this. And that's great. I'm not objecting to any kind of flexibility where needed, only that what flexibility is allowed and the intent of that flexibility is clear and well documented. "Use the most commonly-used name" is fine for your situation; it's not fine when somebody tries to add a nickname as a given name.
As far as other users are concerned, many will not even bother to read any "Help" articles on this and other matters
Yet we still have them. Why? Because they're useful and necessary. The fact that everybody won't follow a standard or read a manual doesn't negate the value and necessity of having them. Some will. Some won't until they make a mistake and somebody else points them to the appropriate guideline. Sometimes they're needed just to stop two people from edit warring over preferred formatting. And contrary to the doom-and-gloom sentiment here, after a few decades of working on various databases of user-generated content, most editors will accept the reasonable formatting standards if they come from the host. (They won't if it just comes from another user.)
For the few people determined not to follow any guidelines and wallow in formatting anarchy, they're really not the people we should be thinking about when writing our documentation. They don't care how general or specific the standards they're ignoring are anyway, and the number of people who would actively ignore official standards and guidelines even after they've been made aware of them is relatively small. I think a lot of the people you're describing are just indifferent to the standards, not doing much actual damage, and would be fine with following the standards if they improve the consistency and quality of the DB, and were clear and easy to reference.
- as is evident by the amount of users who input "Mrs Elizabeth White", if "Elizabeth" married a man called "White" and her own birth name remains unknown. (Some even ignore the advice to use a known birth / maiden name and still insist on showing a woman in her husband's name.)
Isn't this kind of a perfect example of what we're talking about? The name in the case should just be Elizabeth -- we agree that's correct? No "Mrs." and no married surname (except as a married name in Other information). Yet neither of those extremely common mistakes is actually mentioned in the How to Enter Names guideline.
Also, perhaps you could explain what you mean by: "...what to enter when the name isn't known at all and whether a profile should even be created for somebody for whom we don't have a name or any sources, etc."
Take the example you gave above but without even knowledge of her given name -- a situation described in the post just above mine. I asked "what should you enter", but my thinking is that such a profile, with no information or sources, should simply not be created. The slot should be left empty. We shouldn't be fishing by guessing possible birth dates and locations.
Do you have any specific examples (to be honest, I can think of one myself) whereby one would want to create a profile for someone of whom there is no name, or known detail. I have no idea why one would want to do that
Generally speaking, I don't know why either, and don't think it should be done, but I've seen it happen a lot, never with a useful outcome. A lot of times, it includes faulty guesses at info, like estimating a marriage and birthdate from the (often unsourced) birthdate of a single child, where such estimates are based on the assumption the child was their first and only. Or when there's multiple children, the assumption that they all had the same mother.
But there are two relatively unusual situations where we would need a standard for handling a woman that we don't know the name of:
1) When there are (reliable primary) sources that give specific useful information about her, but still don't include her name.
2) This situation, where we know that the husband had multiple wives, we know which children were born to which wife, but we don't have the names for any of them.
0 -
Thank you for providing this response to my comments. Your closing points are very valid and address my questions.
Whilst I do see the importance of separating children with multiple unknown mothers, I believe that up till now I have used the "Add child with an unknown mother" option when inputting them (on the father's page). This does not necessarily imply they shared the same (unknown) mother. Indeed, I would clarify that point in comments in the "Collaboration" section - heading the item as (say) "Children of John Smith" and pointing out the fact there was evidence the children William and Mary did not share the same unidentified mother (even though the appearance - together - on John Smith's person page might suggest this).
However, you have certainly given me food for thought regarding my dealing with similar circumstances in future!
0 -
I guess it stems from sitting too many years with our own pieces of paper. Collaboration is such a new concept in genealogy it's probably going to take a few decades to overcome decades of isolation...
Uhh, I started on FS and didn't even look at another genealogy site for the first three years, but go on.
...while we all learn to read suggestions in the help center articles and work together with our relatives while actually listening to each other to get the best information here we can.
I have no issue with anything you said here except that it's going to be impossible for people to get information from Help Center Articles if the information isn't actually there. That's one of the reasons I'm pushing to get the standards we "just know" written down and formalized there, so people don't have to search this Community message board pit to get two or three conflicting standards from other editors that really don't have the authority to make them.
It doesn't help that just as a convention is starting to be accepted, such as using ? for an unknown name, it is banned.
You're right, that was bad, and I still think it's probably the best solution in the rare cases we need a profile for somebody whose name is unknown. But AFAIK, that change was prompted by some technical issue? I'm not sure, but it seems like changing an established convention should be rare... provided we actually establish the convention.
However, as a starting point @RTorchia, if your skin is thick enough...
Ow, rude. OK, maybe slightly deserved, but still.
you could always take that article on how to enter names: https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/how-to-enter-names-in-family-tree, edit it to add or fix things you feel are unclear or too ambiguous,
This post was a request to add one line to that guideline stating to leave the field blank if the maiden name isn't known. I don't think anybody's really objected to that change, yet somehow, we ended up with this absurd thread, and two years later, that simple change still hasn't been made. Can you imagine if I tried to post all the changes the article needs at once in a single thread?
In fact, I did make three suggestions for changes, in separate posts in the futile hope the comments would remain on topic. Besides this one, I suggested clearer guidelines for suffices and clearer guidelines for the Title field, specifically asking them to just pick a better example than "Mister" since almost everybody thinks of Mister as a common honorific and not the archaic and uncommon status-based title it was being used as there. All three suggestions got a decent amount of positive chatter. None were ever implemented.
and post the result for comments from other users on what they have found actually needs to be done when working in Family Tree that violates your rules since practicality, clarity, and accuracy will always override standard guidelines of any sort.
Whoa... what exactly have I ever suggested that in any way conflicts with practicality, clarity and accuracy? That remark seems kind of baffling considering the response to me suggesting actually documenting our common practices and standards has generally been a shrug and "let people do whatever they want".
Maybe if such a process leads to a consensus, FamilySearch will adopt the resulting document.
I honestly can't think of a single time a UI or functional change suggested in the Community was ever integrated into the system. I hope I'm wrong, but I really don't see any further point in posting anything but bug reports here.
0 -
I very often create a placeholder profile for an unknown parent. At a minimum I can estimate their age and where they were resident when the child was born
Do you estimate their age based on the assumption that the child is their first and only? For one child, the estimated range could be about 25-30 years. Do you do this even when the child's birthdate isn't sourced?
If there are multiple children, do you assume they have the same mother?
Do you mention in the notes that the information you're entering is an unsourced guess and not a statement of fact?
Usually I know a surname.
How? If you know the (maiden) surname, you have a source, which isn't what's being discussed here.
On occasion, when I have nothing else for a mother I use "Mrs His Name".
Yeah, this is exactly the thing we don't want to do: create a profile than includes no information and no sources, one that includes a title that shouldn't be used (nobody is born "Mrs."), a first name that isn't hers, and a married surname in a field reserved for her maiden surname.
Census records often give the birth places of a person's parents.
...in the US after 1880, and which is often unreliable, especially if the birthplace listed is the same state they're currently in, how old the child was when her parents died, and if it's the wife, whether her husband gave the census taker then information. If the information is consistent over multiple census reports, it's slightly more reliable, but I've seen this information change between census reports and between siblings of the same parents a lot.
Usually, within minutes of my creating the profile Family Tree hints provide sources, the parent's full name, and other details.
And if it doesn't, do you delete the profile?
How many sources have you found for a person with an unknown name that doesn't include any other relationships, and couldn't have been found through her husband or children? I've never seen a hint appear like that unless the source was already attached to another family member, If it's a source for just her, how would you verify it's the correct person?
0 -
Getting FamilySearch to update its documentation is ...difficult. I don't know how or if mere users like us can really influence Help Center articles. We've occasionally been told that employees do read our suggestions here, but we basically never see any evidence of it, so our continued discussions have an element of insanity to them. :-) (We're doing the same thing and expecting a different result.)
I agree with @RTorchia that the article on entering names could use some more-explicit wording about leaving an unknown name blank, but I think it needs to be more general than women's maiden names: the instructions should make it clear(er) that on FamilySearch, one can leave a name field empty. (You just can't leave both name fields blank.) This is sufficiently different from other genealogy sites and software to need explanation.
Really the only situation where a nameless profile might need to be created is when there are siblings to enter: you need at least one parent to enter a sibling relationship, and you may need the other parent to enter what's known about full versus half siblings. However, there's no genealogical consensus (that I know of) on how exactly to deal with this, and FS's usual reaction to lack of consensus is to carefully not say anything.
1
