Ambiguity with Suffix on the "How should I enter names in Family Tree?" help page
LegacyUser
✭✭✭✭
Ryan Torchia said: This page: https://www.familysearch.org/help/sal...
"Suffix. Enter words like “Jr.” or “Sr.,” or perhaps a Roman numeral, as in “John Smith III.” If a person does not have a suffix, leave this field blank."
It's going to sound odd, but can somebody clarify what "has" means here? Nobody is born a "Sr.", and just because a person had the same name as their father doesn't mean they ever used or wanted to be called "Jr." And it's not uncommon that an individual would go by both at different stages of their life. Roman numeral designations often aren't an official part of the name, but it would be exceptionally useful to use them when sorting through different generations with the same name from a few hundred years ago.
"Suffix. Enter words like “Jr.” or “Sr.,” or perhaps a Roman numeral, as in “John Smith III.” If a person does not have a suffix, leave this field blank."
It's going to sound odd, but can somebody clarify what "has" means here? Nobody is born a "Sr.", and just because a person had the same name as their father doesn't mean they ever used or wanted to be called "Jr." And it's not uncommon that an individual would go by both at different stages of their life. Roman numeral designations often aren't an official part of the name, but it would be exceptionally useful to use them when sorting through different generations with the same name from a few hundred years ago.
Tagged:
0
Comments
-
Brett said: Ryan
'Food for thought' ...
Do we really need the inclusion of those 'Suffixes' of, (1) "Junior"; and/or, (2) "Senior"; and/or, (3) "Roman Numerals", in the "Name Field", in "Vitals" Section, at all?
They seem to be a 'idiosyncrasy' of certain regions, certainly NOT everywhere.
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffix_...
NOT a definitive source; but, certainly interesting.
Personally, unless they appear in the 'Civil Registration' of "Birth" of an individual/person, I think that such 'Suffixes' of, (1) "Junior"; and/or, (2) "Senior"; and/or, (3) "Roman Numerals", should NOT be included in the "Name Field", in "Vitals" Section.
Certainly, they CAN (and, should, if necessary) appear in the "Other Information" Section, under "Alternate Names"; but, NOT in the "Vitals" Section.
I have had to CORRECT (ie. REVERT) the details for a Family, where a User/Patron had come along and "Changed" the ORIGINAL and Documented (ie. 'Civil Registration' of "Birth") "Names" of various Family members, by APPENDING the 'Suffixes' of, "Junior"; and, "Senior", just so THEY were NOT confused; as, a number of the various generations had the same name. There was certainly NO basis for the "Change", it just suited this one User/Patron; and, the Family was NOT even from a region that would normally use those suffixes.
I just thought I would 'wade in' ...
Just my thoughts ...
From one, in a region, that would normally use those suffixes ...
Brett
.0 -
Ryan Torchia said:
I agree with you. I would love to have somewhere in the vitals to indicate, if the same name exists in successive generations, which generation that record is referring to, even if not part of the name, just because I've seen a lot of bad edits and merges because people mistake son/father/grandfather/etc. for each other, but that still wouldn't help when the same mistakes occur with cousins named after grandparents.
Personally, unless they appear in the 'Civil Registration' of "Birth" of an individual/person, I think that such 'Suffixes' of, (1) "Junior"; and/or, (2) "Senior"; and/or, (3) "Roman Numerals", should NOT be included in the "Name Field", in "Vitals" Section.
And yeah, seeing Jr/Sr applied to people living in regions that never used them is a peeve of mine too.0 -
Adrian Bruce said: This is one of those occasions when I tend to dislike the genealogical best practice of just entering the birth name as the Vital name, which will mean no suffixes, etc. (Ditto titles as per your other thread).
The example that I always give is the family of Robert The Bruce. Nearly every first born son from the first Bruce (de Brus then) to enter England & Scotland was named Robert. Historians appear to have developed the habit of referring to them as Robert de Brus V, etc, (number 5 was Robert The Bruce's grandfather, aka The Competitor). It does make it a lot easier to read stuff through, especially if you have text referring to "Robert de Brus" - which???.
Personally, I'd like to see the birth name entered cleanly - no prefix, suffixes or titles (depending on how the titles worked). But then I'd like to see the possibility of designating another version of the name as the "Vital" one to appear in charts, etc. Thus "Robert de Brus" as the birth name and "Robert de Brus V" or even "Robert de Brus V The Competitor" as the Vital name for charts etc.
However, until that Utopia arises and probably even after, yes, the situation needs clarification.0 -
Ryan Torchia said: I weep for whoever has to manage George Foreman's family in a hundred years.
But the example you give is somewhat of an exceptional case. That seems like a compelling reason to include them, or to include some sort of short disambiguation field in the vitals.0 -
Juli said: Adrian, one of the options under Alternate Name is Birth Name. This means that you _can_ do exactly what you describe: you can enter the unadorned birth name labeled as Birth Name, and the "disambiguated" name under Vitals, which is what shows up in charts.0
-
Adrian Bruce said: Juli, I knew that there is a Birth Name option in the Alternate Names though I hadn't actually considered its use for this particular purpose. Hmm.
I guess that leaves two aspects - the need to be able to cite sources against the Alternate Names (yes, that is a long running record) and the need to sanction and publicize such practices in order to avoid people coming along and removing the disambiguation suffices.0 -
Brett said: Adrian
We can ALREADY ...
When I add an "Alternate Name", I, either, cite the relevant "Source" attached, if there is one; or, recorded the actual "Register" details, in the "Reason Statement" with the "Alternate Name".
The problem/issue, for me, was with that little FORAY by "FamilySearch", not that long ago, into "Removing" those "Alternate Names" that were supposedly "Duplicates"; and, in my case, despite the fact that there were DIFFERENT details in the "Reason Statements" for the same Name (the same Names were interspersed between the Name variations from Birth to Death); and, of course, the MAJOR Fault/Flaw in "Removing" many "Names" that were, in fact, NOT "Duplicated". I hope that NEVER happens again.
In regard to "FamilySearch", sanction (which that do); and, publicize (which that do), the use of the "Alternate Names" in the "Other Information" Section ... 'Yes', 'Yes' please ... certainly the WIDER use of the "Alternate Names".
I would not come along and "Remove" an "Alternate Name" added by another User/Patron; but, I would come along, like I did, in the 'Name' field in the "Vitals" Section, and "Remove" the 'Suffixes' of, "Junior"; and, "Senior" (and, the like) , where a User/Patron had come along (later) and "Changed" the ORIGINAL and Documented [ie. 'Civil Registration' of "Birth"; or, acquired "Titles" or 'Suffixes' - Nobility, Rank, Education (Profession), etc] "Names" of various Family members, by APPENDING the 'Suffixes' of, "Junior"; and, "Senior", just so THEY were NOT confused; as, a number of the various generations had the same name. There was certainly NO basis for the "Change", it just suited this one User/Patron; and, the Family was NOT even from a region that would normally use those suffixes.
On another note, for consideration, I believe that in relation to those "Alternate Names", as far as I am aware (and, I stand corrected if I am wrong), those "Alternate Names" are also used when you use the "FamilySearch" Search for, both, the individual/person you are working on; and, also compared with the "Names" in 'Vitals'; and/or, "Alternate Names" in 'Other Information', anywhere within the "Database" itself - me thinks.
Brett
.0