Ambiguity with Title on the "How should I enter names in Family Tree?" help page

LegacyUser

Ryan Torchia said: This page: https://www.familysearch.org/help/sal...

There are a couple spots in this page of the user documentation that need to be clarified. I'll split up the questions to avoid confusion.

"Title. Use this for words like “Count” or “Mister.” If a person does not have a title, leave this field blank."

Is "Mister" really a title we want people to enter here? If not, could somebody replace that with a more appropriate example, like Rev., Pv.t, Hon., Prof., or Dr. (if those are actually titles that actually belong in that field, which is another headache). Because if it really includes "Mister", that implies all profiles for men would have one, and becomes very problematic whether "Miss" belongs in front of a married woman's maiden name.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: A couple of thoughts.

First, very few birth names have titles (there are exceptions in the case of royalty). The name in the vitals section:

In the Vitals section, enter the person’s birth name or complete legal name.

.

The next section contains the area you are concerned with. While it implies that it is talking about the name in the vitals section, it is really addressing the name field, regardless of whether one is entering the name as an alternative name (to that found in the vitals section) or not.

In some languages, the work "Mister" is a commonly used title, particularly in the past. It is not uncommon to find the German equivalent of Mister, Herr, used consistently as a title.

So, yes, "Mister" (or its equivalent in the language used) is a title. The key element is

If a person does not have a title, leave this field blank.

It would be better expressed, if a person did not use a title, leave this field blank.

Hopefully, someone will see this and update the article.

LegacyUser

Ryan Torchia said:

The next section contains the area you are concerned with. While it implies that it is talking about the name in the vitals section, it is really addressing the name field, regardless of whether one is entering the name as an alternative name (to that found in the vitals section) or not.

Some principles are the same, but as-is, it's still really focused on the fields in the Vitals. Otherwise it wouldn't say to use a maiden name since the the alternative name section has a field type just for married name. If they wanted to make that section applicable to name fields in general, it should explicitly call out how to use the fields differently between the two sections.

In some languages, the work "Mister" is a commonly used title, particularly in the past. It is not uncommon to find the German equivalent of Mister, Herr, used consistently as a title.

Then use Herr as an example, or mention the historical requirements for when it should be used, or use another one of dozens of possible examples. The purpose of the field is to call out something unusual or exceptional, isn't it? Using an example that's used by everybody in modern times sends the wrong message for the expected use of the field.

It would be better expressed, if a person did not use a title, leave this field blank.

That might be an unreasonable expectation. For one, how would you prove they used it? And would it require that others recognized it? Would you include it if the title wasn't awarded until later in life, or if a person had multiple titles or different military ranks during their life?

Thinking about it more, I'd honestly just remove titles from the Vital name field. We have an entry for "Title of Nobility" that's better suited for it, and could include professional titles and other honorifics.

But mainly I'm concerned about when and if "Mrs." should be used in the Vital name field.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: When and if Mrs should be be used? Never and never.

LegacyUser

Paul said: There have been frequent arguments in this forum over how a name should be inputted - as christened, registered at birth, or the name the person was commonly known by throughout their life, for example. I don't think there is a hard and fast rule, as the other names can be recorded under Alternate Name(s).

However, I do not think it good genealogical practice to record titles except, as Tom mentions, in relation to nobility / royalty. Although the term "Mrs" has not always been used to show marital status (as found in 18th century English novels, for example) like David I would never use it. Likewise with "Mr" - even when it appears in parish registers for events concerning "gentlemen" farmers, etc. Even the title "Rev." is unnecessary, as vicars are commonly addressed as "Mr". A person can be shown as a clergyman under Occupation, with no title necessary in the vitals section.

I don't think it is good advice to suggest using titles (with those few exceptions) in the vitals fields - it looks particularly bad to see all those "Mr So-and-so" entries all over a tree view page.

LegacyUser

Juli said: "Thinking about it more, I'd honestly just remove titles from the Vital name field." That would preclude correct entry of many names. Granted, I haven't bothered with the noble title on anybody besides the Famous Relative (https://www.familysearch.org/tree/per...), but it was granted (or affirmed) for his grandfather, so it should technically be on all of them... (My excuse is that they mostly didn't use it -- Albert included. Because of the Nobel Prize, other people applied it, or misapplied it [got it wrong], so I've put it on his profile out of self-defense.)

LegacyUser

Ryan Torchia said: I'm not sure what that title means?

I think the criteria for including them as part of the Vital name would be things like: Was it on their birth record? Was it used consistently by the person, either by them or on official documentation? Is there a compelling reason to use it in the Vitals section as a primary name instead of in the alternative name or other information section?

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: The confusion is over the article and its ambiguity. "Mister" is a title. It is not considered a title in today's society and likely never was for some families. As such, it can be found, especially if it is recorded that way in a original document. However, the earliest document should be used as a guide. If the earliest document (usually a birth record of some sort) does not use any title, then none should be used in the Vitals section.

Yes, the instructions are confusing and need to be clarified, but for now, use common sense as much as possible. Others may come after you, giving the open-edit nature of the tree, and make changes, adding a title to the vitals section. If you come across this (and I have recently in an end-of-line ancestor), I removed the suffix (in those cases) and stated why the suffix should not be used with the vitals / birth name.