What is the current best practice? Should we be using periods after initials?

LegacyUser

David Roderick McLean said: I visit many details pages which have names like:
Noah J Lyle

The old best practice was to omit the normal period. Is this still the best practice or should I clean them up to be:
Noah J. Lyle

LegacyUser

Gordon Collett said: I was told or read once that that period had an important meaning and indicated whether that initial was an abbreviation or not. But maybe that isn't true or maybe someone declaring a standard decided that wasn't so important.

In other words, I have been under the impression that John A Smith's middle name is just "A" and John A. Smith has a middle name starting with A and my research isn't complete until I figure out what it is.

A best practice that declares all initials need periods or that all periods should be removed would then require a reason statement to explain the initial and whether it is an abbreviation or not.

I'm looking forward to hearing from people who actually know the answer to this.

LegacyUser

Paul said: In England, it seems to have been the practice for many years to omit the period in typing - although it is still common to find it used in handwriting. I got my bank to remove the "MR" from my cheque books as, because of the use of upper case (capital letters, as we used to call them) and poor spacing, it appeared I was M R P WRIGHTSON instead of Mr P Wrightson!

Personally, I have never used a period in Family Tree (always inputting, say, John A Smith when the middle name is unknown). I believe it is probably more common in the USA (or should I say U.S.A.) than it is here for a middle name to actually be a letter, so I can see how the argument is relevant.

LegacyUser

RealMac said: It is a matter of style. Modern humans seem to be always rushing. This tendency is evident here on this web site, where we are in such a hurry that we leave out the space between Family and Search! However, I prefer to think that genealogy requires us to be calm and deliberate. I generally put the period where it belongs.

Also, experience has taught me that it is important to include the period to signify the presence of an abbreviation. Visitors and natives alike have found it difficult to find their way to such locations as "White-Hen-Stu Bldg". I think U.S.A. and D.C. are probably unnecessary, as they have really become acronyms in their own right rather than abbreviations, but Mr., Mrs., and Ms. seem much more respectful than MR, MRS, and MS, particularly since MS is an accepted acronym for manuscript. My point is that we are not in fact in such a desperate race that we cannot expend the small amount of time it takes to be kind to our readers by using a civilized amount of punctuation.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: A period indicates a true initial. If a single letter is missing a period, it is just that, a single letter. I have a close relative who has a middle "name" as a single letter. For him, there is no period, nor should one be added.

As a practice, I use whatever is recorded in the source document. Since these people are deceased, there is no way to tell if the letter is an abbreviation or not. Because of this, I look at each source document to determine if a period has ever been used. If I find one with a period, then I will put it in the name that is in the Vital Information section, but also, I will include an "also known as" alternate name with an explanation where the name appears without a period after the single letter.

This is related to recording names. I recently ran into a gravestone where the person's name was recorded with D.D.S. following the name, indicating the person was a dentist. I have added D.D.S. as a suffix even though I do not have an image of any certificate.

I have an ancestor who was a frontier doctor (which did not require formal education), but unless I find his name recorded in some document as Dr. Jeremiah Clark, I will not add the prefix. However, I did add a note to the record indicating that he was a practicing frontier doctor and that he learned the trade from his older brother (which is documented).

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: The practice of omitting the period was common in earlier computer-oriented genealogical systems, largely because every character took up valuable space and memory. With today's systems and low-cost memory, that is no longer a factor and the rule regarding periods (include if recorded at some point) or omit if never found on any record applies.

Those people, such as the person I know, are generally adamant about their single letter not being an initial.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Sorry if I appear being pedantic in this response, RealMac, but "FamilySearch" (without a space and written with a capital "S") is correct as far as the title name of the website is concerned - see the name at the top of this page. That is why I always write it this way, anyhow.

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: I myself have never used periods in FamilySearch's "Family Tree," and I will continue to NOT use them.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Tom

It appears that if you can only find information from a FamilySearch results page you will always have to enter the name (if one letter) without the period - based on your suggestion of recording the name as it is found.

As you can see from the screen shot below, I entered David A. Smith (with the period) checking the boxes for an exact search. None of these 68 records were shown with the period - so it certainly seems FamilySearch's practice not to use them.

Incidentally, if you check one example (at https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3...) you will find the original definitely does show the period after the "A". I'm not arguing the case for either method being "correct" but think that perhaps those who feel the period should be shown, if it appears in the original document, should request that FamilySearch should program their results pages to display accordingly. (Unlike the case illustrated above, the original document might not always be available for the researcher to read.)

LegacyUser

RealMac said: I failed to mark my use of sarcasm! I have always attributed the FamilySearch name to the modern need for speed, supposing the organization was in such haste that they left out the space, following current fashion. For me, genealogy is something that requires much deliberation and reflection, and suffers from haste.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: FamilySearch is not my first source for information on a family member. It often is not even the second or third. But eventually, I do use the material that has been gathered by FamilySearch and will make use of the source linker.

When I start working with a person, I add that person to my ancestry.com family tree. This allows me to use the hinting system from that site.

While I am working with those records, I make use of the place research site on FamilySearch to identify the location and the standard. If a standard is missing (such as for a cemetery), I will use place research feedback (currently hidden) to request the place be added. It may take a few days to a couple of weeks, but I try to provide as much information as I can.

Keep in mind that I am usually working with people who were born during the past two centuries. I not only gather information from the federal census, but I also explore state and other sources of information, such as tax records. I look for wills and land records.

Then I scour for newspapers (I have 17 bookmarks for those I most commonly will use and then will use Google to search for where they (both digital and microfilm) may be found.) to see if I can come up with wedding announcements, birth and death announcements, and obituaries. While obits are not the most trustworthy (barely counting as a secondary resource), they can provide a valuable guide and give me clues as to when and where a person might be buried.

Living in the Midwest has its advantages and one of them is that very few locations are more than two days' driving distance. The Rockies and west are further. I still have cousins that live where my ancestors lived and we often share ideas and communication. I learn valuable information about graveyards and the local history. I am a member of more than a half-dozen genealogical and historical societies.

I make use of the second-largest holding of genealogical material behind the Family History Library in Salt Lake -- the Allen County Public Library in Ft. Wayne, Indiana. It contains a number of works that are not present in the FHL and is home to PERSCI.

I will search for online material that is available through state archives and capture images of marriage and death records, as well as birth records.

Once I have gathered all this good information, which often included photocopies and scanned documents, I use the information I've put into the person's record in ancestry.com and then put together a record in Ancestral Quest and when I am satisfied, I'll look at FamilySearch FamilyTree to see what needs to be done with the person in there. If ordinance work needs to be completed, I'll go ahead and reserve the ordinances and provide my ward's youth with names to take on their temple trips. I used to supply names to my grandson's but they now dig up their own names from their father's line.

Those are the records I search for how any middle name / initial is handled. Right now, one of the weaknesses of Ancestral Quest is that it cannot handle alternate names beyond on nickname, one married name, and one also known as name. So I have to go into the FamilySearch record and add those and for which I will include as part of the reason statement, where that particular spelling or name representation can be found.

Yes, I do use the Search facility for the indexed records. I also search for locality records that may be digitized, but not indexed. I make use of the source linker where I can and go back in and manually edit the Person's page to reflect what I have found.

In some cases, I'll start a discussion on the person and may even add material to their memories. I have a hunch I will run out of memories because right now, I have identified almost 7800 individuals who are on FSFT.

Even when all the millions o… [truncated]

LegacyUser

Paul said: Tom

Although my comments were addressed to you, I guess they are mainly relevant to those who do use FamilySearch as their primary database for obtaining sources.

In this respect, the main point I was trying to make was that nothing could be assumed from the records produced on the Results page(s) about whether an individual had a middle name of "A" or if the name began with an "A", since the FamilySearch format (never showing periods) does not allow patrons to make any assumptions either way.

Unforunately, there is often no link to the original record in FamilySearch, though (in most cases) they should be able to order the relevant microfilm to view the original presentation of the record.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Frankly I have my doubts whether the presence or absence of a full stop / period against an initial can usually be considered to be meaningful, even in a primary source written by the person themselves. If you ask me whether I wrote "A" or "A." in my last signature, I wouldn't have the faintest idea.

There shouldn't actually be any issue with the software. I reckon that there are 4 concepts - transcript of source, index of source, entry of search criteria, actual use of search criteria. Any well constructed software would normalise everything in 1 and 3 to the same representation of being without the period for items 2 and 4. So there should be no issue in the searching. Just as there aren't any with multiple spaces (He said hopefully). (No I don't know what FS does but I doubt I ever enter periods in searches).

Going off at a tangent, some of us will have heard of the place named "Y", which is in the Somme area of France - this causes issues where GEDCOMs have been loaded with the equivalent of "Dead? Yes" - no doubt things would have been OK if "Yes" had been abbreviated to "Y." rather than "Y" - or maybe not.

LegacyUser

S. said: I find them Annoying sorry to say, I don't get mad over I just let them "B." LOL

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: I understand and as a matter of what I do with searches, I generally ignore any initials.

On most sites, the software seems to be smart enough to display the results with and without the middle initial. That's been my experience with FamilySearch and searching for indexed names.

Ancestry.com gives us the option to tighten the parameters to various degrees.

Anyway, including an initial often causes the search engine to ignore what are otherwise records that do not include them.

If, on rare occasions, I do include a middle name / initial, I don't bother with the period. It isn't a matter of expediency, but a matter of giving the search engine too much information.

LegacyUser

Pat Bryant said: When I tested it searching both ways (i.e., with or without a period after the middle name in the search field) I received the same number of results, some records with periods and some without. So, it apparently doesn't hurt to add a period after a middle name in a person's record.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Correct. For searches, it is immaterial.

Over the past year or two (this is a three-year old discussion), I no longer add a period when recording an initial as an Alternative name in the Other section. However, because of my relative, I definitely use a period in the Vitals section if the letter is an initial and not an actual name.

Patrick Orrin Larsen

FamilySearch doesn't seem to recognize the difference, as far as indexing input is concerned.

As an indexer I have always added a period when it was included in the image I was indexing. When I started reviewing other indexers' work I noticed that people seem to leave them off more often than not. At first I was concerned about this and would go back and "correct" it to mirror more accurately what the source document showed, but have since stopped because FamilySearch doesn't seem to recognize the difference. I say this because if I correct an indexer's typo from "Chalres" to "Charles", for example, it shows a red arrow in the box as an option to revert to what the indexer originally input. However, if I add a period after an initial that was missing one, that red arrow does not appear - as if I had made no changes to what was originally input by the indexer.