Maiden names in FSFT
I note in FSFT, when creating a person, it says "If female, use maiden name"
In my family tree, I have ancestors from areas where farm names were used- people were known (or at least officially recorded) by the name of the farm they currently resided at. On many occasions, a daughter and son-in-law would inherit a farm. The son-in-law therefore changes his name from where he grew up to the farm where his wife grew up. Their children's maiden name is the maiden name of their mother.
It would be simpler and more appropriate to just say "Use maiden name"
Comments
-
A van Helsdingen
.
I am only relating this comment of mine, regarding the "English" Language version of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'; as, as I am aware that there are DIFFERENT Language versions of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', which includes DIFFERENT Naming conventions ...
.
Conversely to you, I consider that, the use of the ADVICE of, "If female, use maiden name", when "Creating" a NEW individual/person, in fact, is very SIMPLE; and, most APPROPRIATE, in (the "English" Language version of) "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
.
.
.
.
The reason that I consider such is the "KISS" Principle ...
.
Leaving off the prefix of, "If female, ...", may even CONFUSE some (even, many) new and inexperienced Users/Patrons.
.
The situation/circumstance that you refer to in your "Ancestral" line, may certainly be common knowledge by Users/Patrons from certain cultures/backgrounds; and, experienced Users/Patrons.
.
And, the DEEPER that one "Digs" (further "Down") in one's "Ancestral" lines; and, gains more experience, the more one comes across the "Changing" Name conventions over 'Time'.
.
And, as far as I am aware, there are many DIFFERENT Naming conventions, throughout the many cultures/backgrounds, throughout the World.
.
If 'FamilySearch' tired to cover ALL contingencies; THEN, that ADD INDIVIDUAL/PERSON, "Modal" 'Window' would get very "crowded" indeed.
.
[ Much like my 'style' ... ]
.
'No', keep it 'as is', keep the 'status quo' ...
.
Most experienced User/Patrons, 'know what to do' [ or, they should, at least, do ], 'FamilySearch' needs to keep the "User Interface" as simple as possible, for the new and inexperienced Users/Patrons.
.
Just my thoughts.
.
Brett
.
0 -
The "if female" thing bugs me, too, but "use maiden name" doesn't really work, either, because maidens are female. I think that if it says anything there -- instead of a more thorough discussion in a clearly-linked help article -- it should be something more like "In most cases, this should be the surname used at birth".
0 -
Really it should just say "Use birth name", which encompasses maiden name for women in places like the UK and the US and for the first Name.
0 -
Jordi
I prefer Julia's, "In most cases..." as I would never use a baptism / birth name if the person was forever after that event known by a (sometimes totally) different last name. Classic example - mother of illegitimate son marries a few months after his birth and he is then known by stepfather's name until he dies.
0 -
I think Jordi's suggestion "Use birth name" is best, and helpfully avoids "maiden name" which in English does tend to be associated with females (even though "maiden name" would literally mean "first name").
0 -
I have come across many cases where the person never actually used their birth name in day to day associations. Their "legal name" if you will, was different. Also, stipulating that a person should always "use the birth name" is problematic as many person records in the FSFT do NOT have actual birth records. Their name has to be derived from various, Census, marriage, military, and death type records. If there are no birth records available, how can we insist on folks using the "birth name"
If there are no birth records available, I'm certainly not going to leave the name vital empty.
0 -
Jeff, maybe to spell it out more clearly, if possible could be added to the phrase. I did not mean to leave the field empty (which you cannot do btw) if you do not have a birth source.
0 -
Well, you can also find people's birth records where their birth name was never used again. For example, a Johann immigrates to the USA as a small child and subsequently through the reset of his life he was known as John. I also see cases where immigrants have come over and they are no longer referred to by their first given name, but rather go by their MIDDLE name for the rest of their life.
I have a situation where a child born to a single mother was given her maiden surname. A few years later, the mother married and the new step-father formally adopted the child thus giving the child his surname. That child was never known with any other legal surname for the rest of its life.
There are times where even if you DO know what the birth name was, it still may not make sense to use it.
0 -
WikiTree has constant discussions and problems due to its use of the label "Last Name at Birth" for the primary database sort key for profiles. People end up treating "birth name" as some sort of Holy Grail Of Genealogy, ignoring all considerations of pragmatism or basic logic. (It sometimes feels like if the birth record says SNnXr, then The One True Name of that person absolutely must be SNnXr, even though every other document clearly says Smith.) That's why I think even a short instruction directly below the name field should use weasel words. ("In most cases" or "Usually", for example.) But it's a complicated enough topic that I think a link to a thorough help article would be the better solution.
(As an example of the complicated nature of the topic, take my grandmother and her older brother. They were born in 1908 and 1905, respectively; their parents were married in 1909. This means that their birth records do not list their father except as a reference number for the annotation noting their legitimization, but said legitimization means that their surname was retroactively changed, making the name on the birth record essentially fictional.)
0 -
Yes, yes, and yes. What we are talking about is a kind of "primary most used formal name" that they were known as with any other "secondary" names such as nicknames, married names, or alternate spellings, all of which are kept in the other information area under the appropriate A.K.A. title where they can also be seen during searches.
Remember that it is NOT the name that is intended to uniquely identify the person in the person record, it is the conglomeration of ALL vitals (including the name) and other information in the record that JOINTLY identifies the person that is abstracted by that person record. The name field is NOT a database key to uniquely identify anyone. The PID is supposed to do that.
0 -
UPDATE: Currently it just has LAST NAME - enter birth or maiden name
Not that it really adds much to this conversation - but a surname - in any record is a comment on 'existence'/'birth' of that person - so an accumulation of records with 'most used' sorting of surname - would be the 'most used surname'.
But I agree - the user/FS is making that determination when initially entering the person into the Tree. 'primary most used formal name' would probably be confusing - 'Surname' would maybe be too simple and many might not catch that it means maiden name for females - 'Birth Surname' might work but is 'redundant' - 'Birth Family Name' ? The fact that birth family names may change due to various events - as mentioned - wouldn't change the fact of the Surname on a Birth Record. If someone legally or illegally changed Given/Surname - wouldn't change their original 'legal' Surname if that document survived a legal name change. Having a 'married name' or 'surname by marriage' event or Alternate Name already exists but is probably rarely used I would suspect:
I think most users 'get' what the field is asking...but may not 'get' the subtleties. In addition I don't know how much Search Records would take these subtleties into account if the user did enter them. Would Search Records generate a multi-named search if these names were entered 'correctly'? It might be worth it to test whether entering Alternate Name>Married Name on a female (obviously) changes Search Results?
So I ran the test - yep FamilySearch has GREAT engineers and already thought of it!
1-20 of 2,713 Results for Name: + [Alternate Name: Married] Name:
1-20 of 756 Results for Name: [alone]
Sounds like a KB article to me and something I just learned about how to more easily search for females in my tree.
Q: Since there usually is a 'marriage' in the Tree and husband last name 'usually' differs from wife last name - could there not be an auto-generated Alternative Name> Married Name generated by Search Records - especially if there is a marriage event/record attached - even if the users has not explicitly entered the female Alternative>Married Name - at least in the USA because that is the 'typical naming convention'? I do see that if Alternate Name>Married Name has been added the Search Records|FamilySearch icon generates this Alternate Name Search.
0 -
FamilySearch research wiki has hundreds of pages on personal names including pages detailing the many complexities of surname changes upon marriage.
0
