* Standard name

[Linda Reinfeld]

In TMG I have a name tag that is a standardized name. For example - Sargent can be spelled many ways, including Serjeant. For Peter Serjeant I have another name tag called custom-name, which is Peter Sargent. I have the name tag set not to print, but it is used in indexes, including an online system.

I am not asking about importing from TMG - I know this cannot be done....but I want to know how FH users deal with this problem. If I assign a standard (alternate) name to someone the narrative says 'also known as Aaron Sargent' - this statement is not true, he was never known by that name, it is just a way to index a standard name. If I uncheck Inc. Alternate names, all alternate names are not used. I don't want that either.

So what do FH users do?

Thanks -

Linda Reinfeld

[AdrianBruce]

I suspect that the key is what your "indexes, including an online system" actually are. That's actually, I suggest, the driver for your requirement. Unless we have a similar set-up, what we do about the standard name and the index name wouldn't help you. So how do those indexing facilities work for you?

[ADC65]

Have you thought about using Soundex instead of an index of names?

This thread covers it (there may be others): Report of all individuals with similar Last Name (18799)

[Linda Reinfeld]

Thanks for the replies.

The index I am talking about in FH is the records window.

I use an online system, Second Site, which when I transition to FH I will be using GedSite - a website builder from John Cardinal. That system has an index of everyone on the site.

I don't think in FH you can search by soundex. And I know you can't using GedSite.

Being able to have a 'standardized' name helps in avoiding duplicates, as well as easily looking for people. I have a fairly large number of people in my system. Duplicates are always a problem.

Linda

[Mark1834]

Would a custom attribute work here? It might take a while to work through the database assigning values, but it’s fully searchable and readily displayed in the Records Window.

[tatewise]

Yes, a custom attribute fact is a good idea and those specific facts can be easily excluded from Reports.

Another idea is to use the Custom ID field if you are not using that for anything else.
It is a standard GEDCOM field that is well supported by FH and probably will be supported by GedSite too.

BTW: FH does allow search/index by Soundex using the Name field :SOUNDEX qualifier.

[AdrianBruce]

... Being able to have a 'standardized' name helps in avoiding duplicates, as well as easily looking for people. ...

I took the view that where there are multiple potential names for someone that are "just" spelling variations, then I'd record the person with a Primary Name that was, if I understand you correctly, the standardized version.

For instance, people with the name "Pickstock" can sometimes have it recorded as "Pigstock", "Pickstoke", "Pixtock" etc. Regardless of the sources (which are transcribed correctly), each of them are entered as "Pickstock". I don't even record their variant names as Secondary / Alternate names. I decided to do this when I realised that the variants are not genealogical facts about those individuals, but data on how the clerks wrote things.

The tricky part about this is recording what those spelling variants are, because I may need to use them on searches. At the moment I'm attempting to record those variants as Note Records. My view is that these alternate spellings need to be recorded separately from the Individuals because they could appear against anyone with the base name.

[tatewise]

Adrian, Linda is not talking about variant names found in documents, but a 'standardized' name used to index similarly named individuals together. She specifically says she does not want such names to appear as AKA names because they may never have appeared in a document with that name.

[ColeValleyGirl]

Mike, I think Linda is talking about recording an equivalent standard name for the many variant names that are found in documents and associated with individuals. And Adrian is suggesting an alternative approach -- not recording the discovered variant names for an individual but recording the 'standard name' for the individual, and keeping a Note record of all the variants that correspond to that standard name.

[tatewise]

If I assign a standard (alternate) name to someone the narrative says 'also known as Aaron Sargent' - this statement is not true, he was never known by that name, it is just a way to index a standard name. If I uncheck Inc. Alternate names, all alternate names are not used. I don't want that either.

Helen, how do you interpret that statement?

Linda specifically says she cannot use Alternate Names for her 'standardized' name index scheme, and since the person was never known by that name, the Primary Name cannot be used either.

[davidf]

For instance, people with the name "Pickstock" can sometimes have it recorded as "Pigstock", "Pickstoke", "Pixtock" etc. Regardless of the sources (which are transcribed correctly), each of them are entered as "Pickstock". I don't even record their variant names as Secondary / Alternate names. I decided to do this when I realised that the variants are not genealogical facts about those individuals, but data on how the clerks wrote things.

Well is that true? Or are you making assumptions that the variants always arise from clerks' transcriptions?

It is true that quite often clerks will make assumptions about how a heard name should be written - particularly if the individuals were illiterate and had little idea how their names were spelt. Sometimes I suspect arrogant clerks (particularly if they were "comers-in"?) may think they know better and change the name to how they think it should be spelt.

But can it also be equally true that different families with slightly different names (e.g. Willett and Willet) were genuinely different and the custom and habit is a way you tell the lines apart?

Then of course tracking the evolution of the names may tell you about "sensitivities" - some women may have said "I'm not going to have my kids called 'Pigstock' (you swine!), I will have them registered (GRO or church) as 'Pickstock'!". I could also imagine that on migration some may adjust their name at point of immigration to avoid ridicule - never mind what the immigration clerk may have thought about how "foreign names" should be transcribed. I would tend to add details in the fact note - because it could be genealogically significant.

I tend to make the "primary name" the one by which they were most known (sometimes a difficult call), and add others by which they were known (assumption that if I find a record by that name, it means they were known by that name - or at least by the sound of that name) as alternate names. I would be reluctant to add a "standardised name" as an alternative if that individual was never known by that name.

Would you for instance standardise "Blacklock" as "Blaylock" or "Smyth" as "Smith"?

Sorting by Soundex Code does seem a way round this issue?

[Gowermick]

Mike,
That doesn’t hold water. If he was never known by that name, where did the variant originate? One can only assume some ‘official’ documents like Wills or Parish Register entries, where someone knew him by the alternative name! ( I’ve even seen wills where the person’s name has varied thoughout the will )

I have a similar problem with some Neville ancestors, where they appear as Neville, Nevill, Nevil and even Nevell. I’d go along with Adrian’s suggestion, but with a slight variation. Create a ‘Shared/Common’ note, which can assigned to everyone with that family name. As more variations occur, the common note can be edited, and it will appear for everyone you’ve assigned it to

[ColeValleyGirl]

We seem to have two possible approaches, if I'm understanding matters correctly.

Assumptions: Variant surnames are shown in documents for some individuals; those variants are all to be associated with a single 'standard' surname; no individual should 'display' a name they were never known by. (Forenames are a whole different kettle of fish).

Linda suggests recording the main and other(?) variant name/s for an individual ("Peter Serjeant") if they are documented as being used by that individual at some time, but not recording a variant name for an individual if they were never referred to with that variant. However, she wants a way of associating a standard name ("Peter Sargent") with that individual; suggestions so far have included a Custom Attribute or a Custom ID.

Adrian suggests recording the chosen standard name as the individual's name (so 'Peter Sargent') and maintaining a Note Record that documents the variants that have been encountered for that surname. (In FH7 a Research Note would seem ideal for the purpose, especially if the Note should be excluded from reports.) The Note can be freestanding, or linked to the relevant individuals. (Source transcriptions would presumably show the specific variants found per individual).

[ColeValleyGirl]

If I assign a standard (alternate) name to someone the narrative says 'also known as Aaron Sargent' - this statement is not true, he was never known by that name, it is just a way to index a standard name. If I uncheck Inc. Alternate names, all alternate names are not used. I don't want that either.

Helen, how do you interpret that statement?

Linda specifically says she cannot use Alternate Names for her 'standardized' name index scheme, and since the person was never known by that name, the Primary Name cannot be used either.

Where did I say anything about using Alternate Names for Standard Names, Mike?

[Little.auk]

I am getting confused!

If we are talking about name variants for the same person, then I think the right place to document those is as notes in the source citation for the event where they occur.

If we are talking about an index function linking different (related) families/individuals who spell their names differently, then I think that a Custom Attribute (a Clan Name ?) would be the best option (or Custom ID if that is not already being used).

I don't have a lot of use for the Alternate Name feature. It seems to be just a list of Alternate names with no chronology to them, that can't be used for much other than to generate AKA statements.

[davidf]

If we are talking about name variants for the same person, then I think the right place to document those is as notes in the source citation for the event where they occur.

I would agree that if someone is going by multiple names (either "in practice" or "in record") the citation needs to state which name was being used - I would tend to use "text from", but notes does allow you to use a structured means of recording it which may allow easier data extraction. However that may not be the only place we display it.

If we are talking about an index function linking different (related) families/individuals who spell their names differently, then I think that a Custom Attribute (a Clan Name ?) would be the best option (or Custom ID if that is not already being used).

I think it's not just (related) families, but also possibly related families (where the possibly may only depend on a similar name). The trouble with a Custom attribute is either you have to complete it for everyone or you have to combine searches over multiple fields.

I don't have a lot of use for the Alternate Name feature. It seems to be just a list of Alternate names with no chronology to them, that can't be used for much other than to generate AKA statements.

My understanding is that "alternate names" are actually just "names" - we just have the facility to make one of them the primary name NAME[1].
The advantage of them all being NAME[n] is that if you filter in the record window on surname all names get searched. (That filter also picks up married names - even though the married name is not "held" as a field on the individual's record - so in theory a wish list request to get it to filter across a "_STDNAME" field should not create a major headache?)
That is where using a NAME field for the "standardised" name is useful, BUT, if the person was never known by that standardised name I just feel that is Wrong! The standardised name is not an "alternate" in the same way that other AKA names are. Do we need a "name type" sub-field?

It is frustrating that you cannot add notes or dates to the name field (presumably GEDCOM!), but you can add sources. If I find a name evolving over time, I will source the name with the same citation as the event where I noticed the name variation. The list of sources then gives me a "chronology" that is as good as the sources allow. E.G. NAME[1]: baptism, 1841 Census, NAME[2]: 1851 Census, Marriage etc. For me the first source against a name indicates where I first noticed the individual.
I get all the names to appear on diagrams (I'm one of those who uses diagrams as their major work area) and the "further names" act as a reminder to check for the full range of names when looking for the individual in new records.

[KFN]

The GEDCOM structure does allow for a NAME.NOTE and NAME.SOUR subtags, but not a NAME.DATE subtag. Since a Source_Citation is allowed, GEDCOM does allow in “linked sources” a subtag of DATA.DATE where the date is the date of recorded entry.

n SOUR @…@
+1 DATA
+2 DATE

[davidf]

"The Borsetshire Chronicle of 23 February 1852 reported that the prisoner when arrested on Christmas Eve gave his name as Smyth."

The date of the source.data.date is 23 February 1852, but the date of the name is 24 December 1851?

[AdrianBruce]

... Sorting by Soundex Code does seem a way round this issue?

Given that Soundex only operates on the first 4(?) consonants - but with extra rules about repeats - I have never found Soundex to be of the slightest use. The aforementioned Pickstock gets sorted with all sorts of Polish names in the Ellis Island lists, so, as far as I am concerned, Soundex can be taken for a long ride off a short pier. I refer here to literally Soundex and not similar variants.

...
But can it also be equally true that different families with slightly different names (e.g. Willett and Willet) were genuinely different and the custom and habit is a way you tell the lines apart? ...
I would be reluctant to add a "standardised name" as an alternative if that individual was never known by that name. ...
Would you for instance standardise "Blacklock" as "Blaylock" or "Smyth" as "Smith"? ...

Yes, there's a whole raft of things that I'm skating over here.

I suspect that I tend to use these standardised names as the primary name when we're talking pre-1837 / pre-literacy etc. Given the minimal number of sources from that area, it's quite possible that I have just 2 entries (say) from the written records for one person - one saying "Healah" and the other "Healer". In that cases, I've standardised on "Healow" (primarily because it's the most frequent spelling). It doesn't seem to make much sense to say that they were never known as "Healow", because how do I know what they were known as, given I have just 2 samples? In truth, I contend that what they were known as was the sound, not the text.

Once I get into the era of literacy, things get a bit more complicated. In the case of the Healows, the name transforms into Heler (as in Joseph Heler, the cheese-maker), and I record them as Heler where they are written thus. And I am deliberately skating over the change because I'm not sure if I've been consistent.

So in the era of literacy, I'm fairly certain that I'd write "Blacklock" and "Blaylock" as exactly those spellings.

Another example is the name "Lofkin", which is very much confined to my home area. I record them today by that name. Any people with "Lovekin" as a name today, will get recorded as Lovekin. That's the original form - in fact I think I know / knew exactly where and when the change took place - a couple of brothers(?) were baptised Lovekin, moved and ended up as Lofkin. In that case, on reflection, a Primary of Lovekin and an Alternate of Lofkin (or vice versa) might be a good idea.

[KFN]

I find the concept of “Standardized name” funny in the land of Norway! Most of my relatives never had a inherited surname to begin with.

[AdrianBruce]

I find the concept of “Standardized name” funny in the land of Norway! ...

Ah. Yes. There is that...

Of course, I don't need to go as far as Scandinavia to find non-inheritted "family" names since the Welsh used patronymics right into genealogical timescales.

[ColeValleyGirl]

We're getting way off topic, but I have an 1858 marriage of Jane Parry in Caernarvonshire. Her father was Harry Pritchard. It took a lot of work to track down that marriage!

[AdrianBruce]

... I have never found Soundex to be of the slightest use. ...

As another example - Soundex is just about in scope, I think of the original thread - IIRC when I was looking at my Devon ancestry, some at least of the "variant" name algorithms (presumably including Soundex) equate "Marley" (my lot) and "Morley" (not my lot). Although I battered each Morley reference in the relevant parishes into submission, I never found one case where a Morley was actually a Marley. (I don't claim the thing never occurred, just never in my area and era.)

Conversely, "Marley" was often rendered as "Marleigh". One suspects that was definitely a gentrification spelling... The problem is that "Marley" and "Marleigh" (which are variants of the same name) don't have the same Soundex(?) while "Marley" and "Morley" (not the same!) do.

It's all slightly complicated and presumably needing hand-crafting....

[Linda Reinfeld]

Thanks for all the replys!

I have been trying out various things - adding soundex to the records view, adding the name as a note, etc. The discussion brought up ideas for all my other kinds of names - alternate spelling, nicknames, married names, name-changes. Names are definitely a challenge.

Thanks for the help. Must think on this....before I decide on how to proceed.

Linda

[Gowermick]

Conversely, "Marley" was often rendered as "Marleigh"...

Not forgetting Cholmondley written as Chumley