Family Historian User Group

Hi Forum.

This is not an AS question...

I use AS for practically all Vital Source entries. AS will append the FH database name of the individual to the Source record. I appreciate this question could be seen as personal choice - but from a purist point of view should the Source record carry the explicit database name of the person or should it carry the actual name used in the document? I appreciate the name can be edited in AS being sending to FH to create the Source. I would just like to have a few opinions as to how other handle this if at all.

I have three examples:
1) Richard born 'Cook' and later Married as 'Cooke', so Birth certificate states Cook and Marriage certificate states Cooke. Either of these could be transcription errors but setting that thought aside - Should the two Source records state the Surname used at the time of the Event even if one knows the correct version for the Surname?

2) Born Elizabeth Phyllis Potter, Died using her Married Surname Phyllis Elizabeth Hooper, should the first names as used in the Birth and Death certificates be used verbatim in the Source record created? See attached.

3) Elizabeth Adams Died as Betsy Adams, should the Source state Elizabeth or Betsy Adams?


Many thanks.

I use the name as given in the source, so the source name will help others locate the same document that I consulted. The association with the 'main name' of the individual(s) to whom it refers is handled by citing the source against the fact for the person.

In practice, for AS this means including the actual name used in the source in the {OTHER INFO} field and then including that in the name template.

As you say it is somewhat a personal choice.
However, my Source/Media naming uses a very different convention.
Mostly they use the Birth Name of the person with a few exceptions as shown below.
Mostly they start with the Surname and then Forenames so the records sort into an order similar to Individual records.
The formats are as follows where < ... > enclose optional components:
{NAME}<aka {AKA}>, {Forenames} {YoB<+/-{Range}>} Birth where {AKA} is an Alternative Surname due to Adoption, etc
{NAME}<aka {AKA}>, {Forenames} {YoE<+/-{Range}>} Christening/Baptism
{NAME}, {Forenames} {YoB}-{YoD} Biography
{GROOM}, {Forenames} & {BRIDE}, {Forenames} {YoM<+/-{Range}>} Marriage
{NAME}<nee {MAIDEN}>, {Forenames} {YoD<+/-{Range}>} Death this is exception as {NAME} is married woman Surname
{YEAR} {REF} {NAME}, {Forenames} for Census
Variants on these may be necessary for special cases.

Thank you Helen and Mike.

I see another clean up on the horizon But always justified and worth it.

I'll try Helen's approach to begin with as I would like this handled by AS and as simple as possible. Mike your method looks detailed and I'm sure a very good solution but somewhat daunting for someone with my level of FH knowledge.

Thanks you both very much for quick responses and helpful input.

BR

David

David, perhaps you misunderstand my stylised formats.
There is no detailed knowledge of FH needed and they are not AS templates.

{NAME} simply means put the Surname here.
{AKA} similarly means put the alternative surname here.
{Forenames} means put the Forenames here.
{GROOM} & {BRIDE} & {MAIDEN} refer to specific Surnames.
{YoB<+/-{Range}>} means Year of Birth, and optional Range where needed.
Similarly YoD for Year of Death, YoM for Year of Marriage, and YoE for Year of Event.

It is possible to automate most of those by customising the AS templates.

Hi Helen

I'm going through the setup changes required in AS to handle your approach. Do you see any issue in having the Method 1 Main Source Template mapped to use the {OTHER} field whereby the Actual Name used is then used in the Source Template and the Short Title to use {KEYPERSON}

That way I get both name variations captured within the same Source. But as you say the Main Title captures the Actual Name used within the Source.

Hi Mike

Thanks but I'm lost when it comes to stylised formats - they are probably very smart and useful but beyond my level of understanding.

David, that approach would work -- I can't see any issues withit. You might want to add in an 'aka' or other convention to indicate which is the name as used in the source and which is the name of the keyperson.

@Helen

My test worked fine - I'll add the appropriate 'aka' to make the distinction.

Thanks once again.