Should people with the Current Last Name appear on surname index pages, or just the Last Name at Birth?

Question

Hi WikiTreers,

We're considering a change in the people we include on surname index pages, e.g. http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/WHITTEN

Right now we include people with the Current Last Name. For example, my wife, Megan (McClellan) Whitten, is on the Whitten index and the McClellan index.

We're thinking about changing this so that only people with the Last Name at Birth appear on the indexes. This would be more conventional for genealogy. I expect that most members would prefer this, and I know many have asked about it in the past. (Our original rationale for including people with the Current Last Name is a bit complicated and mainly related to the indirect benefits of cousin bait as opposed to the direct benefits of usability for genealogists on WikiTree.)

Are there members who prefer to the current system? Do you like having people with the Current Last Name (CLN) included? If so, why?

We may be able to offer it as an option, but that may just add complication and not be worthwhile if it's not beneficial to anyone. So, please speak up if you like seeing people with the CLN in surname indexes.

Thanks!

Chris

P.S. This change would just affect the surname index pages. It wouldn't affect the usage of Current Last Names in other ways, e.g. in search results. (Other changes can be considered separately. We do have some open and pending changes on the display of last names.)

Comments

Honestly, I do not like the idea of removing them. The maiden name on the surname index page is one of the ways, as an Arborist, I can find duplicates.   Seeing a bunch of Robert Lee names, it takes a long time to look at all of them to see if there are duplicates, especially with profile with birth guesses.   But, the number of Mary (Custis) Lee profiles is much lower, and I know they might be duplicates because of the "two name match".   Does that make sense?

---

Update: 

The responses after just one hour make clear that we should not remove people with the Current Last Name from the surname index pages.

We'll look into offering it as an option. If we can't do that, we'll keep the status quo.

Although this question is essentially closed I'll leave it open for now in case others want to comment. Thanks everybody!

---

We've now implemented a change.

By default, surname index pages do not include people with the current last name. To view them, click the link to resort the table to see the full range of options for Wiki Genealogists. One of them is "include people with current last name."

Answer 1

Chris,

Not sure I understand the proposal.  Does this mean that a woman who's maiden name is unknown but has a married name of Smith would not show on the index page for Smith?

I use a married name to find duplicates - not a great method - but better than none and better than looking at all of the unknown last name at birth records.

Comments

Yes, that's correct.

And this is probably a good reason to keep people with the CLN on surname index pages, at least as an option.

---

Agree with Phil that both surnames listed makes it easier to spot duplicates. Especially for  Pre-1700 profiles too.

Answer 2

I prefer using the birth or maiden name for the simple reason that you can search and connect the parents easier.

Answer 3

I would much prefer to keep including the CLN.  It's very helpful with female ancestors.  Please don't change it.

Comments

I agree with Nan, I can't give you a specific reason why, but what does it hurt to have them listed, if they're listed on both lists

Answer 4

Hi  - I agree with Philip Smith because of the large numbers of UNKNOWNS especially for married women where we only know their married Surname.  It can also help with people whose LNAB was Smith or Jones or Williams - there are many and one can better distinguish sometimes from married name.  If you eliminate this from the Genealogy Pages then it disappears - can it be kept as an option somehow ?  It is already identified differently so distinguishable from the LANB, isn't it?

Answer 5

Great idea, Chris.  I think it will make the surname pages much more useful to limit them to Last Name at Birth, but I would like to hear the opinions of others.  Including the Current Last Name without also including Other Last Name(s) could possibly lead to wrong assumptions about who is included in the list.  If we decide to include an option that includes Last Name at Birth and Current Last Name, I suggest adding Other Last Name(s), too.

While we're looking at how to list names, could we consider listing names of immigrants in both the language of their home country and the language of their adopted country (if different)?  I've struggled with how to list my grandfather's last name - do I list it as Παναγακος or as Panagakos?  Either way, I will cause people to miss his profile, potentially cause someone to create a duplicate, and possibly miss out on cousin bait by using only one version. Just something to consider.

Comments

In the case of someone who is born with one name and then changes the spelling when they move to a new country, I would use the original name as the LNAB and the anglicised version as the Current Last Name. That way it's searchable by either.

---

I understand (and agree with) the Style Guide, Lianne.  I obviously didn't express my concern clearly enough, so I posed a new question - Has anyone tried to enter Greek names in their profiles? 

Answer 6

I like the current arrangement -- in fact, I would like it even better if it included everyone who has a particular name as "Other Last Name."

The fact that genealogy has conventionally indexed people only by their original last names likely has something to do with the fact that traditional genealogy was heavily focused on male lineage and the associated paternal surnames, and pretty much ignored women (with the exception of aristocrats). With growing interest in documenting all of our ancestors, there's a growing need for tools that help us locate and keep track of the women, in addition to the men. The inclusion of current last names on the surname list is one such tool.

I frequently use the surnames lists to locate an existing profile and find duplicates, primarily for people born in the 1600s and 1700s. For example, on a number of occasions, I've been able to identify and link previously unlinked profiles for offspring, siblings, and spouses after I sorted a surname list by birthdate and noted people in the same time period and place as the person whose profile I started off with. The fact that these lists include women who had a particular name as their current/final last name often helps with this sort of search, and others. (And because the LNAB is included in parentheses, there's no risk of confusing women who acquired a name by marriage with women who received that name at birth.)

Comments

I know that this has been discussed before, but it would be fantastic if we had an option for "Other Last Names"

As Phil and Kitty stated...searching for Mary Unknown who married a Smith and then perhaps a Brown would be impossible, but we might know her as Brown, and then can perhaps connect the dots to Smith.

 

AND on another note, I tried searching for Mary Unknown, and Anne Unknown and then Abigail Unknown and the result was:

Sorry, no matches were found for "Abigail Unknown". for each of these names.  What is up with that?  Is UNKNOWN as a last name not searchable?

Answer 7

Hey Chris,

Thanks for putting this up for discussion.

In a lot of cases less is better, but in this case more is better.  I agree with the others below who would chose to keep the options open to see other last names and CLN as well as adding middle names (just throwing middle name into the mix too).  The more information to review, the faster you can find what you are looking for - especially if you have a common surname like Smith.  How many times I have wished for the middle name to appear when trying to find a John Smith.

My two-cents,

Mags

Answer 8

After reviewing the preceding four answers, I agree it could complicate the UNKNOWN names; but I do think the change will be better over all for those with known LNAB.

Answer 9

(I need the LOL smiley face.)  Please keep both names.  The Smiths need all the help we can get!!  Think not?  Try looking for Mary Unknown Smith in that list.  (Please give me my smiley faces back, too.)

Answer 10

I would prefer making it an option, like the # of names displayed at one time. Sometimes I want to see those who married into a line, & sometimes they just get in the way...

Comments

Hello Chris,  I agree with Nan, without the CLN you cut out a lot of women.  Secondly, what if I know a lady by her LNAB and you only know her by her CLN?

Answer 11

I believe that a woman who is married and has a Current Last Name appears twice, once with her maiden name and a second time with her Current Last Name.  That makes it much easier to find matches.

Please don't change it.