What is LNAB, really? (Request for help text change)

Question

We're having quite a row about a clarified Puritan Great Migration policy for last name at birth. In the midst of it, it was pointed out that the current instructions for the Last Name At Birth field contain what in my mind are contradictory instructions. (I was also very surprised to see this language.) What's in Blue contradicts what is in Red.

 From the style guide: CORRECTION: Help Text

UWhen conventions changed during a person's lifetime

It's not uncommon for a person's name to change. This is especially common with immigrants. The Proper First Name and Last Name at Birth fields should be the names they were born with, in their native language. The Preferred First Name and Current Last Name should be the names they used at the end of their life.

It's also common in cases of earlier ancestors that the spelling of a name was not standardized and that the person him or herself would have used more than one. In those cases, we recommend choosing the spelling that is most recognizable to modern descendants, e.g. "Winslow" rather than "Wynslow" or "Winslowe."

I think that what is in red gets into very dangerous territory and that what is in blue should be the bottom line wherever possible. In the PGM project (and pretty much every where else on wikitree-- except perhaps the New Netherland and EuroAristo naming conventions) we've been defining "names they were born with" as what is found on a birth or baptism record.

As we're seeing in many PGM profiles, there is often lack of agreement about "choosing the spelling that is most recognizable to modern descendants."

If we stick with the true meaning of "Last Name At Birth," then we have a consistent standard to fall back upon. 

I therefore request support of the community that the leaders of Wikitree remove the text in red, above, (and that entire paragraph actually) from the instructions for the Name Fields.

Thanks for considering this request.

Answer 1

Spelling fixation is a very modern fad.  Before the 20th century people would have been very clear that the name was the same irrespective of how anybody spelt it.

Comments

I concur, RJ. Another reason to default to what's on the record.

---

Just to complicate it ;-) 

In the Swedish church books the priest sometime used the Latin form of the name....and also used abbreviations

Article in Swedish about all the different forms of names you can find

---

Interesting!

Answer 2

Sorry Jillaine but deciding on a LNAB for EuroAristo in medieval times or earlier doesn't fit with what is in blue.  Names in original sources are in Latin and almost invariably are spelled differently in each document, sometimes even in the same document there can be differences. Also there is often no birth or baptism information, the first mention might be as an adult.

Using a modern spelling is often the only way to reach some consensus about how to name anyone from medieval times.

I also have a Cornish family, Carveth where I have come across at least 12 different ways of spelling their surname. Baptism details for children in the same family could all be a different variation, so using their baptismal surname would seem to be detrimental to any consistency on Wikitree.

Comments

The blue text doesn't say anything about spelling.  Basically it says if a man marries an heiress and takes her name, that's not his LNAB.

---

"Baptism details for children in the same family could all be a different variation,"

Jillaine would have you give a different LNAB to every child with her interpretation of LNAB.

---

See my response below about the relationship between sources and LNAB which also explains my reasoning further.

Re EuroAristo-- as I mentioned in my original post-- some projects have developed exceptions to the last name at birth instructions. That's their perogative-- although I don't think all agree on that concept (that projects can override systemwide rules).

---

Joe, yes. In my own family -- way back -- one child's baptism used one spelling; its later sibling's record used another.  I have no problem with that because my use of the fields has been to record what the records say. I am now understanding that this is the root of our differences.

---

John. ? Why would you not use the Latin spelling on a 'rare' baptismal register for the Last name at birth? Preferred name could be whatever modern designation you think a name will be found under, and the other last name fields have plenty of room for adding alternate spellings in later documents and/or secondary sources.

---

Side note on "projects can override systemwide rules": this is note true.

Project style rules should be elaborations on the general guidelines. When it becomes clear that project rules contradict general rules we have to work it out. Like we're doing here.

---

Sorry Anne if I gave you the wrong idea, but there are no rare baptismal registers for the group of people I am talking about in Latin or any other language.  For most of them the only mention is when their name is on a charter or other legal document somewhere which means they are an adult.  If we're lucky perhaps one of the chronicles mentions a year they were born or some other age and date association that can give us an approximate year.

There are 2 problems with using Latin names that I can see - one as has been mentioned there is no consistency in how any of the names were spelled.  There were no dictionaries, the scribe wrote the name as he thought it should be written, and if it was a long document, then he might spell the name totally differently when he had to mention that person again.  The next monk or the monk in the neighbouring monastery would spell the name totally differently again.  So there is huge problem in choosing which name to actually use for the profile.

Secondly Latin was the language of the Church at that time, and perhaps because it was mostly monks who could write, it became the language used on official documents throughout most of early and medieval Europe.  However we have very few documents in vernacular languages which means we don't know what they might have called themselves in their 'native language' .

I think the best option for early EuroAristo is to continue to use the name in there native language as we have been doing eg William for English nobility, Wilhelm for German nobility, Guillaume for French.etc and then if we know or can find a document in Latin then use that in some way in the biography.

Answer 3

I am in favor of removing that confusing red paragraph or perhaps clarifying it's usage.

As I look at it in context. "When conventions change during a persons lifetime." I don't think this is meant to give us 'wiggle room' with LNAB. I think it's meant to give us options with the Current Last Name and Preferred First Name.

To clarify it, simply add at the end of the sentence... for use in Preferred First name and Current Last Name fields.

Comments

I would be happy with that clarification.

Answer 4

I wish to clarify the argument since I am the one who has been disagreeing with Jillaine in the other thread.  Since this is part of the PGM project, we are talking about 17th century records.  Jillaine is saying that LNAB is the same thing as “first spelling used,” especially as found in a baptismal record.  So that no matter what the spelling of the parent’s LNAB, the child’s profile should be written however it is spelled in the baptismal record (after all it is “At Birth”).  So, if Henry Bachelor had son a recorded as Batchler, and another Batcheller, and another Bachlar, and another Batcheldar every single person in the family should have a different LNAB.

To me this makes absolutely no sense.  Spelling was completely non-standardized pre-1700, and so you can’t say that the spelling found in a church register in 1620 is the absolute correct one.  It would be confusing, and near impossible to research a family if the LNAB wasn’t somehow standardized. 

The current guidelines state:

http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Name_Fields

LNAB: This field could also be called Proper Last Name, Surname, or Maiden Name.

I don’t find the blue and the red sections highlighted in Jillaine’s post be contradictory at all, because I don’t think LNAB refers to spelling.  To me, LNAB means the Name of the Family They Were Born Into, not ‘spelling found in a parish record.’

To focus on earliest spelling with no regard to the history of the family, to what the family is commonly known as to descendants, to published histories on the family, or to research articles on the family will only lead to confusion.  The guidelines should remain as they are and if anything be clarified so that it is clear that LNAB does not always equal ‘baptismal spelling,’ especially in pre-1700 profiles.

Comments

I have to agree with Joe, I don't see the two sets of 'instructions' as contradictory at all.

The section highlighted in blue is for when there is a definite name change.  An ancestor changes his name from Aitchinson to Atkinson for whatever reason, of to take RJ's example, a Mr Smith, marries a heiress Lady Jones, and legally takes the surname Smith-Jones for himself and his descendants.  There is a definite change of name from original Last Name At Birth (LNAB) to new Current Last Name (CLN)

The section highlighted in red is for when the sources consulted will give two or more variations for the same LNAB.  In my example of the Carveth's mentioned above; Francis Carveth, for whom I haven't found a baptism record was in the records as Carveathe, Carveath, and Carveith (his first name also varied - France, Francs, Francis).  Which do I choose?

His eldest son was baptised as Carveath (this is probably the earliest record), most of the rest of the children as Carveith, and one as Carveathe.  One of Francis' marriages and his burial was under Carveathe.  And as Joe's says do I put all the children under their respective baptismal names or choose the 'modern' name which is Carveth?

Also remembering that any of the other variations aren't really how Francis spelled his name, for all I know he could have been illiterate, they are how the various officials who were filling in the parish register books decided to spell his name.

I should add that I realise naming early profiles is extremely difficult, but I don't think that we are ever going to get one statement that covers all the complexities of the profiles that appear on Wikitree.  At least by keeping the two as they are, we have 2 perhaps very broad statements to give us some guidance as to what names to use.  

I don't think rules are made to be broken, but nor should they be so rigid that they can't bend a little to deal with slightly different circumstances.

---

Thanks for your responses.

This whole exchange -- including the PGM thread Joe referred to-- is forcing me to examine why I feel so strongly about this.

Anyone who has been on wikitree awhile and active in g2g knows I'm a source hound.

We seek sources to support our claims. Preferably, as original as we can find. The most original source for a last name at birth is a birth or baptism record. What goes in any field should be supported by a source. For me, what's on that source should go in that field.  I think this may be the fundamental difference underlying the different approaches discussed here and elsewhere.

This explains why I feel so strongly that where we have original birth/baptism records, we should use what's on those records for last name at *birth*.

If folks want greater flexibility in what to put in that field, other than what's on an original source, then rename the field.

---

Joe,  Your new here, so your excused from understanding what has been clear to those of us who have been here longer. Last name at birth is precisely what it says. The "documented" last name at birth. Phonetic spelling and all. 6 different last names for children of one parent and all. This is the "buck stops here" name. No more arguments. When we have a documented spelling, even if it's bad spelling this is what we use. Otherwise each and every profile on wikitree, potentially, could be left to the whims of descendants.

Which spelling of Winslow do you propose we use? You use your's and change it. I don't like your spelling and change it. You change it back. LNAB is to help prevent this back and forth. LNAB is to prevent arguments between Wikitreers. The guidelines, in general, were written with the purpose of preventing arguments.

We're not saying "that the spelling found in a church register in 1620 is the absolute correct one." Who gets to say which spelling is the "absolute correct spelling?" 

We're saying that it's the spelling we're going to use because it's the "documented" spelling. It is not open to interpretation. It is not open to one persons whim. It is not open to argument.  It is what it is.

Once again Last Name at Birth: "This is the formal name that would appear in official documents at the time of birth, unless they were amended or corrected soon after birth" (src: the style guide")

---

I'll throw a more modern monkey wrench into this rat's nest.  In dealing with several hundred 19th century Germany profiles in the gedcom I adopted, there are no source records to be found.  Births of Jews were not recorded anywhere.  The only so-called records in most cases are online family trees, which mostly agree in names and dates, including patronymics that were changed by German law and the new last names that were assigned to these people.  I often find a family with several children, in which some children's LNAB is the patronymic and others' is the newer last name.  The father's LNAB is generally a patronymic and his CLN is the newer last name.  In some cases, a child never got the newer last name because he/she died before the last name was assigned.

For the ones with patronymic LNAB, I have been making sure that, if they were alive at the time the change was mandated, the CLN is the last name that was then assigned to the family.  For the ones with the LNAB of the new last name who were born before the mandated change, I have been changing LNAB to the patronymic and making CLN the new last name.  Should I be doing this differently?

Another problem is spelling - many names have "oe" or "ae" in spellings for some family members and have an umlaut over the first letter replacing the "e" for others.  I have been changing these to have the umlaut and no "e", since that is the way their names would have been spelled in Germany.  For all such names, I make sure that the spelling with the "e" instead of the umlaut is in OLN field.  Again, should I be doing this differently?

THANX!!!

---

Lots of good thoughts here on a very tough issue.

I assume we'd agree that for ourselves, if our birth certificate had a typo or mistake that was not corrected, we wouldn't want what's on the birth certificate to be our LNAB here on WikiTree. (Confession: there are two, *two* (!) spelling mistakes on my birth certificate that were never corrected!)

I think that what the parents intended is more important than what was written *if* we can clearly establish the former, e.g. because their last name had an accepted spelling in other sources.

One small thing I'd disagree with about Joe's post. This should not matter: "what the family is commonly known as to descendants."

If there is an accepted family name in contemporary records it should dictate the LNAB, even if it changed over time. Our earliest and most basic style rule is "we use their standards, not our own."

If there really was no accepted spelling for the family surname in other contemporary sources -- and maybe that's what we're talking about here -- then perhaps Jillaine and Anne are right.

If the majority of contemporary documents don't use one form of spelling for other family members, the birth document for the individual is something we can objectively agree to use.

---

Spelling variations in birth and baptismal records sometimes do have ripple effects to modern times: Modern spelling variations in a family name can sometimes be traced to their very origin in the different spelling of siblings. They married in another town and requested a copy of their baptismal record and the copying person did not agonize over how the family name should be spelled but simply copied what was in the birth register and that name ended up in the marriage records and for subsequent generations.

Another example: People living in bilingual areas had some kids recorded in one language and others in the other. I have a family in my ancestry variously called Vlček and Wölfl (both meaning little wolf in Czech and German respectively) and branches descended from them, one now named Vlček, others Wölfl. Does it not make sense to stick with what is found in the birth records even though it results in families with kids with different last names?

The same, by the way, happened in my wife's Finnish ancestry when Fins were finally obligated to take last names: Some kids picked one farm name and others picked a different farm name, the ones they were born with respectively.

---

Chris Whitten

Thanks for your opinions. This discussion started in the PGM thread here:

http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/217200/pgm-last-name-at-birth?show=218531#c218531

Some prefer this flow chart:

1)  The Last name at birth on a PGM profile should be the last name at birth as seen in parish baptism record images.

2) If images are not available use sources such as NEHGS, Anderson or TAG, but always choose the source that presents actual transcriptions of parish records.

3) If no transcriptions or images are found go with Anderson or a later peer reviewed source such as NEHGS or TAG

Other users prefer this flow chart:

1.  We follow the spelling used in Anderson as the default. 

2.  If it can be shown that Anderson choose a spelling which does not match the usual spelling used by descendants and found in standard sources, then it is OK to correct his spelling.

3.  If the name does not occur in the Great Migration project, you choose the name which “is most recognizable to modern descendants, e.g. "Winslow" rather than "Wynslow" or "Winslowe."

4.  If none of the above apply, choose a name which makes the most sense based on primary records, including baptisms, land records, church records, etc.

5.  If the only thing you have is a baptism record, use it.

Generally we don't have all the complexities mentioned above since we are going from England to New England and there are minor shifts in spelling.

What are your thoughts?

 

---

Anne, I am fairly new to wikitree, but I am not new to genealogy.  I have been doing it for decades.

You said: "Once again Last Name at Birth: "This is the formal name that would appear in official documents at the time of birth, unless they were amended or corrected soon after birth" (src: the style guide")"

This makes perfect sense for 20^th century birth certificates, and it makes perfect sense for 19^th century immigrants, but it cannot apply as an unbreakable rule for pre-1700 and medieval profiles when spelling was not standardized and irrelevant to the clerks recording baptisms.

 

The Style Guide also says:

LNAB: This field could also be called Proper Last Name, Surname, or Maiden Name.

It also says “In those cases, we recommend choosing the spelling that is most recognizable to modern descendants, e.g. "Winslow" rather than "Wynslow" or "Winslowe."

Why are these in the style guide?  Because it emphasizes that in time periods where spelling is not standardized that there needs to be some leeway and common sense applied to choosing a LNAB.

I served as the genealogist for the Eaton Family Association.  When then the baptismal record of Francis Eaton of the Mayflower was published in 1997, we did not change his name to Francis Eatton of the Mayflower.  All of his descendants know him as Eaton, the Mayflower Society calls him Eaton, and all published Eaton family genealogies call him Eaton. Similarly, John Eaton of Dedham did not become John Eton of Dedham.  It would not make sense to change two hundred years of genealogical research.

 

Anne you use this collective ‘us’ like everyone on wikitree agrees with you, but I am not sure from the responses this is true.  It is not OK to have “6 different last names for children of one parent” especially in a well-documented pre-1700 family group.  And, I don’t think you can say a single spelling in one medieval parish record is a “buck stops here” answer to how you spell the name of an individual.

 

Names do change over time, and so occasionally it is completely appropriate for a child’s LNAB to not match the parents.  But the general rule and guideline cannot be follow the parish record no matter what.

---

Jillaine, Here we are in complete agreement.  I am a complete stickler for documentation and sourcing; you will not find a profile I work on that is not completely sourced.  It means I will not be improving 20,000 profiles, but the couple hundred I get around to will be perfectly sourced.  We are just disagreeing on where and how the baptismal record should be presented.

Personally, in the profiles I have fixed I include a Birth section which quotes the baptismal record and then provide the source.  For example I recently ran into a family group where all the birth dates were wrong by 2 months, so I added to the biography:

===Birth===

Born: 21 March 1646 at Dedham, Norfolk co., Massachusetts.

'John, the Son of John & Jane Plimption, was borne the 21 of the 1 mo. 1646' [1]

Dedham, Don Gleason Hill town clerk ed. Dedham Town Records, vol. 1: The Records of Births, Marriages and Deaths in the Town of Dedham, 1634-1845.(Dedham, Mass., 1886):3.

If it was a baptism I would have said Baptism instead of Born.  This also makes clear to anyone else (I hope) why January is an error and March is the correct month.  

 

This individual and family was not then or now ever known as Plimption, it is Plimpton (or Plympton, you choose).  I do think the baptismal/parish record absolutely should be provided if known and a source provided.  But it should be in the  Biography (where sources can be provided), not in the LNAB field.

---

I'd like to say I've read everything in that other thread, or even everything above. Or that I have 1% of the specialized knowledge of most people contributing here.

OK, enough with the excuses. I'll post my current thoughts. Please just note that I can really only comment on the general rules and hope they can be applied in PGM and elsewhere.

We do seem to have a contradiction in the existing style guide.

I'm inclined to agree with Jillaine et al that this needs to be removed or edited: "It's also common in cases of earlier ancestors that the spelling of a name was not standardized and that the person him or herself would have used more than one. In those cases, we recommend choosing the spelling that is most recognizable to modern descendants, e.g. 'Winslow' rather than 'Wynslow' or 'Winslowe.'"

I'm not even sure this applies to Current Last Name. Maybe just on Other Last Names.

I think that descendants' preferences are only relevant in the main last name fields if we have to completely manufacture a surname.

There is a good argument that no standardized spelling means we have to manufacture a spelling. We can't apply the "use their standards instead of ours" rule because they had no standards.

While it may be true that they had no standards, it's not true that we have to manufacture a spelling.

If there was a contemporary surname and it was written down we don't have to manufacture the spelling using more complicated and controversial rules. We can use the contemporary sources.

That said, I think that the birth record shouldn't always dictate the LNAB. If the parents' names were more commonly spelled in a different way at the time of the birth that could overrule it.

So, to clarify on this point by Joe: "are you saying that birth or baptism record trumps all other records even in the case that almost all other legal documents like probate records, court records and personally signed agreements show the spelling differently?"

I would say the birth records do not trump all other records, but the other records to be considered are the ones for the parents and others at the time of the birth, not ones from later in life, and definitely not records for descendants. As Jillaine notes, this is Last Name at Birth.

---

How many Mayflower passengers were actually baptised under the spellings we know them by?

I just looked up the Guvnor at Austerfield and he's Bradfourth, according to FreeReg - a fact not mentioned on his profile because few writers have ever thought it worth mentioning.

Of course he spelt it Bradford himself.  But you couldn't say he changed it.  It's often said that clerks wrote what they heard, but the opposite is often true - the clerk was a pedant, who thought that what he heard was an ignorant or degraded version, and he should write what he thought it ought to be.

Bradforth is an old form.  In Yorkshire in 1590, it's likely most people pronounced it Bradford, but some of them believed that wasn't proper and when writing they should write it proper.

---

Chris asked: “So, to clarify on this point by Joe: "are you saying that birth or baptism record trumps all other records even in the case that almost all other legal documents like probate records, court records and personally signed agreements show the spelling differently?" “

No, I am saying the opposite.  Anne and Jillaine are maintaining that the LNAB field should be the spelling in a baptism record, without regard to all other considerations, because that is the “At Birth” name.

I am maintaining that this does not work for pre-1700 profiles where spelling was not standardized.  I agree with the current guidelines which say  that LNAB could also be called Proper Last Name, Surname, or Maiden Name, and does not refer to a particular spelling found in a single record (even a baptismal record).  

---

If Last Name at birth doesn't mean the spelling on the birth/baptismal record. Who decides, or how does anyone decide, which is the correct last name at birth out of the several that will be used elsewhere during a 1600 ish persons life? Where does the final arbitration rest?

---

Since this started as Puritan Great Migration thread, I would say this is generally not a problem.  Nearly every single immigrant has been studied at one time or another with family history books being written, research articles in NEHGR or TAG, and of course the Robert Charles Anderson’s Great Migration Project at the NEHGS.  The current PGM guidelines say to use Anderson as a default, I agree with this with the understanding that he is not always right.  There are cases where a family are generally known by another spelling, and this likely where 2 branches of a single family eventually used a different spelling (Payne v Paine).  Current wikitree guidelines suggest using a spelling most recognizable to modern descendants (Winslow over Wynslowe).  I agree with this as it gives a way of standardizing names and forming a consensus as to spelling.  It also makes it vastly easier to research a family, trace a family, and search for duplicates profiles in wikitree.  Sometimes you will run across a person who has not been previously studied or written about, whose modern name is not obvious – then of course go ahead and use whatever record you have.  From this you get:

1.  We follow the spelling used in Anderson as the default.

2.  If it can be shown that Anderson choose a spelling which does not match the usual spelling used by descendants and found in standard sources, then it is OK to correct his spelling.

3.  If the name does not occur in the Great Migration project, you choose the name which “is most recognizable to modern descendants, e.g. "Winslow" rather than "Wynslow" or "Winslowe."

4.  If none of the above apply, choose a name which makes the most sense based on primary records, including baptisms, land records, church records, etc.

5.  If the only thing you have is a baptism record, use it.

There is lots of wiggle room here to use common sense.  I will also say that names do change and it some point the spelling has to change – I don’t want to put rigid rules on how this is done.

 

I am not suggesting that the spelling in baptismal and parish records isn’t important.  On the contrary, it is my opinion that if known, they should all be transcribed with a proper source reference given in the Biography.  Generally, if a date is known it is because it has been published in a research article, can be found Massachusetts Vital Records to 1850, or can be found in the Barbour Collection.

---

My point is that the Last Name at Birth is not meant to be as simple as what is in the birth record, but it is, fundamentally, meant to be the last name at birth.

Using their conventions instead of ours is our most fundamental style rule.

---

: ) Then maybe we should be using  

            her

Anne    B

         mark

---

> My point is that the Last Name at Birth is not meant to be as simple as what is in the birth record, but it is, fundamentally, meant to be the last name at birth.

I don't think this resolves the ambiguity.  The basic problem here is that some people regard Paine and Payne as two different names, while other people regard them as the same name.

If the baptism says Payne and you fill in the LNAB as Paine, are you complying with the rule or flouting it?

 

 

---

Horace,

I can't wait to rename our Mayflower ancestor Gov William Bradford to Gov William Bradfourth. I think that will give the General Society of Mayflower Descendants a shocker. LOL :)

When you look at the arguments in the above context it really does sound absurd.

And yes I do have a lot of ancestors with the surname X as well. Touche!

---

Would the rules I'm proposing -- that it be last name at birth, taking into account other records at the time of birth, not just the one birth record -- mean Bradford becomes Bradfourth? I honestly don't know. I'm asking.

---

I think with your current rules we'd still have to go with Gov William Bradfourth because that's the spelling from the record in the "old country" and not the spelling used later in life. Obviously Horace is picking this example because it shows how absurd this is. And I can give you many more example were this is going to cause a lot of confusion where spellings in baptism record do not in any way reflect the proper spelling and even in some cases causes confusion between two different unrelated families like John Fost and John Foss or Gosse and Goffe, etc.

 

Now imagine for a bit that you are not a Wikitree volunteer. Instead imagine you are a humble researcher trying to learn more about your ancestor Gov William Bradford. But you can't find him on Wikitree using Google because his name is Gov William Bradfourth. So instead you end up on some GEDCOM upload somewhere with all the wrong information. It really undermines the utility of Wikitree to the public. Does Wikipedia spell names like this? No. So should Wikitree use the similar standards to Wikipedia or Anderson? Wikipedia spells Bradford as Bradford and Shakespeare as Shakespeare. If they didn't nobody would find what they were looking for.

 

I believe odd spellings transcribed from baptism records should be listed in quotes exactly as written in the text of the profile along with a footnote for the source of the record. Anderson, TAG or NEHGR already attempt to give us the best choice of surname spelling given all available information currently available. That's what users are going to google for. Are random profile managers going to make a better choice about the best spelling of a surname than the latest published data by Anderson, TAG or NEHGR? I don’t think so! It will just lead to more debates that are never settled. And in turn this means the four or five copies of the same PGM ancestor on Wikitree will never get merged because nobody can agree on a single surname. So Wikitree users will continue to land on a forsaken profile without sources instead of the best profile Wikitree has to offer. If that’s the case I wonder why I am spending so much time footnoting facts since they will never been seen.

 

I’m willing to go along with whatever contributors here decide on but we need one system that is not going to involve endless debates and leave multiple unmerged profiles all over the place and we need a system that produces profiles that “real people” can find using google. I feel that Anderson, TAG or NEHGR already offer such a system. We use what they use.

---

If I'm understanding Chris correctly, an exception to the birth/baptism record as final arbiter is that if other family records *contemporary to the time period of the birth* had another more consistent spelling, that spelling could override the spelling on the birth/baptism record. Is that right?

---

If the family went by Bradforth at the time of the governor's birth, then yes, that should be his LNAB. If by the end of his life he went by Bradford, then that would be his Current Last Name, fully visible to and searchable (please confirm, Chris W) by new wikitreer.

Wikitree is not an encyclopedia. It's a genealogy site where we hopefully are documenting the facts of our ancestors.

---

Right, Jillaine. Anything that informs us about conventions at the time of birth could be used. It's not just about birth records.

By the way, Bradfourth sounds bad but it wouldn't mean he couldn't be found.

---

As someone supremely unqualified to participate in this discussion, by virtue of lack of knowledge of genealogy in general and research methods in particular, plus completely ignorant of anything to do with stuff that happened before about 1850, I just want to add my two cents worth of where it looks to me that all this discussion is going - if I'm wrong, please correct my impression!

It looks like we used to have a means of making LNAB decisions that is now coming into question and headed for a change that will result in decision making becoming a very gray area with no "tie-breaker" rule to fall back on.  The future scenario I envision is that when there is any question about an LNAB (including the dot on an "I") someone will post all the possible variants in G2G and ask everyone to vote on their favorite.  After a few days or so, the votes will be tallied and that will decide the LNAB.  After that, the profile will be PPP'ed and the profile managers will be carefully culled to ensure that nobody will ever try to change the LNAB.  Of course, all the variants will be meticulously documented in the biography, which will end up requiring the template for overly long profiles to be slapped on it.

---

Jillaine and Chris, I know we can't have rules to cover each different situation, but equally if they are too narrow in focus then people are left wondering and that's perhaps when there are endless questions or people make up their own standards.  

What do we do if there isn't any information surrounding a birth (and I'm not necessarily talking EuroAristo here)?  How do we decide then?  
Should the option be that if there are no records surrounding a birth, then all the records covering someone's life are used to determine the LNAB?  

And Jillaine, I think by any definition Wikitree is an encyclopedia, perhaps a biographical encyclopedia is a better term, but still an encyclopedia.

 

 

---

Chris Whitten at al

Let's finalize the flow chart please and update the PGM page. Please edit this with the suggested wording:

1)  The Last name at birth on a PGM profile should be the last name at birth as seen in parish baptism record images.

2) If images are not available use sources such as NEHGS, Anderson or TAG, but always choose the source that presents actual transcriptions of parish records.

3)  If other family records *contemporary to the time period of the birth* had another more consistent spelling that spelling will override the spelling on the birth/baptism record. Anything that informs us about conventions at the time of birth could be used. No other records will override the baptism or birth records. 

4) If no transcriptions or images are found and nothing informs us about conventions at the time of birth go with Anderson or a later peer reviewed source such as NEHGS or TAG.

Edits?

 

 

---

Just bumped my head against another old favourite.  Gwladys Ddu's first husband - Bartrum has Braose, Richardson has Brewes, MedLands has Briouse.  WikiTree has all 6.

Obviously all the other writers pick one spelling and stick with it, not just for the individual, not just for the family, but for the whole clan over several centuries.

You can say that's not realistic, in that the name evolved over time.  But tracing the evolution would be a specialist study - it's buried in too much random noise to be clear in the records.  Even if you could see the records, which normally you can't, because even "verbatim" quotes and transcripts get standardized by translators and editors.

---

Roland I think #3 is confusing. It looks like it says other comtemporary records can over ride b./bpt. and then the last sentence says no other records will override b./bpt records.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say so can't give you a suggested re-wording

---

RJ, This is where the "other name field" is so important, as I'm sure you know. All those alternate spellings have to be in the other names field, so that they are searchable by that spelling. I personally think that a lot of duplicates might be avoided if we made more liberal use of this field.

---

Anne B that exactly what was decided above i.e. other records contemporary to the time of birth can override b./bpt.

---

Anne, I think RJ is trying to point out the difficulties in choosing a LNAB for the Braose, Brewes, Briouse not that we can use alternate names in the Other Name Field.

And we are talking the 13th century or earlier, so there are no baptism/birth records to use.

Have a look at this link http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISHNOBILITYMEDIEVAL3.htm#WilliamBriousedied1210A and scroll down to child no. 10 and have a look at how many name variations there are for that one person.

Should we be looking at slightly different naming standards for different eras?  Pre-1500 when there are no accepted form of a name, where we use a modern equivalent.  1500-1750/1800 when names are starting to develop into a standard form where we follow the rules that are developing here, and 1800 - Present, where most surnames have developed into a consistent style, continuously used by descendants?

(And yes I know they are all generalisations and there will be a range of differences with cultures, nations, immigration etc)

---

John & RJ, I realize what RJ was saying and was merely trying to point out the importance of Other names, for persons who might be reading the thread and don't already know.

---

Roland - Yes I understand what the first two sentences of #3 say. But your third sentence of #3 states that "No other records will override the baptism or birth records. " which contradicts what your first two sentences of #3say.

First you're telling me that it's ok to overide b/bpt, then your saying nothing overides b./bpt

---

Roland she's asking though what you mean by "No other records will override the baptism or birth records. "

I think you mean records not contemporary to the time of birth, including records from the end of the person's life or how descendants currently spell the surname. 

---

Anne and Jillaine - please edit the flow chart and see if you can make the meaning clearer and post it here so we all can review your edit.

---

My intended meaning in the last sentence of # 3 is that *no* other records will override the baptism or birth records besides the records *contemporary to the time period of the birth* which demonstrate a more consistent spelling.

In other words you can't take a record from some time period much later than the time of birth and argue that that demonstrates the proper LNAB. You can only use records contemporary to the time period of the birth. I want to really limit the scope of what records can be cited to argue the LNAB.

---

How about -

3)  If other family records *contemporary to the time period of the birth* had another more consistent spelling that spelling will override the spelling on the birth/baptism record. Anything that informs us about conventions at the time of birth could be used. Only other contemporary records may overide the birth / baptismal records.

---

Roland wrote:

Let's finalize the flow chart please and update the PGM page. Please edit this with the suggested wording:

1)  The Last name at birth on a PGM profile should be the last name at birth as seen in parish baptism record images.

2) If images are not available use sources such as NEHGS, Anderson or TAG, but always choose the source that presents actual transcriptions of parish records.

3)  If other family records *contemporary to the time period of the birth* had another more consistent spelling that spelling will override the spelling on the birth/baptism record. Anything that informs us about conventions at the time of birth could be used. No other records will override the baptism or birth records. 

4) If no transcriptions or images are found and nothing informs us about conventions at the time of birth go with Anderson or a later peer reviewed source such as NEHGS or TAG.

Roland, this is still completely wrong and completely upside down.  It is saying we need to rename Gov. William Bradford to William Bradfourth; it saying we need to change the LNAB of 80% of pre-1700 profiles to an obscure random spelling.  What is wrong with using the family name which everyone will recognize?  It has been done this way for 100's of years for a reason - to avoid confusion.  Of course, include the spelling found in a parish record in a profile, but in the Biography and in the Other Last Names.

It cannot be #1 on your flow sheet.

Part of what this discussion highlights is the number of different situations and problems there can be in choosing a LNAB,  We probably should not be trying to create hard rules.  The wikitree style guide makes it more of a recommendation or suggestion.

---

Now I'm confused.  Are we just talking PGM naming standards in this G2G, or are we developing some general guidelines that would apply to all Wikitree?  I got from the original question that it might refer to all naming standards but I could be wrong.

---

John A.,

When there are no contemporary original records, the PGM project follows a known PGM expert, Anderson, or other researcher subsequently published in a recognized, peer-reviewed genealogical or historical journal.

That's the project augmentation (or was it supplementation ?) Chris W was referring to earlier in this thread. I.e., it's building on the site-wide norm. I believe the Magna Carta project has a similar published expert or set of experts it follows. Perhaps there's a (non Magna Carta) medieval equivalent.

---

I could point out that William Bradford falls under the Mayflower project not PGM. Roland is not suggesting guidelines for Mayflower, which has it's own standards, which is probably use the spelling accepted by the Mayflower Society.

---

Anne B - your edited version is much clearer. Let's go with that.

The Magna Carta Project uses the five volume set of Douglas Richardson's "Royal Ancesty." I'm not in the Magna Carta Project but I do reference it to disconnect bogus gateway lineages in PGM.

Joe hard rules i.e. limiting the scope of debate is exactly our goal. We can't spend months waiting for merges of multiple duplicate PGM profiles created by GEDCOM imports. We need a guide to follow to decide LNAB for PGM. If a record is not contemporary to the time of birth we can not consider it to decide the LNAB. That will make it really simple in almost every case to determine a LNAB and move on with the real work that needs to get done.

---

We're all writing over each other. John, Roland is grounding this in the PGM project because that is what started this discussion. And it's also what the PGM project has immediate need for. But this overall thread is to clarify the systemwide use of the LNAB field.

Joe, you are conflating the  Current Last Name field with the Last Name at Birth field. You did indeed point out an inconsistency in the help text for name fields and this thread is seeking to make that text clearer.

Chris Whitten is the creator of wikitree and he has confirmed that his intent for LNAB was to be used for the last name the person was know by at the time of his birth.

How do we know what the person went by at the time of his birth? By records contemporary to the time period. That includes birth and baptism records and other documents *from the same time period* that indicate the spelling.

Absent such records, we turn to qualified, published sources. Projects, like PGM, go with Anderson's Great Migration series or subsequently published research in qualified peer-reviewed journals.

---

I'm in the Mayflower Project also - does it have a have it's own standards for LNAB? I didn't spot them on the project page.

---

I'm ok with the flow chart then Roland. I think it gives a fairly clear guideline. It also gives us a nice overide for the really "off" spellings on a baptismal register. And then give us the fall back on Anderson.

---

Roland, I don't think there is a written rule about spellings in the Mayflower project, but I don't see much discussion going on about correct spellings either. I'll bet most are using the Mayflower Society spelling, so they aren't having the same problems that the PGM'ers are. And maybe it's a can of worms we simply should not open. A let sleeping dogs lie kind of thing.

I suspect that I'm going to hit my 20 comments in an hour limit and am going to go watch a movie.

---

Anne B,

Thanks for reminding us that Bradford is under the care of the Mayflower project. I sighed with relief at that until I realized that if I understand Chris W correctly, any project would need to start out with the systemwide rules for the use of a name field.

A project's customization would come into play only if those initial rules did not apply-- i.e. when there are no contemporary records. In the case of Bradford, under this clarified use, there were records contemporary to the time period and the family used the spelling Bradfourth.

I'm thinking that Chris might make an exception for EuroAristo and grandfather it in because he'd probably have a mass exodus if the use of contemporaneous documents indicated a whole other approach to what that project took YEARS to figure out for LNAB.

---

So we are going with Gov Bradfourth?

I just put a Maine lobster is boiling water - I'm going to take off. I'll return tomorrow.. Cheers!

---

Yes Jillaine for pre-1500 Euroaristo nobility, the 1 and 2 wouldn't apply in probably 90% or more of profiles.

No. 3 might apply in slightly more cases, though again often we don't have much information around a birth, it's more likely when they are older.

For most profiles it would be using the 4th rule - going with a later source, which is usually Charles Cawley, Medieval Lands database, though Richardson covers some of this period.  As RJ has pointed out they can differ.

I've just realised that for Euroaristo royal families it's a different case again.  The project tries to go with dynasty names rather than places for the LNAB such as Plantagenet, Capet, Carolingian, Wittelsbach, Hohenzollern, Habsburg etc but they often weren't used contemporarily but were applied to the whole dynasty in later times.

---

Yeah it's the royalty I'm hoping he'll grandfather in. Sounds like the others can mostly follow the guidelines.

---

Roland, I think that Bradford spelled his own name Bradford in contemporary documents, so this would be a place that rule #3 would come into play, if he were PGM.

3) If other family records *contemporary to the time period of the birth* had another more consistent spelling that spelling will override the spelling on the birth/baptism record. Only other contemporary records may overide the birth / baptismal records.

So Bradford is safe

---

I'm thinking maybe in #3 above the area in * * should read *contemporary within a persons lifetime* or *written within a persons lifetime* instead of *contemporary to the time period of the birth*

It depends on precisely what you mean to say. (Narrow or a little broader) How many years does contemporary encompass?

*contemporary to the time period of the birth* could be very narrow. It would be the father's surname used at the time of birth of the child, which would allow all the children to have the same father's surname.

*written within a persons lifetime* would allow for the spelling on his will, on the ship's manifest, in the town records, on his children's birth records, his own BMD record, etc.

---

Anne B, my personal preference would be to select the best surname based on the documents contemporary with the entire life of the person.

But that is exactly what we are not agreeing to do. Please go back up this thread and read Chris Whitten's last four posts. Here are some excepts: 

"Right, Jillaine. Anything that informs us about conventions at the time of birth could be used. It's not just about birth records. By the way, Bradfourth sounds bad but it wouldn't mean he couldn't be found..."

"That said, I think that the birth record shouldn't always dictate the LNAB. If the parents' names were more commonly spelled in a different way at the time of the birth that could overrule it."

"So, to clarify on this point by Joe: 'are you saying that birth or baptism record trumps all other records even in the case that almost all other legal documents like probate records, court records and personally signed agreements show the spelling differently?'"

"I would say the birth records do not trump all other records, but the other records to be considered are the ones for the parents and others at the time of the birth, not ones from later in life, and definitely not records for descendants. As Jillaine notes, this is Last Name at Birth."

So we are looking at a persons birth records, the surname of the parents and the surnames other siblings born about the same time to determine the best spelling of their surname. But we are not for example looking at later records like their marriage records or probate records or any records they signed personally. This would imply Mayflower "Gov William Bradfourth" would be the proper spelling since this would be a general naming rule for Wikitree and I don't see the Mayflower project has its own rules for LNAB.

 

The Mayflower Descendant: A Quarterly Magazine of Pilgrim ..., Volume 7

https://books.google.com/books?id=-o9HAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=Mayflower+Gov+%22Bradfourth%22&source=bl&ots=4C9eBGXNeQ&sig=0v2pcNbBplleTxt1Hs36mM91x70&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZ2IjF7PTKAhUD22MKHah1ASYQ6AEISTAH#v=onepage&q=Mayflower%20Gov%20%22Bradfourth%22&f=false

Wikitree will be the first site to use such naming conventions.

---

Thank you for clarifying Roland. You really did say what you meant, and my brain evidently missed Chris' comments. And I'm ok with it. I'm even ok with Bradfourth as LNAB.

---

What I keep seeng is that people are equating LNAB with the name the person was most known by in his life. That is more like the Current Last Name, not the LNAB. so if Bradford is the CLN used, then there is no disagreement with the Mayflower Society.

Most other publications don't distinguish LNAB from CLN. Wikitree does.

---

What you keep seeing is people who think Bradfourth and Bradford are the same name, so the blue rule is complied with either way and the red rule applies.

I'm wondering what you think the red rule is for.

---

Joe thinks the red rule is for LNAB. Anne (and I think a few others l) think it's for CLN or OLN. I just want it clarified and I don't want it used for LNAB.

---

That is correct.  As the most fundamental way that people enter, search for, and use wikitree (and all online genealogy sites), I think the Red Rule (i.e. Winslow instead of Wynslow and Bradford instead of Bradfourth) is for LNAB.  

I would put unusual alternative spellings including that found on a baptismal record in Other Last Names or I would put it in a note in the biography with a source to the record.

---

I think we are going round and round in circle but just to restate again, I think the blue rule and the red rule are for completely different situations and they both apply to deciding on the LNAB.

---

Final Flow Chart:

1)  The Last name at birth on a PGM profile should be the last name at birth as seen in parish baptism record images.

 

2) If images are not available use sources such as NEHGS, Anderson or TAG, but always choose the source that presents actual transcriptions of parish records.

 

3)  If other family records *contemporary to the time period of the birth* had another more consistent spelling that spelling will override the spelling on the birth/baptism record. Anything that informs us about conventions at the time of birth could be used. Only other contemporary records may overide the birth / baptismal records.

 

4) If no transcriptions or images are found and nothing informs us about conventions at the time of birth go with Anderson or a later peer reviewed source such as NEHGS or TAG.
 

Now who can update the PGM and style pages?

---

Joe and John,

Find and read Chris W's comment in this thread about the red text; it was NOT his intention for that text to refer to the LNAB field. At best, he said, it is only appropriate for the Other Last Names field.

---

OK, Jillaine, I have read every single post by Chris and have not found one with him saying LNAB was meant to mean ‘spelling in a baptismal record.’  I do see him struggling with a tough issue.

Among his quotes:

“There is a good argument that no standardized spelling means we have to manufacture a spelling. We can't apply the "use their standards instead of ours" rule because they had no standards.”

“My point is that the Last Name at Birth is not meant to be as simple as what is in the birth record, but it is, fundamentally, meant to be the last name at birth.”

“Would the rules I'm proposing -- that it be last name at birth, taking into account other records at the time of birth, not just the one birth record -- mean Bradford becomes Bradfourth? I honestly don't know. I'm asking.”

“Right, Jillaine. Anything that informs us about conventions at the time of birth could be used. It's not just about birth records.”

“That said, I think that the birth record shouldn't always dictate the LNAB. If the parents' names were more commonly spelled in a different way at the time of the birth that could overrule it.”

 

Wikitree cannot write a policy which seems to advocate changing Bradford to Bradfourth, Winslow to Wynslowe, etc.  As Roland said, wikitree will be the first and only website or organization to adopt such a policy.  I think this started with a disagreement about Paine vs Payne – I get that.  They are both normal names (with Payne being by far the more common).  But every Paine and Payne in the world will cringe if you change their immigrant ancestor’s name to Pane.

 

John Atkinson has said these rules cannot apply to pre-1500/EuroAristo – they just don’t make sense for the types of records we have.  Because spelling was random, they don’t make sense for pre-1700 either.  Why are we trying to reinvent the wheel here?  The thing about the PGM project is the vast majority of the 20,000+ people it covers are well-known and well-studied.  It’s not for you to re-name them.

---

Roland, you wrote: "my personal preference would be to select the best surname based on the documents contemporary with the entire life of the person.

But that is exactly what we are not agreeing to do."

And you noted: "Wikitree will be the first site to use such naming conventions."

Why would you write a Flow Chart which you disagree with?

---

Well that's a good question Joe. I wrote it because that seems to be the Wikitree way. Maybe you and I can start JoeandRolandstree.com and we can do it our way :) But until then I think we're going to have to compromise and do it their way :)  At some point we have to make peace with it and move on. In all seriousness though I think Chris Whitten was pretty clear about the intentions behind this.

The idea that last name at birth should necessarily be the "index" name for genealogy tree seems silly to me. But that is what we have here at Wikitree. If you ask me Magnus Sälgö was hinting at the best solution even though he didn't say it which is let's tear up the script and add multiple fields and not use LNAB as the index and instead use a Universal ID system (GUID). That's the smart way to do it. But will that happen in our lifetime? Dunno. I'm looking for a solution that I can start using this month.

And just for the record Chris Hoyt and I didn't have a disagreement about Paine / Payne. I'm fine with his solution. I just needed to get this issue resolved in general for PGM because it comes up with every merge and we've got four or five copies of every PGM profile from GEDCOM imports and the number seems to be growing by the day. I need a way to streamline the workflow so I can get back to writing biographies, adding citations and correcting errors, and hopefully adding new profiles.

---

RJ Horace  Shhh! You weren't supposed to notice that!

 

---

Jeanie Thornton asked a question about some merges and the LNAB for Godfrey Dearborn-9 this morning.

Roland responded saying the new guidelines say go with Dearbarne.

1.  I don't think the new guidelines are in place.

2.  I think this is a good test case for the guidelines.

 

As I said in the other thread, this is a perfect example of a Great Migration immigrant who has been known to descendants, researchers, historians, and genealogists for 200 years by a single name (Godfrey Dearborn).  Around whom there is no dispute over the name.  And which the new guidelines suggest changing the LNAB to some nonsensical spelling.

 

---

You want to keep blocking PGM mergers based on surname?

If Chris Whitten, the creator of Wikitree, says we do it a certain way after listening to all possible points of view then we do it a certain way. I've summed up Chris Whitten's final thoughts into one flow-chart and it is pretty clear cut. We go with the baptism record if we have it. In this case we have a baptism record for Godfrey Dearborn. Both he and his son have the same name spelling (based on my understanding of what Jeanie wrote).

Last I checked Chris Whitten was still in charge:

Using username "root".
root@192.168.2.3's password:
Last login: Thu Dec 17 09:02:29 2015 from 192.168.2.5
[root@cucho ~]# whois wikitree.org
[Querying whois.publicinterestregistry.net]
[whois.publicinterestregistry.net]
Domain Name: WIKITREE.ORG
Domain ID: D106163701-LROR
WHOIS Server:
Referral URL: http://www.directnic.com
Updated Date: 2013-11-16T00:20:18Z
Creation Date: 2005-04-26T08:49:05Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2019-04-26T08:49:05Z
Sponsoring Registrar: DNC Holdings, Inc.
Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 291
Registrant ID: ODN-237280
Registrant Name: Chris Whitten

Yup!

 

---

Joe, what is it about Current Last Name that you don't understand? Dearborn would go there.

---

I understand who Chris is.  You have not summed up his final thoughts; you have put words in his mouth.  As I already posted, he said:

“There is a good argument that no standardized spelling means we have to manufacture a spelling. We can't apply the "use their standards instead of ours" rule because they had no standards.”

“My point is that the Last Name at Birth is not meant to be as simple as what is in the birth record, but it is, fundamentally, meant to be the last name at birth.”

“Anything that informs us about conventions at the time of birth could be used. It's not just about birth records.”

“That said, I think that the birth record shouldn't always dictate the LNAB. If the parents' names were more commonly spelled in a different way at the time of the birth that could overrule it.”

How does any of that add up to a “clear cut” rule to use an obscure spelling over one which has been in use 100s of years?

I don’t want to block PGM mergers, but it is your rules which are going to lead to even more disputes.  Someone put a lot of work into Dearborn-9, and is going to be very upset if you try to change the LNAB to match that of some random gedcom import.

---

I've updated the http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Name_Fields page. Hopefully this will help.

The "red" section about descendants' spelling has been removed and replaced with this:

Spelling conventions

It's common with earlier ancestors that the spelling of a name was not standardized.

Nevertheless, if there are any contemporary written documents, the spelling from those documents should be used. In particular, the spelling that appears in a birth record should be used for the Last Name at Birth unless there are other documents from at or near the time of birth that inform us about a more common or correct spelling.

The spelling used by descendants is not relevant unless there are no contemporary written documents.

The Last Name at Birth section has also been clarified to say: "It is usually the formal name as it appears in official documents at the time of birth. However, it may not be exactly what appears in a birth record if: There was a spelling mistake or error in the document, or if the family name was more commonly spelled in a different way at the time of the birth."

I do appreciate Joe's points and I was open to the argument that a general lack of spelling standards for surnames is essentially the same as the EuroAristo case where surnames need to be manufactured by us. But having no set spelling for a surname isn't exactly the same as having no surname. If there is any contemporary written spelling we don't need to manufacture it. Ultimately, I think that's more inline with the general spirit of our style rules and the meaning of fields, and can be somewhat more objectively applied.

---

Thank you Chris.

---

Thank you Chris.  I am OK with this as I think it reaches a bit more of a measured middle ground by recognizing the lack of standardization of names, and, while giving direction, doesn’t try to impose hard rules.  It allows for a little common sense (Bradford can remain Bradford).

I don’t think the last sentence needs to be there.  I realize it is just countering something I said earlier in this thread, but it may be confusing to someone who doesn’t know the context of the discussion.  The main paragraph stands on its own just fine for providing guidance.

---

What just happened?

---

Well we already have a problem if someone thinks Bradford's LNAB doesn't have to be changed.

If the family name at the time of the governor's birth was Bradforth, then the governor's LNAB would be Bradforth and his CLN would be Bradford under my reading of Chris's revised text.

---

AND I think the last sentence does need to be there because we have had too many descendants claim their spelling is sufficient.

---

Joe - Chris just said we use the name in the baptism records. What he said is exactly what is in the flow chart. In other words:

1) Gov William Bradford is now William Bradforth. There is no wiggle room.

2) Godfrey Dearborn was baptized in 1603 his name was Dearbarne, when he had his son baptized the name was Dearbarne. They are now Dearbarne.There is no wiggle room.

3) Paine of old are now Payne

There should be absolutely no confusion about this. I see zero difference between what Chris just wrote and this:

1)  The Last name at birth on a PGM profile should be the last name at birth as seen in parish baptism record images.

2) If images are not available use sources such as NEHGS, Anderson or TAG, but always choose the source that presents actual transcriptions of parish records.

3)  If other family records *contemporary to the time period of the birth* had another more consistent spelling that spelling will override the spelling on the birth/baptism record. Anything that informs us about conventions at the time of birth could be used. No other records will override the baptism or birth records. 

4) If no transcriptions or images are found and nothing informs us about conventions at the time of birth go with Anderson or a later peer reviewed source such as NEHGS or TAG.

 

---

RJ – I guess I don’t know what just happened.

Jillaine - I use Current Last Name the way everyone else does.  Primarily, it is the last married name of a woman.  Occasionally, it is for an individual who changed their name during their lifetime.  I do not use it for alternative spellings of 17th century documents.

Jillaine and Roland - I interpreted “unless there are other documents from at or near the time of birth that inform us about a more common or correct spelling.” as leaving some wiggle room and not dictating one exact way of doing things.

Names are a fundamental identifier of an individual.  On wikitree, LNAB is that fundamental identifier, and this is the reason why it cannot be some obscure spelling.  By changing the LNAB from a spelling for which there is already standardization and consensus, you are fundamentally changing who that person is. 

You realize that way over 50% of pre-1700 profiles need to be changed to meet your standard – it is chaos.

 

Chris, as we still seem to be interpreting what you wrote a little differently, can you tell me:

1.  Are these wikitree guidelines or are these hard rules?  I am concerned about spelling Nazis dictating to profile managers about how their beloved ancestor’s profiles must read.  Roland said “there is no wiggle room.”

2.  Did you really mean by the revision to the Spelling Conventions to say that even historically significant people such as Gov. William Bradford will henceforth on wikitree be known as William Bradforth?  

---

Once again Joe - I personally sympathize with your case as you know because I have many of the same sentiments. But what we really can't have is multiple ways to identify LNAB because in the PGM and Mayflower projects we have four or five different profiles for each person right now due to GEDCOM imports. They all need to be merged but for each merge all the profile admins dig in their heals because they each want some different personally preferred spelling. We are not getting the mergers done that need to get done because of this. So PGM and the Mayflower projects are not moving along. So we need one set of very specific rules the determine last name at birth. And if that means Gov William Bradfourth of the Mayflower then I'm in.

I think Chris stated in response to several queries what he means is the name of the birth record. But if you have five kids and one has a different spelling you can name that one kid the same as the other four because that was obviously and error and the documents for the other four kids were around the time of the birth of the child. But he is not saying you can manufacture the last name at birth from a marriage record or death record if you have a perfectly good baptism record. And you can't just pick the standardized name from some genealogy book. We are going to use the best estimate of their last name at birth based on documents from around the time of that birth not from around the time of death, etc. I don't want to be a spelling Nazi. But if I need to merge five copies of William Bradfourth I want to point to the rules and say rename and merge these puppies! I already had two renaming issues come up today where we can't come to a consensus on what to rename the profiles so we can't merge them. So we're stuck with islands of despair.

---

There's a general problem with people blocking merges of undisputed duplicates.  But in your case, policy provides the answer - management by project.  PPP the final ID (project's choice) and appoint a project member as a PM.

---

Roland, I think this is a typo, but just to make sure: "No other records will override the baptism or birth records" should be removed from the flowchart.

Other records could override birth records. For example, the marriage record for the parents could override the spelling on the birth record for the child if the latter isn't supported elsewhere and the former is.

Thank you all for working through this! You guys are terrific.

---

I think what just happened is

1) we had a rule that said to modernize spellings, and this has been replaced by one that says don't.  Complete turnaround.

2) while the PGMs steam ahead, the rest of us are now on hold waiting for access to baptisms which exist but are not easily accessible

3) somebody now has to tell the gedcommers they need to change loads of spellings

4) a big sign just went up saying WikiTree Is An American Site.  Non-Americans Go Away, You Won't Get It

I'm glad I never put my own ancestors on here.  I wouldn't be up for changing the spellings, and I wouldn't be able to delete them.  A salutary warning about the dangers of single trees.

Meanwhile the stage is set for a war between the people who will make a thing of following the new rule slavishly, and the people who will ignore it, and the people who will be unaware of it, and the people who won't get the implications, because they haven't realised that their sources use standardized spellings, not original spellings.

---

I have the perfect solution.  When there is full agreement between all involved projects and profile managers about an LNAB then that is to be made the LNAB.  Any time there is anything less than total unanimity about what the LNAB should be then the LNAB and CLN should be changed to Unknown, all possibilities should be put in Other Names and also explained in the biography.

After all, we have an Unknown's project ... let them start pulling their own weight to find the correct beyond all shadow of anyone's doubt LNAB.

Honestly, folks, this discussion is starting to sound like the presidential debates.  I don't know enough to contribute anything (other than sarcasm), but I really think everyone needs to grow up and recognize the need for some kind of agreement here.

---

Oooo Maybe we could have Joseph "Cantdecide" :)

---

Gotta give Anne a slap on the wrist for that - wassamatta - don't you know "Cantdecide" is not in keeping with policy on names?  It's gotta be Unknown, girlfriend!!!

---

"1) we had a rule that said to modernize spellings, and this has been replaced by one that says don't.  Complete turnaround."

As far as I know we never had this. The wording was confusing (which is why I brought it up) and Chris confirmed that it was not his intention (and it conflicted with the overarching "use their convention not ours.") 

So I don't see this as a major change. Just clarification of what had been confusing and contradictory. 
 

---

Of course the majority of immigrants have unknown parentage, and it's only a presumption that they were born with the same name they used later.

In fact a major reason for brick walls, not only immigrants, is that people's births were recorded under a different name.  Not only wives.

---

Spelling-fixation is our convention, not theirs.

But "theirs not ours" fell apart years ago when nobody told the gedcommers that they'd have to change Neville to Nevyle and Huntingfield to Huntynggefeilde or whatever.

As for confusion and intention, it's hard to believe that Chris wrote a rule that said to use Winslow not Wynslow if he actually meant the exact opposite.  Clearly the thinking behind the red rule as written is that Winslow and Wynslow are the same name.  But now they're to be treated as two different names.

So now I suppose FitzHugh becomes fys Hewe and Johnson becomes Jhonsonne etc.  For medievals the list goes on for ever.  Not a major change?

Not just medievals though - I've got 19th century Merrills and the name is hardly spelt the same way twice in the records - though it'll be Merrill in any tree I ever do.

Perhaps we need a new thread to work out how this rule change is going to work.

Anybody know how to type a yogh?

Answer 5

Isn't this discussion about LNAB medieval ;-)

In the good old days of computers you had a record and one key that should be unique = LNAB ==> something we need to have but it's irrelevant if its a human readable key like Sälgö-1 or a GUID

Today 2016:

1. We need to have an unique name for a record
2. BUT we can have alternate index keys etc. so we can support alternative spelling names etc.... if we add more name forms....

 What are the User Cases?
A) In a unique way find a profile Check
B) Find duplicates fast and easy Could always be better 
C) Store all name forms on a person Could be better 
D) Easy find a person when searching ??
E) Support searching on just the women birth last name  Check
F) ?????

Solution

Add more fields for different name forms. Not just names but also places....

Maybe solution = templates
A maybe quick and maybe dirty is that we use templates for names and extract the information to an external database to make the impact on the current solution as small as possible....

Comments

You think like me :)

---

If the goal is to facilitate building a world-wide tree that links everyone, then we harm that goal by being pedantic about name spelling. In a single document recently I saw Dubois, DuBois, Du Bois and Duboise, all referring to the same person.

I'd argue that what we want to facilitate is searching and matching, and we need multiple last name fields to help accomplish that. LNAB is neither here nor there.

---

I worked with text retrieval before it was hot. Then we used a thesaurus 

==>

Instead that we on every profile add more name forms like Anderdotter Andersdtr etc....

Then we in the thesaurus define that a search on Anderdotter is also a search on Anderdtr



Feels like a more mature approach than having every nameform on all profiles....

---

Magnus, I agree that a thesaurus would cover most of the naming issues across time and cultures.

---

We've got a thesaurus, but we don't use it.

Basically a thesaurus maps all the variant forms to a standard form.  You can do it with a run-time join, but I could think of other ways to improve the search system if the cpu cycles could be spared, which apparently they can't.

Or you can store the standardized form in a separate field, but I don't think Chris is up for adding fields either.

In any case, we could end up exposing the useless authentic form (which could be in the bio and doesn't need to be anywhere else) and hiding the much more useful and Google-friendly standardized form, which would be perverse, like shooting ourselves in both feet with both barrels.

---

That's way outside of my wheelhouse. Sounds like at the rate this is going, since there are so many "possible" solutions, that we'll never see a model that works. That's all the chump change I have to spend.

---

Interesting that we have a thesaurus.

In Swedish genealogy people used based (Normalized) forms in the old days. Today my feeling you always use the what you find...

Answer 6

Would it be helpful to add the PGM and EuroAristo tags to the original question, as I think much of this discussion is really about LNAB in pre-1700 profiles?

Comments

I'm sure it will be important to them but I also  think  this discussion is  relevant to anyone whose name was written by a parish clerk or the equivalent any where in the world.

 I am following this discussion with interest and have as far as I know no connections with any profiles in either project.

  Here is one of my profiles with multiple variants.. At the moment I don't know what his LNAB should really be (and getting more confused all the time!)

 William and his family were illiterate and probably spoke with a broad local accent, hence the surnames in registers varies considerably.

'''Names'''
At present it is not known where William was born or baptised.
At the  baptisms of children and at his burial his name is recorded as Peasland, At his marriage ie (first known document... should this be LNAB?)  at his wife's parish, two miles down the road, the clerk recorded his surname as Peasnall.
 At the 3rd marriage of daughter Damaris, it is recorded as Pasewell but a witness, who might be his granddaughter signed her name as Ann Pesland   (to add to confusion his son named Peasland in court documents and baptism uses Peasley/Peisely/Piesley in Australia. Is that a deliberate change from Peasland ie an alias ? or is it actually pronunciation that lead to the  variations in what ends up being written?)

---

There are many factors, eg

- assimilation - names are influenced by other names and made to conform to patterns

- changes in spelling convention - eg the ea in Peasland would have been pronounced the Irish way, not the modern English way.

- different dialects have different sound systems.  A difference in sound that is significant in one dialect might not be heard at all by a speaker of a different dialect

The notion of an underlying true name doesn't always stand up.  Many people didn't know what their "name" was "supposed" to be.  Other languages reflect this better by saying "I call myself" or "they call me" rather than "my name is".

---

Absolutely agree, I  live in very rural France and have regular problems with my inability to distinguish some sounds, most unlike the 'proper' French I learned .  If it were the incumbent or curate filling in the register he might well be in a very similar situation. If it were a local ie the parish clerk, he might  try to write what he heard but be limited by his own abilities. I know of one who couldn't write his own name when he married a few years before becoming clerk.

There are many reasons for the variations but I think we all  probably have  some families that will be affected by variant names .Because of that I think any solution has to apply beyond those "project walls".