South African Roots Project members - Stem hier vir die projek riglyne !

Question

Hi SA Roots Members

Hi everyone We now have 53 member 

A warm welcome to you all and we are so very happy that you have joined this exiting project :-D 

We have added vote options on the issues we need to know what you all would like to be our guidelines, voting is anonymous and you only vote for the option you prefer (so no downvotes because this will make all votes worthless of course).  The vote options all have colored lines above them, to make it easier to find them between all conversation. 

Ons Het nou stem opsies bygevoeg sodat ons saam die projek riglyne kan bepaal, hierdie stemme is anoniem en jy stemt alleen vir die opsie die jou die mees aanspreekt

Die opsies almal het gekleurde lyne bo hulle, dit maak dit makliker om hulle te vind tussen al die gesprekke.

The templates we use in the beginning was changed due to a policy change. If you have noticed it and added the correct template great, if not will all members of the SA Roots project please....

1:  add the "new badge" to your personal profile by adding {{South African Roots}} 

This will enable you to go directly to the SA Roots page where you will find all the wonderful resources and other help pages and if you click on the yellow part it will bring you directly to the G2G discussion page for our project. Neat hey  :-))  

Now you are one click away from asking for help or any other question you would like to ask :-)

2: Add the different templates to the profiles you manage:

I am adding them here and they are self explanatory  We call them the needs templates : They give an indication what is still needed on the profile . Just copy and past them onto your very own scratch pad under my Wikitree and you will always be able to find them.  

{{South African Roots|Needs=Birth Record}}

{{South African Roots|Needs=LNAB}}

{{South African Roots|Needs=PPP}}

Happy hunting and watch this page for updates and more information and many thanks for all help, voting  and input !

Comments

No response to Middle name treat. Riglyne changed to no Middle name as there were no objections made by members.

Thanks R

---

Ek stem saam.

Dit gaan ons werk baie vergemaklik.

Transkripsie in die bio' s presies soos op die rekord en die LNAB soos op die transkripsie sonder die UTF-8 mits die LNAB vandag nog so gebruik word.

Geen middel name

 

---

Ek het nie duidelikheid nie - vir wat betref die SAR projek (nie die COGH nie) ... Susan begryp een ding, Ronel sê 'n ander, Louis weer iets anders.

Volgens wat ek begryp Susan, is dat die WikiTree algemene beleid bly geld (ons kan dit nie sommer verander nie) = LNAB presies soos op die dooprekord (of die offisiële EGGSA transkripsiie daarvan en nie FS nie, maar bijvoorbeeld eGGSA [Corney Keller byv..]). Die ander variasies in die current name field of aka velde.

Die transkripsies kom anyway in die bio's. Maar dit is nie 'n rede om bijvoorbeeld 'n van soos "Naudé" sonder die aksent op de e te PPP as dit so geskryf is op die dooprekord nie ... Met die middle names is ek ok any which way; dis nie vir my so 'n saak nie.

---

Dit is die punt, ja. Aksente wat deel van die van is, moet behoue bly. Aksente wat 'n skryfkonvensie is, nie. Dis eintlik net met die letter u wat daar met omsigtigheid te werk gegaan moet word. Is dit 'n oorspronklike umlaut (Müller, Schütte, ens) wat nou wel dikwels deesdae weggelaat word maar nogtans in daardie tyd gebruiklik was? Is dit bloot 'n merkie om die letter in handskrif van 'n n te onderskei? Die res van die doopregister gee dikwels 'n aanduiding van hoe die betrokker scriba te werk gaan.

---

Hi, 

If I get this right you want the LNAB protected exactly as it was written in the Baptism record, excluded the little 'wiggles' that just were added to distinguish the letters or showing if it was a u or the n,  but including the more important and just correct things like the umlaut like the one here ü or the accent lines above é which were showing how the name was pronounced ? I think that won't be a problem, so I think this can be added to or adjusted a bit in the rigtlyne voorstel Ronel ? 

Which is also a bit similar to what Susan proposes I think ? 

Transkripsie in die bio' s presies soos op die rekord en die LNAB soos op die transkripsie sonder die UTF-8 mits die LNAB vandag nog so gebruik word.

---

Philip ek begryp tenvolle wat albei van hulle se, en ek verstaan ook duidelik dat dit nie vir COGH geld nie, net vir SAR preode na 1806 :)

Dis reeds in die beleid ooreengekom dat LNAB's na 1806 in die transkripsie gespel sal word soos op die doop rekord (in die bio) maar in die LNAB die spelling is soos op die transkripsie sonder die UTF-8 codes mits die gebruik van die LNAB vandag nog gespel word met 'n  UTF-8 codes, bv: Naudé

:)

---

Dankie vir die uitleg almal (ook Bea). Maar wat ek nie begryp nie is dat Ronel die maatreël oor middle names bedoel, en jy oor die transkripsies van die lnab in die bio's praat ...!?!

---

Is die Middel name nie die res van jou geboorte name nie? AS jy drie name het dan kom die laaste twee by middle name, wat belangrik is.  Of is ek alweer besig om van die wa af te val?? Help my maar reg want ek wil nie ons "boeke" of "bome" deurmekaar maak nie1

Groetnis

Anne-Marie van der Walt

---

The Middle name is purely an American concept and is

often confused with second or third names. Despite 

their relatively long existence in North America, 

the phrase "middle name" was not recorded until 

1835, in the periodical Harvardiana. 

---

Susan, jy's reg. Maar die hele diskussie oor middle names het 'n tydjie terug ontstaan (elders op WikiTree) en soos Louis aangee, dit het nie voor 1835 bestaan nie. Tweede en derde name wél.

Dit was waar die vraag van Ronel ook oorgegaan het. Nie oor transkripsies van de LNAB nie. Maar daar het dus nou ook duidelikheid oor gekom. Ek refereer na Bea en Dirk Laurie se opmerkinge.

Answer 1

I would like to propose formally for SA Roots (CoGH can do as it pleases) that:

1. The LNAB be taken from a document written as close as possible to the time of birth (e.g. civilian birth register, baptismal register, family bible kept by the parents).

2. Failing that, all documents available from the person's lifetime and directly attributable to that individual (e.g. will, signature) should be taken into account and an informed decision made.

3. Failing that, all documents not attributable to the person (newspaper reports, name on an envelope addressed to the person, death notice, gravestone) should be taken into account and an informed decision made.

4. A distinction be made between a transcribed name (which appears in the biography) and the LNAB to be entered into the database.

5. A conscious effort be made to represent the LNAB in the ASCII character set, since any deviation makes the URL for that person's profile illegible.

6. Exceptions to the previous rule may be made at the profile manager's discretion, not enforced by the project management, and argued on G2G if necessary.

7. Profiles to be protected only when there is a clear indication that changes are being made to and fro by people undoing each other's edits.

Comments

Thanks for the proposal Dirk and it's of course still only a proposal, I chose it for best answer now so it sticks out, and makes the G2G more easy to follow and of course because it's great to have a proposal here. 

I will add the proposal or personal preferences Dirk le Roux made here as well, so you all can let us know which you like best, if you agree/disagree or if perhaps you have other ideas ? And of course a huge thank you for all of you who responded here already, it's really great to have some help and input from our members for these decisions !

Dirk le Roux added his Personal votes as follows:

2.1. In the transcription, definitely. In the name fields, I will adhere to whatever is decided. In favour of "yes" here is continuity with the CoGH project's policy.

2.2. In the transcription, no. In the name fields, I will adhere to whatever is decided. In favour of "yes" here is WikiTree engine's search difficulties with strange characters.

2.3. Yes, for current last name, and if no primary records exist for LNAB, then I would use the name as found in later records for that as well.

2.4. Yes

3.1. Yes, go Dutch if the person has a Dutch or Afrikaans background or have been assimilated into those cultures.

3.2. Yes, when accounting cultural preferences, if possible, indicates middle names in the middle names field is appropriate.

4.1. Yes, use the last name that the person herself used at the end.

4.2. If a husband's last name was adopted, by all means! Where the woman kept using her own last name, an argument in favour of using the last husband's last name is that it will improve the likelihood of finding existing profile/s for the same individual (as both the LNAB field and last husband's last name in the Current Last Name fields are searchable in WikiTree). My personal argument against that idea is that often a lady was married to more than one husband, and often the last husband was an 'old-age' relationship, which produced no or very few offspring and in a genealogical sense then in such a case, the likelihood of someone searching for the woman under an earlier husband (who produced most offspring)'s last name is higher.

And Philips proposal:

a) I understood the policy of WikiTree has always been to take the LNAB as written on the baptism / birth record (including diacritics / UTF-8) and not standardize the spellings of the LNAB. The standard spellings (for that period in that particular person's lifetime) should be either in the current name box or aka'd.

b) The Dutch issue with not knowing a middle name is a semantic issue - the US know the other names after the very first name as "middle name[s]" and has created a field for that. The Dutch does not understand that and adds all the multiple second third [etc.] names after the first name in the same field. Now there was a G2G on this some time ago; the results as far as how this influences searches on names in WikiTree was inconclusive.

Now in my humble opinion in the case of a) we still follow the general WikiTree policy b) we also follow the US-understanding of the use of the middle name fields.

This has the benefit that after 31 Dec 1806 when the break between the {{Dutch_Cape_Colony}} project and the {{South African Roots}} happens (for convenience' sake), there will not be different rules to abide by. Anyhow thousands of profiles by now has the middle names already in the field the US has created for that name.

---

@ Philip 

By Yvette Hoitink Quick Tip - Dutch people - No middle names  we do understand, we just really really don't have or use them ;) 

---

I have developed (but not retrospectively applied to older profiles) the following practice:

1. Middle name used for the surname of the ancestor after whom the person is named, if any. Else none. E.g. my Laurie grandfather's first name is entered as "Dirk Pieter" and his middle name as "van Zijl".

2. If this surname is passed on to another generation, it joins the first names. E.g. if I had got that surname, my first name would have been "Dirk Pieter van Zijl".

3. If over several generations the family comes to use that surname to create a double-barreled surname, it goes there instead, at that stage, e.g. "Janse van Rensburg" or "te Water Naudé".

I like my method, but would not inflict it on anyone, and even less would I suffer project leaders editing my ancestors' profiles in order to inflict their method on me, so I suggest that we do not prescribe any policy on this one.

---

I think this is about the use of the name fields Dirk ? (so if names are added to the first name field or to use a middle name ?

For the Dutch Roots project we use (for all Dutch (Roots) profiles, the no middle name option, simply because we  never had, and still don't have or use one. And we have our name fields and how to use them explained a little in the Glossary Netherlands and in the Nederlands Portaal we have it explained a bit more Naamvelden Nederland

Now for me personally it's fine if people use the name fields for their own direct family members however they prefer.

But it's harder if we have not decided anything about this (so if there's no guideline at all) for the older profiles, ancestors we often will find we have in common with more members and who we need to share, it doesn't have to, if we were all easygoing and not making a fuss about these things, but unfortunately.. as we all know, it can become quite a problem if one person wants it done this and the other in a different way sometimes, so that's why we need to have things clear . Perhaps you would like to start a vote option (just like the LNAB one) for this as well ? Voting seems to be the easiest way, it's anonymous so everyone can add their opinion and vote :)

---

My LNAB proposal included a component that at a certain point the profile manager, who often is a family member and at least has a certain interest in the matter, should be allowed some discretion.

I feel more so about the middle name. There are pragmatic issues, for example if you don't put them in the FNAB, you have a harder time telling apart all the Johannes Smits on your watchlist, and there are dogmatic issues, i.e.  how much of the culture of modern South Africans is still very Dutch, how much is rather more English, and to what extent are we spiritual descendants of Hendrik Biebouw formerly Bibault, a young man of mixed descent credited with first claiming "Ik ben een Afrikaander."

Being prescriptive about this is good and well for CoGH — die Kaap was nog Hollands. For post-1806 profiles, it means taking a stance. That stance will please some and annoy others. That's why I say laissez faire, just let it happen. If we get to the situation where those hypothetical quarrelling descendants start arguing, then project management should step in. Not before.

Same thing with surnames of married women. In CoGH it simply is anachronistic to write a woman's first name with her husband's surname. In present-day South Africa, a woman who marries has to take special steps if she wishes to retain her maiden name. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the matter was in a state of flux. Again I say, for SA Roots, laissez faire.

I don't think we should vote on issues that may never concern us. Moenie die bobbejaan agter die bult gaan haal nie.

---

Dirk if everyone agrees, and concerning the first - middle name fields or the married name, I have no problem with this, to have a guideline to prevent problems, we could of course also just decide, in case of a disagreement, members will have to start a G2G where they can ask other project members to vote for one of both options ? This way it always is a democratic decision.. 

Dirk, as almal hom hierin kan vind en voor wat betref die voor-middel naam velde en getroude naam, ek het geen probleem met hierdie. 

Om tog 'n richtlijn te hê, om probleme te voorkom, kan ons natuurlik ook besluiten af ​​afspreken dat by 'n meningsverschil lede sal 'n G2G moet begin, waar hulle ander lede kan vra om te stem vir een van beide opsies. Op hierdie manier is dit altyd 'n Democratisch besluit...

For the LNAB we now have two options, so all members now can vote. Of course if there is proof a LNAB was changed or different, for those cases we can always start a G2G and we can discuss things or also vote for it, if you and other members would like it better ?

Vir die LNAB ons hê nou twee opsies, sodat al die lede nou kan stem. Natuurlik as daar is 'n bewys 'n LNAB was verander of anders, vir daardie gevalle kan ons altyd 'n G2G begin en ons kan dinge bespreek of ook stem vir dit, as jy en ander lede dit beter vin ?

---

Hi,

First of all I would like to have any references to how the CoGH project do their PPP'ng or reference to anything else done by them to be referred to their pages and our Help pages should only reflect the guidelines for profiles with a birth after 1806. My reasons being that The Dutch Cape Colony existed before the SAR project and so as to prevent possible conflict or an assertion that we prescribe to them.

Regarding the transcription of the LNAB
I prefer the wording of WikiTree in this regard

"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."

Common sense should prevail that where a transcription is being made from an older alphabet - the new alphabet should be used. If you are sure the author of a document accidentally left out  a dot on an i or a j, you should transcribe it correct with a dot and make a note of it in the bio. That way other transcribers in ten or fifty years will know what you did and why you did it.

The preferred name and current last name fields should be used to correct "funny" spelling of names so that to the names they would have used at the time. This was brought into WikiTree to make these profiles searchable where the LNAB shows a "funny" transcription.

The honor code should be used as to resolve disputes.

Point 4 has no logical meaning. What type of distinction is being referred to? What about the current last name and Preferred name fields? Isn't that the names you would use to write a biography?

Point 5: I object to just the use of the ASCII character set. My experience with Dirk indicates that he is very exact when he suggests something. The ASCII character set has only 127 characters(or was that 129 - can't remember). The point being that none of these characters has any accents, colon's etc. Those characters were only included in the Extended ASCII character set to a limited extent. We have a diverse ethnicity in South Africa. What is going to happen to for instance the spelling of names of Bantu peoples?. Example the use of characters like  ḓ, ṱ, ḽ, ṋ, ṅ, 

A URL is a url. What does it matter if you can read it in plain language or not? 

Point 6. I do not approve of just the use of the ASCII character set as such disputes should be handled in accordance of the Honor code and a G2G discussion if needed. It is not the project or profile managers privilege.

Point 7 This wording places a limitation that only profiles being changed to and fro can be PPP'd. as such I object There are other profiles for example those older than 200 years, notables and profiles that can be PPP'd at the discretion of the leadership.

First name Field

I vote for all names in the first name field because I have yet to see a government birth registration form that uses the middle name feature. It as been a few years, maybe they changed it, but last time the forms only had surname and First name sections. No middle name sections. It appears that the official position is no middle name.

  

---

Thanks for the proposals and your view on all of this Louis, did you notice and vote for the LNAB option you prefer already ?

 (you can find both options at the bottom of this G2G)

And Louis, Dirk and everyone who is following this, we can add options for some of the other issues as well if you all would like ? Just let us know what you think is the best way to come to a decision. (guideline we use for our project.)

---

I am not replying to the most recent post, but to the one by Louis.

The first paragraph seems to be about the Help Afrikaans page. Since it is a Wiki page, those points have a greater chance of being edited into the page if posted there as public comments.

The intended logical meaning of Point 4 is that there should be one rule for a transcription and another for a database name. I.e. one should NOT copy from the transcription and paste it in the name field.

When you transcribe, you try to render the handwritten document as accurately as your skill can make it. Therefore transcriptions belong in the biography where any WIki genealogist can edit them, since nowadays, with UTF-8, much closer renderings than before are possible. For example, Rijnsbùrgh is a transcription that was closest when grave accents on selected vowels were available, but we now have breve accents on anything and can do Ry̆nsbŭrgh, which is much closer to the handwriting.

When you enter a database name (LNAB or FNAB) you want WikiTree to be able to find that profile when some reasonable approximation of the name is entered. For that purpose, Rijnsburgh is best, because "ij" is a well-known way of representing the Dutch long y in print, and the fact that the name definitely was not spelt Rensburg on that occasion is respected.

You are right about ASCII, I most definitely do mean that, but note my phrasing: A conscious effort be made to represent… I don't mean ASCII only MUST be used, I mean when it is deviated from, it is for a cogent reason, such as that the "common and correct spelling" of the name at the time required it.

Finally, PPP. It is a tool designed to resolve conflict, not a stamp of quality for a beautifully finished product. I would be among the first to argue that WIkiTree should have such a stamp and that project leaders should have the privilege of bestowing it (in fact, I am willing to start a general G2G on it). But read the requirements for PPP: it is a disciplinary measure first and foremost.

Project protection should be used only when profiles need protection — because they are commonly-shared, frequently-duplicated, subject to confusion, etc.

There must be some sort of controversy or duplication problem, or reasonable expectation that there will be. (My emphasis.)

 

Answer 2

Woohoo thank you Ronel and for all of you who would like to, you can of course ask questions or discuss things in your own language here, which, just like everything else and our wonderful project, is neat as well eeh ;) 

The South African Roots Project team has been working really hard and has done a great job, they also added some great helppages in English and of course in Afrikaans also, where a lot, if not all, is explained. 

But of course if there's something you still miss or would like to see added, changed or are wondering about something and so on, please ask and add it here, your help and input is important and really appreciated !

So check out the helppages and the South African Roots Project  to see if it's all clear, we also have some sub projects already that you might be interested in.  

Ons kan hier dus ook die Projek riglyne en werkswyse bespreken met sy Allen en vastleggen, sodat dit duidelik is vir almal en daar later geen misverstanden oor ontstaan

Thanks for joining and all help and input everyone, enjoy and have a wonderful weekend !

Answer 3

Hi everyone, 

Dirk started a few interesting G2G's, with some points that of course are great and what we were hoping to discuss here, so to make it more easy we can all add and find what we decide for the project in just one place I added it here +some extra points, hope it's ok Dirk? 

1. Ek wou iets op Help Afrikaans skryf oor ons riglyne ten opsigte van die geboortevan, want dis 'n area waar projekte die reg het om hulle eie reëls te maak, wat nie noodwendig presies soos WikiTree se algemene reëls is nie. Toe kom ek agter ons het nog nie so iets nie. Ons moet dit nog maak, en ons moet almal se opinies hieroor hê, al is net "Stem saam met Oom Daantjie".
Kyk 'n bietjie na Help Afrikaans en gee jou mening.

2. In a project where it is routine practice to PPP a profile if the spelling of the LNAB is nonstandard, should there not be a few commonsense guidelines about accents? Like, for example, "If the name is an Afrikaans/French/German/Swedish/Polish one, only use accents that occur in Afrikaans/ French/ German/ Swedish/Polish?" or "Take into account the way the name was commonly spelt in that community at the time of birth." 

Any ideas, preferences for what to use for LNAB you would like to add, we of course would like to hear from you, so just add it here . :) 

3. Multiple first names -middle names, many people have multiple first names, now the Dutch for example never used or knew a middle name (we still don't), so we will add all names or the first name including the patronymic if the person had a last name, to the first name field (which often in matches or when you save will give a warning there are multiple names in the first name field or something) we will just save anyway, because for Dutch people this is not a mistake but perfectly correct. 

How about the naming fields for South African people, would you prefer to use middle names or more similar to the Dutch ?

And of course if you have something you would like to discus related to the project, just add it here , we want to make sure you all feel happy about the project guidelines and way we work. 

Comments

wauw Ronel you have been quite busy eeh, well I'm glad members responded and voted if it's by mail or G2G, and for all members, you all are equally important and member of the project, so all votes count, we want to make absolutely sure the guidelines are very clear and you all (the majority) can agree and feel comfortable with what's decided for the South African Roots Project here and now :)

So thanks everyone for your input and votes !

---

Excelent work and interesting results, thanks Ronel!

---

All in a day's work Bea :-)))

Thanks for doing all the hard work here  !!!

---

Plesier Dirk

Nogals interessant ja voorwaar 

Pretty interesting yes indeed

---

Groot guns om te vra.

Is daar iemand wat goed tweetalig is, wat bereid is om die riglyne ook in Afrikaans uit te stip en hier te pos asseblief?

Ons belofte was dat dit 'n Afrikaanse forum sal wees :-B

Ek dink dit sal dus wonderlik wees as ons persone wat nie goed tweetalig is nie, en Afrikaans verkies, en ook graag aan die gesprek wil deelneem, ook kan akkommodeer...... ?

Ek het geen beswaar as ons die gesprek in beide Engels en Afrikaans (ten volle tweetalig) voer nie, maar ek voel oorheersend Engels is onregverdig teenoor die meerderheid.

Dankie by voorbaat

Ronel

---

Daar is veral twee punte ter sprake.

1. Hoe kodeer ons die geboortevan?
2. Met hoe 'n streng hand behoort projekleiers op te tree?

Daar is geen dispuut oor die punt dat die geboortevan so getrou as moontlik uit die dokument naaste aan die geboorte van die kind geneem moet word nie. Ek glo ook nie daar is 'n dispuut daaroor dat die transkripsie in die biografie alle middele binne die vermoë van die transkribeerder, insluitend die volle mag van UTF-8, behoort te gebruik nie.

Die meningsverskil lê in die interpretasie van "so getrou as moontlik" vir die van wat jy onder "Last Name at Birth" intik wanneer jy aan 'n profiel werk. Die twee uiterstes is:

* Gebruik net die letters van die alfabet en die leestekens wat op enige rekenaar se sleutelbord voorkom.
* Knip-en-plak daardie getranskribeerde naam net so.

Dis ongeveer Opsie 1 en Opsie 2 onderskeidelik, hieronder. In albei gevalle vermoed ek wat ons werklik gaan doen, 'n rapsie meer genuanseerd gaan wees as die uiterstes. (My voorstel was bv ongeveer die eerste, maar met diskresie toegestaan aan die profielbestuurder.)

Wat die ander punt betref, is die twee uiterstes:

* Projekleiers moet slegs ingryp as dit duidelik nodig is omdat 'n stryery ontstaan het waar twee mense mekaar se redigering ongedaan maak.

* Projekleiers moet oor 'n breë spektrum profiele voorkomend beskerm deur die projek die alleenbestuurder te maak.

Ons is nog nie gevra om op dieselfde manier hieroor te stem nie.

---

Duidend dankies Dirk

---

Mag ik wel zeggen, mensen van 45+ geschoold met Afrikaans als moedertaal hebben bv De Kleine Johannes of Koning van Katoren als voorgeschreven boek moeten lezen en zijn zelfs erover geëxamineerd, en die hebben dus in theorie geen groter vrees voor het lezen van het Nederlands dan voor het Engels.

---

In my opinie is die "middle name" probleem nie soveel 'n kulturele probleem as 'n tegniese probleem nie. Dit is doodeenvoudig vir databasis doeleindes.  Die persoon se eerste naam gaan in die "first name" veld en al die ander name in die "middle name" veld.

Ek dink nie 'n mens moet hierdie terme letterlik interpreteer nie.

---

Dis wat ek ook sê Leon, dankie!

Answer 4

Only vote for the option you prefer (LNAB -Last name at Birth)

Option 1. (e.g. civilian birth register, baptismal register, family bible kept by the parents)

Die “LNAB” (last name at birth) presies soos geskryf in die geboorte of doop register maar sonder die “UTF-8” kodes

UTF-8 kodes is die woorde met al die goetertjies op die letters,  byvoorbeeld:  û ô ê ŕ ś ï ŏ 

The last name exactly as it appears in the Baptism or Birth record but without the UTF-8 characters. 

2. Failing that, all documents available from the person's lifetime and directly attributable to that individual (e.g. will, signature) should be taken into account and an informed decision made.

3. Failing that, all documents not attributable to the person (newspaper reports, name on an envelope addressed to the person, death notice, gravestone) should be taken into account and an informed decision made.

Comments

now has 4 votes from Ronel's post and correspondence, but I think to stay fair we can only count the votes we receive in this G2G. So if you voted by  email, voting here is anonymous and we really need everyone to vote the options they prefer here now..many thanks in advance !

Answer 5

Only vote for the option you prefer (LNAB -Last name at Birth) 

Option 2. (e.g. civilian birth register, baptismal register, family bible kept by the parents)

Die “LNAB” (last name at birth) presies soos geskryf in die geboorte of doop register met die “UTF-8” kodes

The last name exactly as it appears in the Baptism or Birth record including the UTF-8 characters. 

2. Failing that, all documents available from the person's lifetime and directly attributable to that individual (e.g. will, signature) should be taken into account and an informed decision made.

3. Failing that, all documents not attributable to the person (newspaper reports, name on an envelope addressed to the person, death notice, gravestone) should be taken into account and an informed decision made.

Comments

Has 1 vote from Ronel's post and correspondence but I think to stay fair we can only count the votes we receive in this G2G. So if you voted by  email, voting is anonymous and we really need everyone to vote the options they prefer here in this G2G now..many thanks in advance !

Answer 6

Hi everyone , we now will add vote options on the issues we need to know what you all would like to be our guidelines, voting is anonymous and you only vote for the option you prefer (so no downvotes because this will make all votes worthless of course).

We already have started this for the LNAB so if you all could vote what you prefer it would be great, and please check in here a few times this week, because we will add vote options for more subjects we need to have a guideline /rule for .

Thanks for all the help and input and votes, it's really appreciated !

Answer 7

The ready acceptance in many replies that UTF-8 characters are OK in transcriptions prompted me to try my hand at actually doing it on the marriage register entry where the Janse van Rensburg family (from which I, too, descend) started. I eventually came up with:

:1708 Johannis Viljon van Cabo jongm, hwd
:de 14 Aug. Catharina Snijman van Cabo jonge d.
:ditto. Claas Janse van Renſbu͑rg, hwd Aaltie
:Schalk van de Caab.

It took me a long time to find out how to make that particular swish above the u, and it would be terribly tedious to have to do that sort of exercise every time a letter as common as u is encountered. That made me wonder what procedures are followed by people who produce great quantities of transcriptions from old Dutch manuscripts. The website Gekaapte Brieven explains it succinctly.

Vir dié wat bietjie huiwerig is met die lees van selfs moderne Nederlands, som ek op.

* Daar word 'n sogenaamde diplomatiese transkripsie gemaak, waarvolgens die oorspronklike so getrou moontlik gevolg word. Onder andere, as die oorspronklike op 'n nuwe reël begin, maak die transkripsie ook so.

* Daar word in ag geneem wat die skrywer bedoel het in gevalle waar dit onseker is watter letters daar staan, maar spelfoute en glipse word nie verbeter nie.

* Diakritiese tekens word oorgeneem as dit 'n spesifieke betekenis het (bv Franse name en woorde) maar nie as dit gebruik word om letters met verwarbare vorm te onderskei nie. Die voorbeeld van 'n strepie of iets dergeliks bo 'n u word spesifiek in daardie verband genoem.

* Wanneer dit onseker is of woorde los of vas geskryf is, word die moderne manier van doen gevolg.

* Afkortings wat algemeen in gebruik was, word uitgeskryf.

Ek dink dus tog, wanneer Bea daarby uitkom om ons te laat stem oor hoe transkripsies moet lyk, ek gaan stem dat ons nie 'n lat vir ons eie gat moet pluk nie. :-)

Ek het ook gaan kers opsteek by Corney Keller, wat 18de-eeuse doopregisters vir eGGSA transkribeer. Hy volg wesenlik dieselfde reëls as Gekaapte Brieven.

Comments

Dirk  

Bogenoemde werf gebruik nie enige kodes op hul transkripsies nie, omdat dit die soekfunksie opfoeter en tydrowend is. 

Kan ons dus vra dat die transkripsie gedoen word so na as korrek as menslik moontlik (soos gelees op die betrokke rekords), maar dat die kodes slegs aangewend word vir die dokument wat die Laaste Naam By Geboorte moet bepaal. 

Nou is die latjie baie korter en sal dalk minder seer slaan :-)) 

Bea in short that the codes only be applicable to the transcription (in Bios) of the document that would determined the LNAB 

Some codes are hard to find, and will cause extra work.

Ter Inligting: 

Aan almal wat nie weet nie - meeste kodes kan verkry word vanaf "Character Maps" wat deel is van Windows.  Ek het geen ondervinding van selfone of ander toestelle nie. Jammer kan nie daar help nie. 

 

---

Weet jy, Ronel, hoe wonderlik UTF-8 ook al is, dit sal altyd net 'n benadering tot die handskrif bly. 'n Beter benadering, weliswaar, as wat Windows 1252 was, wat op sy beurt weer nader kom as ASCII — maar dis nie die foto nie.

As ons nou verskriklik baie moeite insit om die transkripsie van 'n skyn van volmaaktheid te voorsien, en dit boonop juis net vir die dokument doen waarop die LNAB gebaseer is, gaan lui mense (jammer, ek projekteer maklik my eie ondeugde) dink hulle hoef nie na die foto te gaan kyk nie, Deugsame Dirk of Behulpsame Bea of Phantastiese Philip het dit mos al gedoen.

Destyds, toe ek my transkripsie van die Allert van Zijl-familiebybel wou oplaai, het Philip koue water gegooi en gesê ons het dit nie nodig nie, mense moet na die foto's self gaan kyk. Ek was vies, maar hy is natuurlik reg. Geen transkripsie is 'n substituut vir die foto nie.

---

Hi Dirk

Ek praat van die transkripsie in die Bios wat die lede vanaf die foto self maak om die LNAB te bepaal.

Die een wat so gedoen is dat die skakel deel is van die transkripsie en jou direk na die oorspronklik foto dmv die skakel neem as jy daarop klik.

Die transkripsie wat die kodes van die LNAB insluit in die Bios en wat van die LNAB in die Dataveld sal verskil  wat nie die kodes insluit nie so u dit die finale besluit wees.  

(Maak die bespreking en ooreenkoms van hoe die LNAB gesien moet  makliker )

As 'n persoon nie 'n probleem met die LNAB het nie sal dit nie nodig wees om na die foto te kyk nie, en mag hulle maar lui wees.

My skrywe gaan oor die "kode lat" wat ons gaan pluk en om die lat te beperk tot die LNAB, in plaas daarvan om alle dokumente wat van belang is vir die profiel, by die "kode lat" te betrek :-D

Onseker

Het ek en jy mekaar misverstaan?

---

Ronel, ek dink ek weet wat jy bedoel, en ek gaan nie my siening op iemand anders probeer afdwing nie. Maar ek gaan ook nie verder op daardie manier probeer transkripsies maak nie. Die werk is reeds swaar genoeg, ek moet nie ook nog moet sukkel met "Character Maps" nie. (Terloops, 'n uitdaging: vind u͑ op daardie skermpies. Dis nou 'n u met iets soos 'n linkerhakie op.)

---

Ek het gaan uitvind wat die mense doen wat groot hoeveelhede transkripsies vir eGGSA skryf, en 'n hele blad daaroor geskryf. Let wel, dis net 'n beskrywing van wat daardie mense doen, nie 'n voorskrif vir wat ons moet doen nie.

---

Dirk

Jy het jouself uitstekend van jou taak gekwyt.

Goeie navorsing en baie ure se werk

 Hartlik bedank Dirk

Answer 8

Only vote for the option you prefer (First -Middle name fields + Married name)

1. Concerning the first - middle name fields or the married name, to have a guideline to prevent problems, should we decide, in case of a disagreement, members will have to start a G2G where they can ask other project members to vote for one of both options ? 

1. Voor wat betref die voor-middel naam velde en getroude naam. Om tog 'n richtlijn te hê, om probleme te voorkom, sal ons besluiten af ​​afspreken dat by 'n meningsverschil lede sal 'n G2G moet begin, waar hulle ander lede kan vra om te stem vir een van beide opsies ?

Answer 9

Only vote for the option you prefer (First-Middle name fields + Married name)

1. Concerning the first - middle name fields or the married name, we also need more specific guidelines

1. Voor wat betref die voor-middel naam velde en getroude naam, moet ons ook meer spesifieke riglyne het

Comments

Since this option is running marginally ahead on votes right now, I'm adding my comment here. I don't mind whether we vote for specific guidelines, as long as those guidelines do not require compulsory use of the middle name field.

Hier is die rede hoekom: as jou profiel een van die semi-private opsies is, en jou voorkeurnaam is nie jou eerste naam nie, lyk dit koddig op die openbare aansig. Daardie middelnaam word 'n voorletter. Bv.

Last name at birth: van Zyl

First name: John

Middle name: Laurie

Preferred name: Laurie

Dit vertoon as Laurie L. van Zyl op enige vlak van Privaat. Eers by Publiek word dit John Laurie (Laurie) van Zyl.

Aan die ander kant:

First name: John Laurie

No middle name

Preferred name: Laurie

Dir vertoon as Laurie van Zyl op alle vlakke van Privaat.

 

---

Dirk,

Presies om die rede gebruik ek nie "Middle name" in my profiele nie. Benewens dit gebruik ek "Prefered name" om variasies soos wat soms op sterftekennisse voorkom te dokumenteer, om opspoorbaarheid en identifisering makliker te kan maak.

Answer 10

 Only vote for the option you prefer (PPP + Projek Profiel)

2. PPP + add project profile:  only profiles of 200 years and older and younger ones only if needed (if for example the LNAB wasn't consistent or changed or if there's a high risk profiles are duplicated or if the connection with parents also needs protection)  The active profile manager also stays manager, but not more than one + project profile, all others stay co-manager but will move to the trusted list.

2. PPP + projek profiel toevoegen: net profiele van 200 jaar en ouer en jonger mense net as dit nodig is (as byvoorbeeld die LNAB was nie steeds in ooreenstemming of verandert of as daar 'n hoë risiko is die profiele is gedupliseer of as ok die connectie met die ouers moet word n beskermd) Die aktiewe profiel bestuurder bly ook bestuurder, maar nie meer as een + die projek profiel as medebestuurder, die ander bestuurder (s) bly mede-bestuurder maar gaan na de vertrou lys

Comments

What I like about being profile manager is that people who have important contributions like new family members to make must contact me. I know who they are, they tell me what their interest in the profile is, we exchange one or two e-mails.

If I am only on the trusted list, I can see a record of who did what once a week. It tends to get swamped among the many other things in that e-mail.

I don't mind having other managers besides myself, as long as of course they don't remove me. In fact, once I lose interest in a profile (my wife's great-aunt's second husband, for example) I am only too thankful that there is someone to whim I can hand the baton and I may well remove myself.

---

I understand what you mean Dirk because the SAR profiles are younger, it's of course quite different from profiles that are pre-1811 and that are and will have to be shared by many many descendants sometimes. I totally understand it's nice to get in touch with others and receive email from people who are interested or perhaps related to you or someone in your family, so don't worry it looks like most members prefer this option also. 

And I found something just today you perhaps might like.. 

As I tried to explain in the other G2G, the project profiles, if they are added as manager or to the trusted list, is creating a Project watchlist and Project feed, which makes it possible we all can watch over, work on, keep track of and share our ancestors and also make sure they will always have a project and project members who care for and watch over them for as long as WT exists, so they never will be orphaned.

Now I have added a little something including the links to the Project Watch list and the Project feed to the project page (Goals), the feed you can compare a bit with the project Google group (in the group we can also see read/posts so it's easier to manage the project and communicate),. So for those of you interested just take a look and if you didn't already request to be added to the Google group it's really making our WT lives and managing the projects a lot easier ;)  

---

There is something I never quite caught, This Google group. We're supposed to join it somehow? We're not automatically members of it if we have a badge saying SARoots? So what exactly is it that we still have to do?

---

No you're not automatically a member of the Google group, in our case Susan is the manager of the SAR Project profile Google Group, so as soon as she receives a request she will add our members to the group. 

Nee, jy is nie outomaties 'n lid van die Google-groep, in ons geval is Susan die bestuurder van die SAR-projek profiel Google groep, sodra sy 'n versoek ontvang sal sy in staat wees om ons lede by te voeg aan die groep.

We have added a link to the how to join content of our project, (see point 5) if you click on it Susan will receive a message and she will add you to the group . You can check if you click on it if you are added already or not, if you see this: WikiTree's South African Roots Project Privé gedeeld + 30 van de 35 onderwerpen (0 ongelezen) you're already in, if you don't it will say request access of wordt lid or something. 

Ons het 'n skakel by die hoe om aan te sluit inhoud van ons projek, (sien punt 5) as jy op die skakel klik, sal Susan 'n boodskap ontvang en sy sal jou by dra tot die groep. Jy kan kyk as jy op dit klik as jy reeds bygevoeg was of nie, as jy klik en sien hierdie: WikiTree se Suid-Afrikaanse Roots projek Privé gedeeld + 30 van die 35 onderwerpe (0 ongelezen) is jy reeds toegevoeg, as jy dit nie sien sal et sê versoek vir toegang of word lid of iets.

(Google translate so forgive me if there are mistakes ;) )

---

Susan and Ronel both are on a vacation now, so they will check in every once in a while, but it can take a little longer and this is also why we now are a bit on hold. As soon as they have returned we will be able to make a final proposal (or two) and let our members decide which one they prefer..

Answer 11

Only vote for the option you prefer (PPP + Projek Profiel)

 2. PPP + add project profile:  only profiles of 200 years and older and younger ones only if needed (if for example the LNAB wasn't consistent or changed or if there's a high risk profiles are duplicated or if the connection with parents also needs protection) The Project Profile is going to be added as manager, all others stay co-manager but will move to the trusted list. 

2. PPP + projek profiel toevoeging: net profiele van 200 jaar en ouer en jonger mense net as dit nodig is (as byvoorbeeld die LNAB was nie steeds in ooreenstemming of verandert of as daar 'n hoë risiko is die profiele is gedupliseer of as ok die connectie met die ouers moet word n beskermd ) Die projek profiel word bestuurder, die ander bestuurder (s) bly mede-bestuurder maar gaan na de vertrou lys

Comments

This one has my vote perhaps with the possibility of "adoption" of bio's (not the profiles as such) in a sense that one take's care of it's "curation" in a costodial fashion, as here with this lemma of the http://resources.huygens.knaw.nl/vrouwenlexicon/lemmata/data/christiaens of the KNAW (Huygens ING and the OGC of the UU) in the Netherlands.

Also, my objection to having one manager stay on as active on the PPP'd profiles along with the project manager, is at a certain critical moment it will become an untenable situation. Too many Kruger descendants for example, and even people descendent from Oom Paul but now with different LN'sAB, might have equal right to be active manager of his personal profile.

That is why the trusted list was invented for in the first place.

Also - remember - an active member can "remove" the Project as Active Custodial manager and then "claim" the sole active managership of that profile. It has happened in the COGH project before.

---

Taking someone off as project manager without even consulting him about it (which also has happened in the COGH project before) in order to get in before he does that to the project is tantamount to saying "the project does not trust you".

If we can't trust each other, we need to get out of WikiTree right now. He did.

---

In this case (my comment above) this is not an applicable argument. It is not about trust. Yes, in the past people have been surprised (one out of the ten) that they have been removed. And of those one in ten left. For other reasons as well.

We have since implemented a policy of posting comments (including links to the reasoning why). People are well informed in the COGH project.

The project trusts that people will see the benefit of working within a collaborative project. The only rules are those that facilitate our communal editing - in that we all need to be able to "read" the others editing contributions and understand them. There are rules for spelling and grammar in all languages (in order to make communication possible, to create meaning and sense). It is the same for WikiTree.

There are many reasons why people leave WikiTree. This is certainly one of the lesser reasons.

---

My problem is that the way project territories are delimited seems to allow the project to say (taking CoGH as an example only because the rule is so easy): "Aha! Born at the Cape in 1789! This profile is OURS!" Then slap a PPP on it, never mind that hardly anyone except the original profile creator has ever worked on it, and kick him off.

I can see that it makes sense (even though I do not agree that the plusses outweigh the minuses) for CoGH. No living person's grandfather is involved. Probably not even the grandfather's grandfather.

But I don't want it for SARoots. The brief is simply too broad. It's basically everyone. What would stop the project from claiming both my grandfathers (I've put in some serious work on both) and just dumping me?

---

I agree on the latter Dirk. For the COGH project it works, for the SAR it might not.