I think the redirects are a great idea. Cast my vote with R.J., Ellen, and Pamela. Whether that can be done efficiently and cost-effectively may be the issue.
But having recently registered a surname with the Guild of One-Name Studies, I can comment that they will accept a limited number of variants (no more than five is recommended) at the time of registration. I don't know if it's automated or manual, but each variant--though they're entered in a single string, not separate fields--seems to be checked against the existing database and, if it's concluded the variant is valid and not in use elsewhere, it's assigned as "taken" to the new study.
The surname I registered is not terribly common, but has on the order of 40 variants that have appeared in documents over the course of 700 years. The day after I received registration confirmation, I went to one-name.org and searched for the variants I had listed. They show up with the title, "The XYZ Surname is a Registered Study," with information below about the primary study encompassing that spelling.
I believe there's solid logic behind handling it that way. The old adage about too many cooks in the kitchen. Done properly, a study should be planned, with scope and goals and methodology defined. Having been, many years ago, a certified project manager, I decided a one-name study was not a project, but should be approached more like an academic research initiative. But central to either is that the working parts are strategically defined and managed, and the moving pieces working and communicating in joint-step.
I do think we need to figure out how to prevent duplication of ONS efforts. I can document precisely, in origin and etymology, how some of my study's surname variants came to be, and can also debunk as unrelated some that have in the past been assumed to be variants. I think it will end up a disservice to WikiTree if overlapping--even conflicting--ONS are registered.
And something else I've seen, but consider it a parking-lot issue for now, are individuals' profiles that have been set as protected by geographic or period-history studies. How do we reconcile that going forward? It isn't as simple as allowing a ONS leader to be trusted for profiles protected by period-history study; the poor ONS leader--or vice versa--can't be expected to be the only one in the ONS allowed to edit.
Genealogy is about family and lineage. I find it difficult to believe that a geographic project or a period-history project could override a one-name study in priority on a genealogy website.
In my case, before I created my WikiTree ONS (and I haven't posted in G2G about it yet because I want to get the rest of the foundation at least mostly ready) I made sure I was admin of the RootsWeb mailing list for the surname, was admin of the FTDNA surname project, and had registered it with GOONS. The WikiTree ONS won't be in a vacuum: the "one tree" and G2G will be tools-of-record for the study. That hopefully will draw more new members to WikiTree and more people helping with the effort by uploading GEDCOMs and using G2G for research requests and collaboration.
Yeah; I know. I never shut up. But the last point may or may not be worth any consideration. Dunno. At Family Tree DNA, surname projects that are also registered with GOONS have a tiny Guild badge beside their description. I suppose that's simply to signify something like, "this project has other stuff goin' on besides just the DNA matching."
Frankly, GOONS is straightforward in saying that, for even modestly uncommon surnames, actual records of pedigrees and family trees may never be a realistic goal for a study. And without a service exactly like--ta dah!--WikiTree, it wouldn't be. Seems like there could be more synergy in play with GOONS, maybe even FTDNA, that could bring more activity and information to WikiTree. Just thinking out loud. Back to your regularly scheduled programming....
