Need help cleaning up duplicate profiles, disputes over surname spelling

Question

I have on my bookshelf resources that use Scarburgh, others that use Scarborough, and some that use both AND other variants of the same family. As more of the original documents become available on-line, I see Scarburgh used in wills and signatures in early Virginia history, and even Sir Charles Scarburgh's will written in London. He was the physician to the King. Scarborough becomes popular by the late 1700s/ early 1800s in Virginia and seems to take over. To my knowledge, it is not a different family, definitely not for those first families of brothers Charles and Edmund whose names are spelled Scarburgh in the original wills and who are well-documented early settlers of Accomack County, Virginia.

Due to the different spellings, and estimated birth dates, duplicate profiles are being created, and merges refused based on a spelling preference. This not only keeps a number of duplicates floating around, but prevents appropriate connecting of family lines.

I have posted original wills to two profiles of the same family to demonstrate not only the spelling but that they are the same family. If necessary both spellings can be included on the profiles, especially if it helps prevent more duplicate profiles, but the profile manager of the other refuses to merge, deletes comments and merge request notes, and disconnects profiles with no explanation.

Does using either spelling, say Scarburgh for the early VA profiles and Scarborough for the later descendants, where there is documented evidence to prove either, create problems within the Wiki-Tree system, considering the profile ID is attached to the surname?

As this is a notable family, and a couple of profiles are marked either that or Virginia Colony, can a project effort focus on getting this line cleaned-up? I could also use some help understanding how to add your profiles to a project, which project is the appropriate one, and what that does in terms of protecting the profile. Thank you.

Comments

Use the choice for LNAB and at the slot for other surnames, use the other. Both will avail in wikitree search, for instance Joe Schmoe aka Schmo, Joe shows up in the search list either way you look for him. On the profiles with one LNAB, edit in the other name and when you propose the merge, explain the spelling history. When merges are rejected, ask for an Arborist or Mentor to intervene

---

Thank you Eddie.

Answer 1

The Arborists project has protected the profile with the correct spelling.

Answer 2

Hi Pam,

Great question! Thank you for working on this important issue.

Eddie's right.  It's always good to add alternate spellings to the "Other last names" line and to document your reason(s) for choosing one as "correct."  (Folks in the past may not have worried so much about spelling, but they weren't using data bases either)

And, just as you have done with Tabitha, point to some primary document in the biography.  For instance, in Tabitha's case, the will of her mother (which you have included).

It's probably a good idea to have all these Scarburgh profiles PPP.  Unfortunately, the only way do do it is one at a time.  Thank you!

Comments

Thank you Cynthia, and to Robin for protecting the profile. We finally have success on Tabitha's profile; the duplicate has been merged. Now if we can get her siblings merged and protected with the correct LNAB vs other LN. I've added Bennet's original will to one of his duplicate profiles. And a couple of their cousins/wives. Will continue to add others as I can find them, and to sort through other Scarburgh/Scarborough family profiles - some of it is quite a mess. Also need to look for related wills to try and determine some of the wives for correct person. Many thanks again for your help.

Answer 3

Personally I use "Scarburgh" for the 17th and 18th century Scarburghs all of whom are documented to have used that spelling at the time; it's the spelling used in contemporary documents, it's the spelling used in the majority of academic works relating to contemporaneous members of the family (in the History of Parliament, the Dictionary of National Biography, by the Royal College of Physicians in reference to Sir Charles Scarburgh, etc). And the spelling "Scarburgh" was used at least as recently as the late 19th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Parker_Scarburgh

 

I'd argue that the spelling which was contemporary and by which most members of the family are known in records should be used. (With "Scarborough" as an alternate, possibly, although that's not strictly necessary.)

Comments

Thank you. Whole heartedly agree, and would like to see in all the profiles the spelling each individual used at that time. It is important to document as it was.

Thank you for the George Parker Scarburgh link. The Parker and Scarburgh families apparently were close in England; Parkers are named, as witnesses if I remember correctly, in Sir Charles Scarburgh's will.

Interestingly, Scarburgh's port kept the original spelling, or has reverted back to it. http://www.easternshorewaterview.com/port-scarburgh.html