BACKGROUND. Geesje Jans (or Jansz) was the wife of Jan Albertsz and the mother of several children recorded in Albany and Lunenburgh, New York, beginning about 1692. On at least one baptism record she's identified as Geesje Dircksz; I think that's a one-off error. (Note: She and the children have been mistakenly associated with a different man named Jan Albertse Bradt, and we're still working on disentangling the families -- but that's not the subject of this question.)
A prominent New Netherland genealogist of earlier decades (long-ago deceased) asserted that this Geesje Jans was a girl baptized in New Amsterdam in 1667, the daughter of a "Roelof Janzen Van Meppelen" (wherein "Van Meppelen" might be a family name or might simply be an indication of his place of origin). If Dutch naming traditions were followed, the daughter of a man of that name would have had a patronymic name of "Roelofs" (or similar) or possibly a family name of "van Meppelen," so it's not at all obvious that she would be called "Jansz" (much less "Dircksz"), but naming practices were in flux in New Netherland in the decades after the British took control, so strange patterns do appear. (For example, Geesje's daughter was called by the last name of "Albertti" at her marriage, based on her father's patronymic.) And the date of 1667 is within the right range, and we have this wise old genealogist asserting that these were the same person.
1. There are currently three profiles (Dircksz-37, Janse-90, and Van Mappelen-1) that apparently represent either or both the girl baptized in 1667 or the woman who was married to Jan Alberts and had those children. Should we accept the hypothesis that they are all the same person and merge them together (with documentation of the uncertainty about the identity) or should the girl baptized in 1667 be given her own [unconnected] profile, separate from an origins-unknown profile for the mother of Jan Alberts' children?
2. What's the appropriate LNAB for the profile of the girl baptized in 1667? If we treat "Van Meppelen" as her father's surname, New Netherland naming conventions indicate that to be her LNAB. On the other hand, that's the only record that uses that name, and I think it might simply have been his place of origin. Regardless of that reservation, if she is given a separate profile that isn't connected with Jans Albertsz's children, that's the only record for her, so Van Meppelen is the only last name she has. But for the woman who had those kids, the name of Jansz that appears on the earliest known baptism record for a child would be the appropriate LNAB. If we treat the girl and woman as the same person, does it make sense to deviate from policy and use Jansz as the LNAB in lieu of the more questionable "Van Meppelen"?