|
|
Surname? [18 February 2013]
I've taken a view that surnames are a relatively modern concept - and just wrote a piece on the matter at WeRelate:Suggestions/Naming Conventions in the absence of a Surname.
I accept that it can be argued whether "Malbank" or "de Malbank" is a surname in this case, but I would very much like your views on the matter within the larger context of the proposed conventions document.
Thanks!
--jrm03063 15:37, 18 February 2013 (EST)
- Sorry, I didn't realize I was re-editing the surname. In this specific instance, his grandfather is described as "Willielmus Malbedeng" in the Domesday Book, so I figure it is a surname or close enough. I haven't really thought through the issue of surnames more generally. I guess there is a large grey area in this period. --Werebear 15:46, 18 February 2013 (EST)
- I am adjusting William's birth date, since I think it was estimated based on incomplete information about his wife. Wikipedia, although it doesn't give a cite, is probably about right here. (I also have 1175-1176 for William's death, but I can't find where I originally got that from.)--Werebear 15:46, 18 February 2013 (EST)
- Take a look at the bottom of the page. The variations on the different surname strings get permuted with the event places, so you see a whole bunch of red links to categories that have no real hope for being useful. If there was a way to turn generation of those categories off, I'ld be more inclined to agree with you, but there isn't as far as I know. --jrm03063 18:44, 18 February 2013 (EST)
- I think I can see what you are saying, and I don't want to sound more sure of myself than I am: I don't think "Malbank" was as much of a surname as mine is (if that makes sense.) I think some of his male-line ancestors ended up with different surnames eventually. I am not sure to what degree it was simply a way of giving the main property that he owned. Regarding the red names at the bottom,that is a pain. A pain in another way is something that has been bugging me with Welsh patronymics. It seems to make it difficult to find duplicates when the patronymic is put in the first name field. I wonder if there is a way to work around this. --Werebear 15:22, 19 February 2013 (EST)
- Correcting myself:William, of course, had no male-line descendants (which I meant, not "ancestors").--Werebear 16:51, 19 February 2013 (EST)
- Another point against regarding "Malbank" as a surname is that, if I am not mistaken, it only lasted for three or four generations. I'm not sure if Philip had children, or if they would have been surnamed "Malbank" if he did. I don't know of any Malbanks except for this family.--Werebear 17:04, 19 February 2013 (EST)
- A quick web search shows some sites claiming that the surname "Malbon" derives from it.--Werebear 17:11, 19 February 2013 (EST)
- On further reflection, maybe the way you had it is better. I have changed it back. --Werebear 12:07, 22 February 2013 (EST)
- Regarding William's year of death - Wikipedia has 1176 (from when the article was written in 2008) but no citation to support it. His birth year could be anywhere from 1125 as suggested by Wikipedia to about 1140 or even 1145 (oldest daughter born about 1169). Being within 30-50 years is not bad for that far back.--DataAnalyst 19:16, 18 February 2013 (EST)
- I have added a source (the generally very good Victoria County History) for the death. As for William's birth, his father died in 1135, and William had younger siblings, so I think anything after the 1120s is pushing it.--Werebear 15:26, 19 February 2013 (EST)
NonDefaultSurname Template [22 February 2013]
For pages like this, where there seems to be a generally accepted surname, even if it's not a surname that's useful in the context of WeRelate category generation, I'm toying with a new approach. Just mark them.
Discussion of what to do is going to involve a bunch of people and take quite a while. If/when a decision gets made, it would be nice to be able to systematically find our way back to pages where syntax or practice may be revisited.
I hope you'll all find this less intrusive than my original suggestion of just stripping the surname...! --jrm03063 12:26, 22 February 2013 (EST)
|
|
