User talk:WomanMN

Welcome

Welcome to WeRelate, your virtual genealogical community. We're glad you have joined us. At WeRelate you can easily create ancestor web pages, connect with cousins and other genealogists, and find new information. To get started:

• Take the WeRelate tour to see what you can do
• Watch the "Getting Started" tutorial videos and learn how to make wiki pages for your ancestors
• Explore the Step by step Tutorials, if needed
• Create a User Profile page to tell other people about yourself and the families you are researching
• Read the etiquette page to learn expected behavior on a wiki
• Find other ways to get involved on the community portal
• Ask questions on our Support page

If you need any help, we will be glad to answer your questions. Just go to the Support page, click on the Add Topic link, type your message, then click the Save Page button. Thanks for participating and see you around! --Support 19:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Names w/o a surname [15 May 2020]

Besides the example others provided - I would point out that the "Page Name" (which will pick up "Unknown" if only a first name is initially specified) - is not exactly the same thing as the person's name proper (as given by one or more name specifications on the page). The situation you've encountered isn't really unusual across our database though. For examples:

• Europeans of noble royal/descent can present a question of what a proper surname ought to be - especially before the current era. For example, Person:Charlemagne (1). Arguably, a better choice more consistent with standard practice might be "Charles of Carlingian" or some such. But we also have the practical consideration that this person is almost universally known only as "Charlemagne". So trying to gratuitously impose "normal practice" - where it doesn't really fit - would probably induce needless confusion.

• Another example of a situation like yours arises for Person:Matoaka Powhatan (1). The page has adopted what someone thought was the most reasonable form of the Lady's actual given name - and adopted as surname a representation of the name of her band.

• Other situations that get weird? Cultures where "modern" surnames were less common than patronymics.

• Other considerations? Was there something in contemporary use by the person that was "like" a surname? Even if not exactly such. Also, trying to come up with name forms that don't unfairly impugn a person's character. Powerful men in history sometime had children by mistresses or concubines - who's original surname (if any) is lost to history. I've sometimes found them named as <given> mistress (n) or <given> concubine (n). Such forms seemed to me an unfair slander on a person's character. In those cases, "Unknown" seems altogether better.

Long and short of it? If the standard conventions don't cover the situation - balance your best sense of what would be understandable by others studying the genealogy as well as respectful of the person's memory. Don't freak out. Anything can be changed later.

--jrm03063 03:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)