Template talk:Conventions/Given name

When adding a new person, enter exact name(s) at birth [20 March 2017]

This topic is in discussion at Help talk:Conventions/Type of name#Should_page_titles_always_be_the_same_as_the_PDN?. When finished, we can post the resolution here as well. --cos1776 21:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Must begin with a letter [6 May 2017]

[from email exchange] - Is it possible for someone to have a legal name that does not begin with a letter? If so, why wouldn’t we want the name exactly as it is? If not, why bother mentioning this? Not that I have a real problem with this statement, but it seems a bit unnecessary given the “DO NOT ENTER …” statement. - DataAnaylst

I was mostly trying to keep folks from starting a name entry with punctuation or numbers, but I agree that it could be covered by the DO NOT ENTER section. I also agree that we want the name to be entered as is, but I'm not sure how to reconcile that desire with the reality of our program. From my experience, names that begin with punctuation cause problems. I just recently worked with a group of Indonesian names, and while it is possible to enter them initially, I haven't been able to retrieve them reliably via Search since. --cos1776 23:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

K. I added notes to the card and rationale to explain this.--DataAnalyst 20:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Unknown given names and variations thereof

Leaving the field blank whenever a name is unknown [6 May 2017]

[from email exchange and elsewhere] - my real problem with leaving the field blank is that there is no context for which part of the name is unknown anywhere the name shows up without the page title. In fact, if a person has 2 given names, you might not even realize that part of the name is unknown (e.g., John Gordon could be first and last name or could mean John Gordon Unknown). My suspicion is that WeRelate software has changed such that where page title used to show up years ago, primary name is now being used instead, causing old “rules” not to work as well. - DataAnalyst

Leaving the field blank gets my vote. I understand your point about a name like "John Gordan Unknown", but I'm not sure if I can see a scenario where it would cause a problem. Presumably, you would know his surname if you had his parents or a record of his married wife or children. It might be more likely with a female, I guess. Can you think of a good example in action? I couldn't find a good page to test with, so I made one John Gordon Unknown if you want to use it to illustrate.

I outlined my reasons for preferring no entry to either "Unknown" or anything else in a recent WC discussion, so I won't repeat here, unless someone wants me to. --cos1776 23:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

My point of view is as a volunteer spending hours correcting old GEDCOMs. I don't look at every single page when I do so. However, if I am correcting one page and notice an error on a linked page (e.g., spouse or sibling), I might open up the linked page to correct it. One of the common errors when a surname is unknown is that the given name was placed in the surname field. But I can't tell that from another page - I have to open the page with the error in order to tell that it is an error. For example, I might be editing George Cole's page and see that his wife's name is Mary. Unless I open her page, I can't tell if her page is set up as Mary Unknown (correct) or Unknown Mary (incorrect). With the volume I am correcting, I am unlikely to open her page. However, if her page is incorrect, I want to correct it so that duplicate searches work.

I would suggest that we request a change to the software to display the name using either of the following rules:

• If the given name or surname field is blank, replace it with Unknown.
• If the given name or surname field is blank, replace it with _______.

The first rule would be consistent with how page titles are constructed, but if you object to using a word for an unknown value, I'd be fine with the second rule instead.--DataAnalyst 20:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Entering the word "Unknown" [14 May 2017]

[from email exchange] - Of course, if the software were changed to display Unknown for a blank given or surname field, that would be fine – but I suspect that contributors will continue to enter Unknown at least in part because they see it showing up in the page title and other displays. I think we would be better off just accepting Unknown as an acceptable data entry value. Also, it allows us to quickly find such pages (they show up in facets) so that we can work on improving data quality. - DataAnalyst

Just to keep it fair - the program could also be changed to remove the word "Unknown" from any field into which it was entered. This could be done both during GEDCOM upload and/or when an edited page is saved and could be used for Date and Place fields as well.

It sounds like you would like to change this convention to require that each name field (?in the first row only?) must contain some type of entry, either a known, sourced name or an agreed upon placeholder word when the name is not known. Am I understanding correctly? Referring to the "John Gordan Unknown" example again - if others really want to keep "Unknown" as an entry, I would accept it, of course, but let's discuss consistency of use. Would we put restrictions on it, such as saying the only acceptable placeholder word is "Unknown", by itself, and in English, because it is the language of our software. If we don't, then we will just continue to have the free-for-all that we have now. --cos1776 23:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm okay with a convention of leaving the name blank, and even getting the software to remove "Unknown" if entered, assuming:

• we also ask for the change I have indicated above (display the name so that we can tell which part of the name is left blank)
• we can define how to search for pages with blank given name or surname (would we still enter "Unknown" in the search field?) and the pages are treated predictably in search results. This is important for people trying to find and complete missing information.--DataAnalyst 20:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Any single value that is proposed is going to only fit a fraction of incoming GEDCOMs. Choosing a little-used practice like <blank> is going to mean almost all pages (now or coming in the future via GEDCOM) are likely to need manual editing (assuming software is a non-existent resource). In either case, can I suggest developing a template and inserting that in the Given Name field. If heaven forbid, blank wants to be displayed, the template simply displays blank. If a more reasonable administration in the future decides Unknown is the right value, then only the template needs changing. It would provide a value that should be easy to search for, and you can add a suffix like "-dutch" and allow foreign language versions (possibly by calling the main template with an argument of "dutch"?). Also when editing a page, even if blank is the display value, in edit mode the user would see the template, whose name would hopefully convey the intent that blank does not. --Jrich 00:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

In looking through suggestions and re-examining how sort and search work, my understanding of how WeRelate currently works is that if the given name or surname is left blank:

• the software automatically inserts the word "Unknown" as a placeholder for that name in the page title (as we already knew).
• the software automatically sorts the page as if the blank was replaced by "Unknown".
• the software automatically searches for the page as if the blank was replaced by "Unknown".

The only thing missing is for the software to automatically display the word "Unknown" as a placeholder for the blank when the primary display name is displayed.

Rationale: As I had mentioned above, I want to know if the name is Gordon Unknown or Unknown Gordon. It is not only so that I can fix pages where the name is entered incorrectly, but also so that when I am looking at a wife's page and want to find more information (whether to fill in gaps or find sources), I know what married surname to use. If her husband's name appears as "Gordon", I may assume that Gordon is his surname and waste time searching for info on the wife using the surname Gordon, when in fact that was his given name.

Since the software already uses the English word "Unknown" for page titles, sorting and searching, I see no reason to hesitate including it in the primary display name. Dallan has indicated that he does not want to sort pages by more than one text string, due to the cost of maintaining multiple strings (see WeRelate:Suggestions/Sort by page title. Since accommodating multiple languages is clearly not an option in sorting or searching, I see no reason to quibble over using English in the primary display name - it only makes WeRelate consistent.

Therefore, I suggest the following:

• the convention should be to leave a name field blank if unknown
• we request a software change to replace a blank given name or surname with the word "Unknown" when displaying the primary display name (and only the primary display name)
• we request a software change to automatically remove the word "Unknown" when a page is uploaded, created or edited (when we create this request, we can discuss whether to include other common placeholders, such as FNU and LNU)
• until such time as the software is changed, we accept the entry of the word "Unknown" in a given name or surname field, so that it is displayed in the primary display name

Keep in mind that conventions are only that, not firm rules. Until the software is changed, we will continue to get placeholders entered. If a contributor feels strongly about removing the word "Unknown", they will do so and cite the convention to support doing so (which will hopefully prevent any edit wars). Other contributors will choose to enter or keep the word "Unknown" without causing problems.--DataAnalyst 16:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Children who were likely unnamed [6 May 2017]

[from email exchange] - I would really like to have something different for a child who was never (as far as we can tell) named. It should be reserved for stillborn children and children who were buried without a name (presumably – again, as far as we can tell – without being baptized). That way, we can distinguish a situation that could possibly be improved with more research (Unknown) from one which cannot (Never named). Now that I am measuring and reporting data quality, it is misleading to include unnamed children in the Unknowns. I don’t have a strong preference for what to use, but I think Infant is pretty widely used and fairly well understood to mean a child who died very young (possibly before being named). It also allows for Infant son and Infant daughter if you want to indicate the gender (which I think is far superior to using the suffix to indicate the gender – frankly, that one made me shudder). The only problem I have with Infant is that I think it is not technically correct for stillborn children. I had been using “Unnamed” for a while (which would also work for Unnamed son or Unnamed daughter), but I don’t think it would catch on as well. - DataAnalyst

I vote no on this for 2 main reasons.

• 1st - we already have non-name fields for entering record details about the birth, baptism or death which are adequate for indicating whether there might be more digging to be done. A death record stating specifically that a child was not named is a pretty solid, but a birth or baptism record that is absent a given name is not proof that the family never named the child.
• 2nd - maintaining and monitoring the use of acceptable placeholder words across multiple languages continue to add clean up tasks to our already full plates. It seems to introduce unnecessary complexity into the simple concept of an unknown value.

btw - re: using the number of Unknowns as a measurement of data quality - as we have seen from the WC, this might not be a good way to measure quality. Perhaps a better way would be to measure how many pages go from having no sourced dates or places to having one or more. We should think on this some more.

--cos1776 23:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I grant you that counting pages with Unknown name touches only one aspect of data quality (completeness) and is a pretty rough measure at that. I use it mainly because it is easy. Some day, I might figure out how to create a report from WeRelate data, so that I can measure other aspects of data quality such as use of sources (an indicator of reliability), but I doubt I'll have the time for that for at least 5 years. In the meantime, counting Unknowns is a way to show that people are working on improving the quality of the data.

The reason for wanting a separate designation for situations where no further research is warranted is to be able to easily find opportunities for improvement. I speak as a volunteer trying to maximize my effectiveness. If I have to open each page with Unknown (or blank) given name to determine which ones are stillbirths or burials of unnamed children, then it takes time away from researching and fixing other pages.

However, if you feel strongly that the name fields should only be used for actual data, and never placeholders, I can go along with that. The data quality measurement is only an indication of improvement, not an absolute measure of quality, and I can continue to open up each page to see if I can improve it. Given this attitude towards placeholder words, though, I think it would be inappropriate to use the suffix field to indicate gender, as has been suggested elsewhere. We should either go all "purist" or accept a set of placeholders.--DataAnalyst 21:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Exceptions

Initials without periods

Middle initial without a period – I like this. It is a change from the style sheet (which I believe goes back a ways), but I prefer initials without a period. - DataAnalyst

Yup, me too. :) --cos1776 23:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Temporary numbers during short-term projects

I added this as an exception today, since I occasionally use id numbers temporarily while working on a project, and I have observed others doing so as well. I hadn't included it originally, because I thought it might be better to steer this practice to the Name suffix field, but since that field is not available when adding a new person, it is not a viable alternative. I will add more about removing temporary id numbers to the examples and tips section. --cos1776 15:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Punctuation

Added today. --cos1776 15:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Questions [24 April 2017]

We weren't quite ready to invite community review yet, so please keep that in mind. Our main goal overall is to use the yellow "cards" for quick, simple instructions to guide newer users into entering data the way we want them to and to provide more in depth instructions, with guidance for nuances and special cases, examples, rationale, etc. in the rest of the page, for those who want to dig deeper. It is well-known among Help page designers that most readers want quick answers and that they barely skim the content, so we are trying to give them a way to easily find and apply the core principles. I have inserted some replies to your specific questions below. Since you are here now, please feel free to add comments to the section headings above so we can keep the threads together. --cos1776 15:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

When adding a new person, enter exact name(s) at birth. [24 April 2017]

Questions: What about bad spelling in colonial records? Say Stiven for Stephen. What if birth record is wrong, e.g., there are a few cases where the name was changed when an older child died or clerk recorded the parent's name as the given name out of distraction. What if your record is not a birth record, but you have many other records, and the spellings vary between them? Without a birth record, how to choose how which spelling to use.

Entering "name at birth" came about from the premise that we want the page title to be based on the birth name. I think we can add in your nuanced situations as examples or tips, but your comments are good reminders that the correct/formal/"desired final variation of" birth name may not be known at the time of entry. How would you suggest we best word the quick instructions on the yellow card when adding a new person to result in an acceptable page title? --cos1776 15:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The standard rule has been the most common spelling but no guidance has been given how to assess that. (I.e., for given names try to find the spelling given on wikipedia; or here's how to search WeRelate to figure out the spelling used most often; or some other method for making this a little more deterministic). I would like to avoid a similarly vague rule to the most common spelling. It is nearly impossible to write a rule that always works, too many special exceptions. But the problem with vague rules is that, if people read them (most GEDCOMs are so anxious to load their stuff, they read nothing), they interpret them the way they want. If nobody is monitoring how things are done, pretty soon you can find everything, and now people that want a fringe interpretations can find existing examples as justification. So while brevity is good, there needs to be some philosophy and examples. The yellow box should clearly indicate it is not the whole rule, just a summary, subject to further elaboration as given in examples. "Examples and Tips" should be titled differently as "Tips" doesn't convey authority. "Name at birth" is fine if it is explained that this is not literally the name from the birth record and various examples are considered part of the rule. --Jrich 16:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It's about definitions. People definitely don't have common understandings coming in. Perhaps the method used by wikipedia where every word that has a page is displayed as a link to that page providing more elaborate definitions and more reading. So "name at birth" (suggest removing "exact") could be a link to the examples section where it is defined more fully. Perhaps the definition found there is something like: the name given by the parents before any name changes or marriages or aliases, subject to spelling guidelines. Where "spelling guidelines" might be a link to a different page where it is described how spelling is desired to work, i.e., rationalize idiosyncratic spellings, e.g., misspellings, and phonetic spellings that don't appear intentional, should be converted to the most commonly accepted spelling which can be determined by these suggested methods... And presumably lots of examples working through hard cases, like "Stiven" in the birth record; should Betty be turned into Elizabeth; what if they have only one name; hyphenated names; kings, queens and popes; initials only; totally or partially unknown name; nicknames and stage names and pen names; suggested ways to handle commonly misused situations; etc., etc. The goal is to have different people read it and come to the same idea of what is correct. --Jrich 17:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Must be mixed case. NEVER ALL CAPITAL LETTERS!

Does this mean a software enhancement will prevent GEDCOMs from doing this? It sends a mixed message to say this, and then have the software itself allow this.

Software change has been requested, so we have to be optimistic that it will eventually happen. The program does this for page titles now, but not page display during either auto or manual page creation. We can't control manual entry yet, but I've been doing my best to monitor all incoming GEDCOMs. For now, that part is manageable, but for long term consistency, the programming change is needed. --cos1776 15:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

If unknown or unnamed, for any reason, leave field blank.

Even if it is the given name? Personally I disagree with this for both given and surname but think it is particularly confusing for given name.. Throws off spacing etc. Causes page titles to look like Family:Smith and Jane Doe, etc.

--Jrich 21:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I am wrong about this, though I'd swear I saw such a case. Perhaps I am confused with how it displays in the infobox such as the parents for Person:Abigail Adams (1)? Is the father named Adams Unknown or Unknown Adams. If you leave given name blank, it creates Family:Unknown Smith and Jane Doe. Why leave the Unknown out of the page but have it in the title? --Jrich 00:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Please see sections above which were set aside for discussing some of the different scenarios which apply. Acceptable entries for unknown names and variations thereof still need to be hashed out with more input from others and hopefully will include others who understand database management and best practices for consistency and integrity. Since I was the one writing the initial draft of this page, I took the liberty of writing it based on my viewpoint until a final decision is reached. --cos1776 15:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts [12 October 2024]

Does "de" go with the first name or the surname?

The use of St as part of a given name: Do we use "St"/"Ste" or "St."/"Ste." or "Saint"/"Sainte"? This should be the same as the naming of places--where the policy has changed over the years.

Emphasize that titles are not part of given names.

--Goldenoldie 06:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. In simple terms, names should be entered as they are. If "de" or "St" is part of the given name, then it should be entered in the Given name field and vice versa. I once knew a girl whose first name was "de Lorme"!

Re: variations, such as St/Ste/Saint/Sainte - Presumably one is working from a source, so the name should be entered as it is in the source. Alternate name rows are provided for variations from other sources. The decision about which variation to use in the first row (i.e. we're calling this the "Primary display name") can be decided upon by those interested researchers. If you have specific concerns that a future researcher might wish to search for a specific variation (i.e., "Saint" instead of "St") then, by all means, enter it as an alternate, but usually it is not necessary to do so with surnames, as our program does a pretty good job of taking variations into account.

Re: no titles - Good point. I will add it.

Please note that this page contains only the abbreviated version of the conventions for this field (we have been calling them "cards"), so it is not where we would eventually point users looking for help. We would instead point them to the help page itself, Help:Conventions/Person name, which covers a lot of the nuances and gives tips and examples. If you could look over that page as well and give us your thoughts (while you are thinking about given names), it would be most appreciated. --cos1776 12:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)