ViewsWatchers |
I've been away too long, and wonderful things have been happening! Glad I could finally make it back. But I'm trying to catch up. The variant names project sounds marvelous. This always has been a special interest of mine. But I need to make sure I understand what's happening in reviewing and editing here. In doing some browsing, there were additions to surnames that made absolutely no sense to me. One example: For the surname 'Mominie', I did not find Mominee, or Montmeny (the name it came from), but I did see that Monaghan and Minyan had been added, names that were of totally different cultural sources. I added the variants I knew, but I was leery of deleting the others. Were these name changes known by the person listing them? I thought I should ask some questions before I just dove in. If I'm repeating questions discussed elsewhere, please let me know, and just point me there, please. Like I said, I'm coming in late.... I'm figuring that we should be adding name variants and spelling variants that: A. We have seen as variants among people we have researched. B. We have seen as misspellings on censuses and official records, especially those that were likely phonetic or cultural and so are likely to have been repeated. and (possibly?) C. We have seen as plain old name changes, such as Stachowicz becoming Stack. I'm figuring we should be removing name variants and spelling variants that we know, especially from previous Soundex and Metaphone searches, are *not* related surnames. For instance, 'Schreiber' has a soundex match with Sherbrooke, and 'Robinson' matches out with 'Rappahanock'.... Those should be deleted. Others are iffier. I have seen lots of variants of Hoover, but I have always found Hoppers and Huffs completely unrelated. Doesn't mean that others have the same experience. Ditto Goss and Gossett. And how are 'Pc' and 'Pk' variants of Peck? I am more comfortable adding things I know of, and less comfortable deleting, I guess. Any guidelines? If some of this stuff is not deleted, we will have almost as massive and senseless output as Soundex... Thanks, --LindaS 19:28, 30 January 2012 (EST) Thank you for getting involved!! I'd recommend being comfortable deleting. Most (90%+) names were added using a computer algorithm. It's better than Soundex, but it's still a computer. Also, I erred on the side of including extra variants because I figured it was easier for people to take variants away than to add them. On the watercooler we're talking about possibly adding back a source for each variant, and the ability to watch specific names to be notified of changes. On the names to add, I'd definitely add your A and B names (variants and misspellings). Regarding C, I'd say add only if you think multiple people would have changed their name this way. For example, I have an ancestor that changed their name from Husser to Halverson, but I wouldn't add Husser as a variant of Halverson because I believe changing from Husser to Halverson was done only by this one person. Thanks again!--Dallan 10:44, 31 January 2012 (EST) Thanks for the response, Dallan. The 'add' parameters are what I would expect, and make a lot of sense. The 'delete' function is now a lot more comfortable, knowing how many of those added names got there. I'll stop by the watercooler and read through what's been happening, too. --LindaS 18:50, 31 January 2012 (EST) [add comment] [edit] Unknown as a given name in searches [8 February 2012]The system doesn't allow to search given name 'Unknown' so I thought I'd mention this: I hope that when someone searches for Unknown Smith, the results also return Son Smith, Daughter Smith, Mr. Smith, Miss Smith, Unnamed Smith and Stillborn Smith. These are all names I've seen in various charts entered in the given name space. Yes, these given names should be changed to Unknown during the upload process, but sometimes they don't get changed. --Janiejac 16:32, 7 February 2012 (EST)
[add comment] [edit] Why two checkboxes? [3 July 2014]On the variant names search page, in the computer variants column, why are there two checkboxes beside each variant? Is one for Confirm and one for Remove? If so, which is which? --LulaBelle 00:03, 21 November 2012 (EST)
I made a mistake and Checked the wrong boxes for the Surname Gallahue. The names: galka,galle,gallee,gallice gallie, and gallou do not belong there, can you please remove them. Thanks--Gallchú138 09:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
[add comment] [edit] Evidence for surname relatedness versus similarity [27 June 2015]I think this is a great resource for similarity between text strings. Do we have a resource or best practice for recording relatedness through known name changes and origins. A particular surname today might have descended from two or more origin names and just converged over time. For hard core geneaology, building a resource which could accommodate evidence-based relatedness would be good. --ceyockey 17:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
[add comment] [edit] Big mistake - please fix [23 November 2020]I was looking at variant first names for Maud, and I ticked some in the first column instead of the second. This removed them instead of confirming them. This is disastrous. Please fix.--Edgarw 19:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC) PS Is there a better place to post urgent requests? PPS I now realize I can add them back by hand... :)
[add comment] [edit] Adding comments for existing relationships [5 March 2022]There are a lot of Confirmed Variant entries that do not have a comment associated that indicates what the basis of confirmation is. For instance, Surname fries with confirmed variant freese. Is there a way to add a comment to an existing relationship? I did not see one when looking through the interface. Thanks. --ceyockey 16:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC) There isn't a way to add a comment to an existing relationship unfortunately.--Dallan 00:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC) [add comment] [edit] Working on a better way to generate computer-variants [5 March 2022]I started this project many years ago, and the computer variants leave a lot to be desired (in my opinion). For the past six months I've been working with FamilySearch to develop an improved way to generate computer variants and to automatically-confirm many of the existing variants. The new effort is based upon a list of all (tree-name <-> attached-record-name) pairs in the FamilySearch tree and uses modern machine learning techniques to learn from those examples when generating name variants. So far the results are very promising. Sometime later this year I plan to combine this project and the FamilySearch project. If anyone is interested in more information on this effort, please let me know.--Dallan 00:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC) [add comment] [edit] Acommodating middle names? [7 April 2022]Wondering about a name like "Ida May Ralston" vs. "Ida Mae Ralston". Should in this case we just treat first and middle as "conjoined" so that we would add "Ida May" with relatedness to "Ida Mae", which would render as "idamay" and "idamae"? Thanks. --ceyockey 23:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Dallan. --ceyockey 17:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC) [add comment] [edit] Not saving my input [13 June 2023]Could the functoinality be down at https://www.werelate.org/wiki/Special:Names ? Today is not the first time I've detected a failure to save a variant with a comment. Today I was trying to document relationship between "yockey" and "yocky" based on a generational transition found in on of my family lines and saving. The save attempt led to url > https://www.werelate.org/wiki/Special:Names?name=yockey&type=s&updated=true , but the new value was not included in the variants list. The URL before save was https://www.werelate.org/wiki/Special:Names?type=s&name=yockey . Thanks for taking a look and confirming or refuting my experience. --ceyockey 17:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC) This is not a persistent thing - works for me most of the time. Problem with a specific variant. 'boyd' does not seem to like addition of 'bhoid' as a variant. Thoughts? --ceyockey 14:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I just tried to add 'jervoise' as an alternative for 'jervis' and the attempt failed - save unsuccessful with no error message. However, I note that 'jervoise' is present as a SOUNDEX variant of 'jervis'; could this be a reason that the save failed? --ceyockey 01:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I spoke too soon. I am still clearly unable to use the add function under Confirmed Variants if I do not ALSO check one of the Computer Variants to be included in the variant addition activity. Latest fail - For the surname mgrath, tried to add mcgraw, which is not listed among the computer variants, alone via the Confirmed Variants addition field and the add failed to save. Regards --01:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
[add comment] [edit] Non-Latin characters, i.e. diacriticals [5 November 2022]I noted that the add text box (3rd column 'Confirmed Variants') will not support addition of, for instance, ä or å. It there an intention to extend the accepted character set to include characters bearing diacriticals? --ceyockey 00:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC) [add comment] [edit] Cognates vs. variants [5 November 2022]For 'janssen' I've added 'johnson' as a variant based on 'janssen' being the Dutch cognate of English 'johnson'. Is this type of relationship within scope of the variants project, or should I remove that relationship? --ceyockey 01:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC) [add comment] [edit] Bi-directional relationships? [6 April 2023]Given a surname and a variant is added, is the relationship bidirectional? In other words, starting at 'janssen' and adding variant 'jansen', will the search for 'jansen' return 'janssen' as a variant, or do I need to go and add 'janssen' as a variant of 'jansen'? Thanks for clarifying. --ceyockey 01:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC) Duh - it does appear to be bidirectional. Looking at the 'jansen' entry shows 'janssen' as a variant. I'm no names expert, but full bidirectionality might not be good for some relationship types, such as known precursor-successor relationships where the precursor is no longer in use. Just thinking out loud. --ceyockey 01:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC) [add comment] [edit] Bauer [14 April 2023]There is a given name "Bauer", which doesn't make any sense. In my opinion it should only be a first name. --Flominator 07:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
[add comment] [edit] ß? [14 April 2023]I would love to add Hanß and Hannß to the variants for first name Hans, but I guess it won't let me. --Flominator 17:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
[add comment] [edit] On-page variants - remove them if "low value"? [13 May 2023]Wondering whether there's support for removing low value variants from surname pages. For instance, for Surname:Harvey there are five variants listed all with source "WeRelate - similar spelling". Would it be OK or proper to blank the variants field in this case? Thanks for the guidance. --ceyockey 00:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
A suggestion: At left is how the "related names" box appears on Surname:Hatch after removal of the 'low value' names - all were of that type. On the right is a suggested replacement, an "Auto-links" box with links to
This would leave the related names box intact but disable it's output, effectively hiding it. Over time, could survey a) % of the related names boxes have content and b) new content added to the related names boxes. After some threshold is passed of low use and low new use, could remove the functionality altogether. --ceyockey 16:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I just made the changes. What do you think?--Dallan 23:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
|