TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2011-04 > 1303304928


From: "Teresa Elliott" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Wish List: Compound First Names
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:08:48 -0500
References: <3626BCFCDFAA4E659D037E8D307A701D@jfc> <4DAE6890.7050801@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DAE6890.7050801@gmail.com>


Sure I could. But there is no standard name for these people. During one
time period they were Crick. During another (same people) they were Creek.
(I made up Cricke for the example. <G>) But when I am looking for Allen, I
don't know if he's in my database as Crick, or Creek, so I have standardized
tags (THE TAG NAME AND STYLE are STANDARDIZED-these never print, they are
only for the PE and PICKLIST)

I do not believe in standardizing names or places. I record what the
documents shows. One document has a man as Crick and Creek in the same
document, so I had to pick, but most of the time, I use the name just like
the document has it. I record the place (if known) exactly as the person of
that time period would have called it.

The NAME STANDARDIZED tag allows me to sort all the CRICKs under CREEK, and
all the CREEKs under CRICK. This way, I don't have to know which way the
name was recorded to find a person.

I have lots of surnames like this: Gee, Ghea, Gee, Markum, Markham,
Marcom..., Blaylock, Bullock, Black..., Crick, Creek. Believe me there are
times when I long for a Smith or a Jones. LOL
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On Behalf
Of Rick Van Dusen
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 12:01 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [TMG] Wish List: Compound First Names

Teresa, is there a reason you couldn't use a Standard Name tag for
people such as your Allen, Bart, and Calvin, instead of tags to all
three variants?

Of course I can only guess which name form is most prevalent or
reliable, but if it's CRICK, wouldn't it be easier in the long run to
enter a standard name tag of surname=CRICK for all persons named CREEK
or CRICKE?



This thread: