Do genealogical numbering systems belong in the name suffix in a global tree?

Question

What does everyone think: Do genealogical numbering systems have a place in a global tree? Is it appropriate to put a number that specifically pertains to one line of ancestry or descendancy in the name's suffix field? Should numbering system identifiers be listed in the biography if they pertain to a one name study?

(For those of you who aren't familiar with genealogical numbering systems, Wikipedia has a decent overview.)

Answer 1

Just my opinion, but I would say no in the data fields but they would be OK in the Biography section.

Comments

Chet and Maggie, the existing wikitree policy already disallows such usage. Please see the link Chris W posted.

---

I am delighted we all agree - this all came up because when Rangering I came across a set of profiles that all included strange numbers in the Name fields - it looked very confusing and so I alerted Eowyn. I am glad it is getting "exposure" so others who see G2G but may not find a previous page reference so easily are informed. Thanks to all for being so diligent. Nuff said.

---

Jillaine, to be clear, are you saying that the link Chris W posted, which says we "should only use fields for their intended purposes," actually "disallows such usage" -- meaning, if I want to include a source note in a bio I'm creating that also includes an indicator in my personal numbering system, that is prohibited?

---

I would say yes, personal numbering systems are disallowed.

#9 in the Honor Code says, "We are united in a mission to increase the world's common store of knowledge."  I don't think there is any way that a personal numbering system would facilitate that goal.  

---

In my opinion I would not say that in the Biography section they would be "Disallowed" but they should be frowned upon at the very least.  If you follow the link Chris posted it takes you to the section for the name fields and there they would be disallowed.

---

I completely understand not putting them in the name fields.  I have a little more trouble with the idea of disallowing people to have footnotes that include them.  For me, while I'm working on getting all of my info transferred from my grandfather's documents and my family tree into WikiTree, having the specific number noted as a source/footnote is how I keep sane.  If someone is going to come along and strip that rather functional information out because the don't like seeing it, I would find that problematic.  Not making demands, just trying to figure out how much leeway we have in the process.

---

See http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Editing_Tips  It does not forbid the use of a personal numbering system but I would put an explanition for both the numbering system and why you are using it in that section to help prevent others from just removing it.  Understand that because this is a Wiki others could strip your numbering system out at a later time and if you are not the profile manager you might not even know about it.

---

WikiTree is all about collaboration and cooperation; no profile manager or descendant "owns" any profile. On the older ones, especially pre-1700, we SHARE many in common. This is why it is at the very least (see above comments) "frowned upon" to add personal numbering systems to profiles, even in footnotes. That footnote only applies to you; the profile should be written so it can be read and understood by ALL relations or people interested in that genealogical line. If you need to put in those numbers when writing etc. do so but then please delete them before Saving. And Dale is correct, especially for over 200 year old profiles, which are "open" for editing, any WikiTree member, descendant or not, can come along later and remove such numbers as not applying to the Community as a whole.

---

I get it.  I will continue to use my numbering in profiles that I currently am the PM and only person on the profile - right now that's the majority of my watchlist which came from a GEDCOM upload I did a few years ago.

If someone comes along who also cares about the profile, joins the Trusted List or merges into and becomes a PM, and wants to remove my notes, I will adapt.

---

Thank you for adapting to the WikiTree spirit - I am sure no one will disturb your close-relations profiles; it is mainly the older (more-often shared) ones that sometimes cause problems and we all must compromise then. Happy Ancestor Hunting!

Answer 2

What would be the purpose of including a numbering system? I use the Ahnentafel system in my own private summary charts, which I use to keep track of where I am in working on each ancestral line. But it certainly wouldn't be appropriate to include that anywhere in the single tree, because the numbers depend on who's doing the numbering. (I'm Number 1 in my system!) I also don't think it would be a good idea to use any system where the numbering would need to change if, for example, a missing child were discovered later, or some other change to a family structure was needed. Just curious, where are you trying to go with this idea?

Comments

The only good use that I could see is to keep names of people from being confused with each other when using the more common names like "John Smith"  I have several in my line that would benifet from this to avoid making bad merges.  As an example my Grandfather had an Uncle with the exact same name as he did, Auley Maculay Smith, and their birthdates are only a few years apart so they could be confused by researchers who do not have much experience. I do not use any numbering system my self, but I can see possible uses for it.  We have a profile number for each profile but adding an additional number in the biography section, that is explained, could help to avoid the possible confusion I mentioned above so I would not say that it is not a good idea there.

---

Well, perhaps.  But If we pursued this, I think we would want to adopt a standard and commonly used system.  For example, the system I have seen used most frequently in genealogy publications is the Modified Register System.  I haven't personally used it, but it appears to have a bit of complexity, and a learning curve climb, associated with it, and I'm not sure that mixes all that well with researchers who don't have much experience.

The other issue is that this is a dynamic tree that will never be finished, and more ancestors and more descendants are being added every day.  It would be a real problem if some of those additions dicated a renumbering exercise, and I don't think any of us would want to see that.  Erin mentioned one name studies, so perhaps the idea is to somehow partition off small sections of the tree that are basically complete, and that could use a numbering system within a bounded group of profiles.  Perhaps a workable concept for that could be developed, but again, I'm just not sure what the purpose is.