What causes a prefix field to sometimes show up, and other times not in a search?

Question

What triggers the prefix field to show up in searches?  Sometimes it is there for certain profiles, and other profiles with a prefix, it does not show.   

By a prefix, I mean where Rev. or Dr. or Capt., etc was placed in the field.

Does it have to do with when it was added?  Such as at the time the profile is created?

And more importanly, is there a way to set it so that the prefix always shows up?

Comments

Even with the same profile it can sometimes appear and at other times not. I have read related posts on this issue and cannot see one that indicates the problem has been resolved

Answer 1

Rhian is correct - sometimes they are included in the Proper First Name or Preferred Name field. That is the only way to have them show up where they should (at the top of the page) whether or not it is improper or not. Leaving Barons & Earls and other such titles aside because they are not that great a concern for most North Americans and because the majority of users of WikiTree are from NA lets concentrate on clergy and military.

 

If we look at the Specific Rules for Individual Name Fields the Proper First Name states

"This is the formal name that would appear in official documents." In the case of a Minister that would begin with Reverend (Rev.) or for a priest, Father (Fr.). For someone in the military it would be Colonel (Col.) or Captain (Capt.) these are part of the Formal Name that would appear on official documents.

 

I realize that this is not the correct protocol but with the Prefix field essentially being inactive or turned off there is little choice to get the complete formal name to appear at the top of the profile page. While I don't usually include the Prefix in  the Proper First Name or Preferred Name field I certainly understand why some do. My Grand uncle was a minister and I would like his profile  to display as Rev. Richard Quigley instead of just Richard Quigley. http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Quigley-235

 

I know, people will say, but you can see Rev. in other places on the page. I find it interesting that when I go to Queen Elizabeth's page, http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Windsor-1 which is not open so I can't see what is in which field, that Queen Elizabeth II displays at the top of her page so why can't my grand uncle have Rev. or Reverend display at the top of his page. This is a double standard which should be rectified.

 

I think this could all be easily resolved if the Prefix field were always displayed at the top of the profile. If that was the case the Prefix would not need to be added to any other field.

Comments

I totally agree.  SO what is the criteria for it showing a search?

We all have multiple ancestors with a prefix that reflects something that they earned.

We put it in the prefix field, but yet, if it happens to be a John Smith born 1900 and a Rev. John Smith born 1900 there is NO differentiation except occasionally...so what sets the criteria?

---

Windsor-1 has "Queen Elizabeth II" in the Preferred Name field. This is common practice in the Euro Aristo Project. The reason for that, if I recall, is that the Prefix field is often paired with the Proper First Name field, and for royalty those often don't go together (because kings and queens often take on a regnal name). Eg. Elizabeth's father, King Goerge VI, was born with the first name Albert, so putting King in the Prefix field would result in seeing King Albert in some places, which is wrong.

---

That's great Lianne - I'm glad the rules were bent so that I could work for the royal families but that is a small percentage of the population. I don't see how that is any different than including Sir or Reverend, in the Preferred Name Field, for the rest of the populace. It seems to be the only way to consistantly display the person's proper or Formal name at the top of the page.

---

I would like to see this fixed, as I have missed several Lowest LNABs in merging because I was searching on "John" and they were "Col. John".

---

Exactly...If someone does put the title in the first name field and you do a search for a John Smith, but someone has "Col. John" in the first name field, it will not show...

I completely understand the desire to have the title or prefix show, so this does need to be fixed...consistently so this situation is resolved.

Vote it up!

Answer 2

Are you sure the prefix is in the prefix field, a lot of profiles incorrectly have the prefix in the first name field, they then show up as Dr. Bob or Sir William anywhere the first name is displayed

Comments

Also in response to if a person is born with a title...Yes to Sir William as in Prince William was born with the title Prince as well as Prince Harry, but is it on their birth certificates...this I donot know, but if not then Yes to Rhian, right?

Just grasping here as we are working out the naming standards for the Clan project and probably the Irish project at the same time (not sure of that, but they will probably overlap)...

---

it is on the birth certificate.

King is not,

---

Exactly my point.  Sometimes it is there, sometimes it is not so what is the factor that keeps it from showing always...is it when it was added, as I suspect...(at the time the profile is created vs. after in an edit) or if not this, then what is the criteria for having it show up?

---

He was not born a prince but became a prince when he was awarded the title, it may have only been minutes in this case. It is the same really as you cannot bury a knight. At the instant of death a knight is no longer a knight, he may well display on his grave he was a knight but he stopped being one officially when he died.

The birth certificate of William is available if you want to check it, it will not say prince.

---

Ah, so on Prince William's birth certificate it actually has the title or prefix, Prince (and probably a lot more), but it does not say King because he may or may not become King in his lifetime, but he is actually born a Prince.

Hmmm..a lot to learn on this naming scheme...so this would also apply to a hereditary title? Or perhaps not, because that title would not come into play until the "holder" of the title bequethed it via death or absension....are children though born as Lady and is THAT on their birth certificate?  Just trying to learn this...

---

In between the time he was born and the time when the birth was registered he was awarded the prefix prince, he was not born with it, the title could not be awarded until he was proved to to born alive.

Hereditary titles you have correct although to inherit the title normally you must have reached the age of majority, being married qualified in some cases as having reached the age of majority, which accounts for some very early marriages.

---

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383616/Prince-George-William-Kate-formally-register-birth-Kensington-Palace-mother-puts-Princess-United-Kingdom-occupation.html

---

I think if one is born the son of a King then , for all intensive purposes, they are a prince or princess. I don't think seconds or minutes really matters. And to go a step further with your knight analogy if the title is lost the second they die then everyone who is dead should not have a title?? Seriously, we are supposed to use the names that people went by when they were alive not dead. Titles, whether they are military, clerical or aristocratic help us to identify people. If I said Elizabeth Windsor most people would have no idea who I meant but if I say Queen Elizabeth II everyone knows who I am talking about.

---

Okay, ruled out the reason prefix shows at time of creation of the profile..stewart-1178 on Jan 18 2014 Maria added prefix "SIR" but the profile was created Feb 2011

---

So in response to you Rhian, it's okay to (as Eugene stated) bend the rules for Queen Elizabeth, but why don't we "FIX" the issue with the prefix field...

and if that is not possible, let's identify why it is selective in searches.

Answer 3

The situation is:  A title is entered in the PREFIX field (not the first name field) and the prefix field does not show up consistently in searches nor is it consistently displayed on profiles.

The result is that members are putting the title in the first name field so that it will show up for that profile.

The drawback is that unless you do a search with the title AND first name in the first name search field, you are not going to get all of the John Smiths that you are looking for because the first name field is incorrect.

Comments

Stewart-2484 is an example of an incorrect first name field

Stewart-1178 is an example of how it is correctly placed yet shows up in a search.

Cheuvront-6 is an example of how it is correctly placed yet does not show up.

Answer 4

Okay, I think I found the issue.  If you put a period for an abbreviation in the prefix field, as in Rev. verses Rev it will not show up in a search nor will it show on the profile.

I have changed/edited the naming guidelines of the Prefix field to reflect this.  Additional "tests" need to be done to verify this, and would be appreciated!

Comments

That doesn't make a hill of beans of difference.

---

i tried this and it sure didn't make a difference to me.

Those of us in in EuroAristo Project have our rules, so the problem is one that need to be solve for the rest.  I routinely take out prefixes that are indcluded with the first name, but I understand swhy people put them in.

I'm not sure whether the main problem is with the display on the main profile page, which should be easy to fix, or with the name as displayed in other places. The prefix shows up on the Surname List page. It does not show up on the list returned when you look for a particular person, nor does it show up when you search for a match.

I think it should show up in ALL those places.

---

Try taking it out of the Royals and see what happens, lol. I'm really not content with the double standard. Lets just display the prefix with the rest of the name at the top of the page. Whether it is included in a search is another issue. Or perhaps the Scottish Clans project should adopt the same rule thet EuroAristo uses with regard to royalty.

---

Well, I have to agree with you Eugene.  We definitely need to have a similiar naming standard if we can't get this prefix thing to work.

I tested my theory on a couple and it does show up in the general last name search list, and Vic is right, it does not show up in a first and last name search.

I also like Sir William's Hill of Beans which I haven't heard in a very long time.  LOL

---

Don't forget about the Name Displays tools. Select that option from any profile for a summary of how we display the name in various contexts.

After the long discussion on surname prefixes, and then reading this, I'm sure glad we never created a surname prefix field.

If a prefix should always be included with the first name, why do we have a separate prefix field?

The reasons that come to mind for having a separate field:

• The ability to have contexts where a full, complete, formal name is displayed, and other contexts where a short, simple, informal name is displayed. Saying "Dr. Jonathan Smith" is necessary in some places. In other family contexts, it looks stiff.
• Ease of import/export of GEDCOMs, when other systems separate the prefix.
• Clarity in status indicators. The ability to indicate that a prefix is certain or uncertain separate from a first name being certain or uncertain.

At this point, there's also the fact that millions of profiles have been entered and edited with a separate prefix.

I don't think it makes sense to get rid of the prefix field.

---

So you are saying that for good reason the prefix field should stay.

In which case I think the arguments here come down to can the prefix not please be displayed in all contexts and particularly in searches (where the prefix helps distinguish Bloggins from Muggins) and at the top of the page.

Since we collaborate on shared profiles we need to agree on how profiles should look. Otherwise personal preferences might conflict and lead to bitter disagreements.

 

We also need different guidelines on name displays.

 

I would say there are no bitter disagreements at wikitree because the people here are so nice and polite, but the prefix field is at the moment becoming a contentious area where there are two POVs.

---

I think it should stay.  I believe though, that if it is there we need to go back to the original question to determine why it is a "floater" field where it appears sometimes and other times not.

As Eugene stated, he would like to have his relative show the Rev and as others stated, some people are putting it in the first name field so it DOES show which then causes an issue for searches as Robin stated.

I jumped the gun when I thought I had figured out the periodused in an abbreviated title in the Prefix Field, apparently the removal of the "period" doesn't make a hill of beans in difference.

So the original question is:  what is the criteria or the mechanics, if you will, behind the scenes that allows it to show in a general surname search, not in an individual search where first AND last names are searched, and to "sometimes" appear at the top of a profile.

As Eugene also pointed out, a prefix is used in the first name field for certain projects, but frowned upon in general because of search limitations.

---

I've started a new thread: Should the style rules recommend putting a prefix in the Preferred First Name field when it's preferred?

 

Maybe that would work for everyone.