Can we please remove the character limit for the suffix field?

Question

I've encountered a few people in historical records whom are always referred to as things such as "the Younger" or "the Elder" or "of Place Name."

I have also encountered records for many Old-English / Anglo-Norman peoples whose suffixes were those such as "Fitz Andrew" or "Fitz Thomas" or "Fitz John" etc.

Due to the character limit that WikiTree has for suffixes, I cannot enter most of these as suffixes.  I have to enter them as either middle names or nicknames.

The nickname field is the most ideal current spot to put these long suffixes, in my opinion, but doing so makes it difficult to distinguish two people of the same name in search results.  Using the middle name field for suffixes allows them to be distinguishable, but I believe that we can do better than resorting to that.

So, can we please remove the character limit for suffixes?  I would greatly appreciate it and I believe that it will improve the quality of WikiTree as a whole if we can put the types of suffixes I described above in the field they belong in.

Answer 1

This question implies a misunderstanding of the use of name fields. Fitz, like van or de, just means "of". It should NEVER go in the suffix field.

Name fields

Please read replies to related questions, and the above link. If it's still not clear get back to us.

Answer 2

Rob,

He has a much better understanding of what a suffix is than wikitree does.  As it currently stands, we are forced to use other naming fields for things other than there intended purpose.  I am referring specifically to being forced to use the “Other Nicknames” field for titles.  These are not nicknames, and they properly belong in the suffix field.  The current system gives us names that look like:

John "Duke of Lancaster" of Gaunt KG formerly Plantagenet

It is ugly.  It is technically and grammatically incorrect.  It is confusing.  It makes wikitree look bad because we cannot even name people properly.

While I agree that the “of a place” titles are generally incorrect usage, terms such as “the elder” and “the younger” were often a proper part of a name found in the primary records.

The suffix field was shortened because it was often being used as a place for notes, and not for proper suffixes.  The shortened field allowed the Data Doctors project to much more easily identify errors and to clean up the names.  However, it has imo done more damage than good, and it is time to go back to a lengthened field and to allow us to name people properly.

Comments

I couldn't agree more!  And while we're on the topic, "prefix" fields desperately need lengthened as well.  I find it galling that I have to represent, for example, the Polish "księżniczka" (princess) as "ks." due to a lack of space in the field.

All the best,

Kelsey

---

I appreciate that using 'Other nicknames' for titles is far from ideal but putting them in the suffix field would be even worse! A suffix should be for part of someone's name ("Junior", "the Elder" etc). A title is not part of the name so shouldn't go in the suffix field in my opinion.

---

A suffix is anything appended to the end of a name which provides additional information about the person.  It has been a standard part of naming conventions for well over a 1000 years.  It includes generational designations (Jr, Sr, III, IV, etc), titles (king of England), honors of nobility (KG, KB, Bt., Esq., Gent.), academic titles (MD, PhD, etc.), military service (USMC, USM, USAF, etc.), religious orders (CSC, OFM, etc.) and a fair number of miscellaneous designations which are completely standard usage.

A title of nobility is almost the definition of a suffix and it belongs no where else.  It is the correct and proper usage of a suffix both in and out of genealogy everywhere in the world except on wikitree.  A title is absolutely part of a name and the entire point of a suffix field is to have a place to put it.  The current system is a joke and I have absolutely no understanding of why you think having a properly structured name, both in form and appearance, could be worse than the mess we currently have.  It is wikitree's idiosyncrasies such as this which hurt wikitree's reputation and why it will not be taken seriously in the wider field of medieval genealogy.  It is something which just fails the test of common sense.

Style and Standards improvements: The Suffix Field

---

I agree with you all and in particular Kelsey has raised a point that is quite applicable to me as well from another perspective.  

Many of our names have

1) a pre-matriculated surname
2) a matriculation name
3) a "zu" denoting essentially as the House
I think 3) would work in the suffix

---

Good point, Lloyd.  At the present I'm putting "zu X" or "a. Y" in the body of the biography, but a properly-formatted suffix field would be a much better place for them.

Answer 3

Add Data Doctors as a tag.  They are the ones who shortened the suffix field in the first place.

Answer 4

the use of Fitz .... is descriptive. It is a patronymic name (describing a person by who their father was) meaning 'son of Henry' 

Roy is correct it is not offically a suffix an explaination of the term can be added into the biography

However if it is a surname then that is were it should go 

If you can add the url of the profile you are referring to you may get a fuller answer. Surnames should be based on what the child was "named at birth" 

Answer 5

Why not just add a line called "Title."  It would fit things like Duke of Lancaster to Attorney-at-Law.  Add a line for "Other Last Name Spellings" for some of those last names.  

And, I think people should remember that biographical information is not part of the name.  It should go in Biography.  I find a lot of that during data doctor challenges.

Plus, personal gripe, for nuns, Sister should be spelled out.  Most of us look at Sr. and think Senior.