de Villiers, Pama numbering system

... but the way treated by the people who established the numbering system!

...And it remains unclear why these people's policies should dictate that we use Geni's naming fields to create situations that will cause mis-merges.

... basically because as I have said before those publications form the backbone of most people's genealogy in SA. And as said before they are receptive to corrections. It is a system that is in use and established - we obviously need to work hand in hand with it, making sourced and validated corrects - the problem is always going to be that people will revert to those numbers if things aren't clearly documented/noted etc.

The only way around it is to ban the numbers completely - and somehow I don't see that being a realistic option unless initiated by GENi management. Perhaps something Sharon Doubell and Private User should suggest if they feel that strongly! Perhaps banned from the suffix field with the aka field made visible in merge comparisons?

I think Geni management will say they don't know enough about South African genealogy practice to get involved and would encourage us to sort it out ourselves...

The crux for me comes down to:

Is the DVN system good enough to help make correct merge decisions?

-If yes -then they must stay visible during merges. And massive effort must be made to keep them correct.

-If no -they should be moved to AKA, and then there will be no pressure to update..

I must admit to feeling a little duped here. I was convinced to support the abbreviated DVN in the Suffix Field by the argument that the majority of users favoured it because it helped avoid mis-merges. When Don and I suggested that there was a huge amount of maintenance in keeping those DVN factually accurate in an era of advances in DNA research and slave children being added to the Stam Vaders – we were told it was not a problem to maintain it.

Now, when exactly what we were worried about happens, all I can see is jumping through hoops to create workarounds that preserve the factually incorrect DVN status quo in the Suffix Field – exactly where it will cause mis-merges.

Agreed Don. As I said in this discussion on the practical problem with Theunis Botha, biological son of Ferdinandus Appel b2, not Friedrich Botha a - http://www.geni.com/discussions/127041?msg=954331 =On Martin Andreas Karl (Dries) Potgieter and Peter Dennis...Gone fishing!’s points: I would support putting outdated DVNs in the About or the aka with records of changes.

We could put and lock the corrected last two generation numbers in the suffix field if people were committed to maintaining them correctly.

That way, changes on the b generation sibling numbers will not cause us to have to re-number the whole descent line in the Suffix Field everytime we discover another slave child.=

There is no work around suggested here Sharon - if the change should be made to the DVN numbers for the Botha tree then that is what should be done. No question about. We are exploring possibilities and if others would like to express their thought instead of leaving this as basically a three cornered discussion then perhaps we would get somewhere.

If this is something that has to be done then we need to get on with it - all hands on deck.

We seem to have two discussions in parallel here - both exploring the usefulness of the numbers and how they need to be displayed on GENi. The compromise to date has been to use the last 2 generations in the suffix field with the full number in the aka field. Works if people are prepared to look in more depths at profiles when merges are being considered.

Corrections to the numbers need to be done when these are found - it is a lot of work but can be done and has been done effectively. The Botha situation is enormous and will involve a lot of work - again can be done with all hands on deck - I personally believe that it should be done. The lack of response to the question is worrying - perhaps it is to be assumed that there is no objection and the exercise needs to go ahead?

I do believe that without those numbers there will be many more incorrect merges on the SA tree - no doubt whatsoever because of the naming practices. We need to accept that they are a necessary evil if you like and work with them as I don't see how they can be removed or banned.

If nobody objects the exercise should go ahead.

Agree with you completely June.

What Is stated above about adopted children is an an example of how GISA treated the case where a child was adopted. There is no known record of his biological ancestors and he was adopted parents who had no own children.
I think it is an ingenious way to handle adopted chidren. How else would we suggest the Faculien-Gous family should have been documented to see how they historically fit into family lines.
I am also a supporter of the fact that you should document people according to their biological lines, but cannot disregard the fact that they could be adopted by a different family. In these cases I document/duplicate the person both under his biological parents as well as his foster parents with an appropriate curator note and proceed with his descendants under the foster family line.
I think one unnecessarily restricts him to numbers only according to blood lines if the de facto situation is different. Therefore, until I see a better way treating both blood lines and adoption situations, I will rather follow the GISA example.
Using only blood line in numbering would also make a farce to now to change Bothas to an Appel DVN numbering just because there might be sufficient evidence that they are in fact Appels.

June I agree with the alternatives for Geni and also prefer 4.
Risking creating even more alternatives, I would think if we want to enter the higher (b) lines, I could think about numerous descendants of only one of the b branches, where the b branch would not give additional information. In such cases it might then be worthwhile to enter the c branch to indicate the line.

Daan do you agree that we remove the biologically incorrect DVN s out of the suffix field where they will cause mis merges ?

Thank you Daan - our father of reason!!!

With Daan's response we have three possible solutions -
1 - change the b1 to (b1) and all of that line of descent - as suggested early on in the discussion - although it was suggested that this would be inaccurate because his biological father is known

2 - change ALL the Botha numbers in line with the new information - an exercise involving thousands of names

3 - document/duplicate the person both under his biological parents as well as his foster parents with an appropriate curator note and proceed with his descendants under the foster family line.

Of these three options I favour the first - I still think changes have to be made but practically speaking this option is the least disruptive, whilst still being accurate as the brackets indicate the "adoption" and would be explained by a Curator note.

I implore all interested parties to please contribute to this discussion. With such a far reaching exercise input from the GENi users involved with this tree is imperative. It is not up to the curators to make this decision - we can only make suggestions which must be considered by the community as a whole.

So please have your say!

Cross posting with Sharon - the suffix field would need to have the revised DVN and be locked

My issue with creating versions of DVNs in a profiles suffix name field, is just that, we are inventing genealogy.

The fact that we are struggling to decide on what to do in the Botha/Appel case speaks volumes: in that there is no published rules on how to apply the numbers in tricky cases...

My suggestion would be to take this opportunity to move this "primitive numbering system" to the AKA field.

The argument that they must be visible as they help to make correct merge decisions, seems to me, to be false.

Don - numbering systems are widely supported in genealogical circles - you can't just brush them aside where they have been so extensively used in South African tree building in particular.

Yes - they would be better placed in the AKA field alone - but that is not visible on the tree or in the merge comparison window where it is often essential in making correct merges.

Maybe a request to make the AKA field visible on the merge comparison page is called for, but it still wouldn't help on the tree view where it certainly does help with the very large families where can be a dozen men with the same name; in the more common names these names can be handed down from as many as 10 different b branches of the family. The numbers are an essential tool in these large, common family names, not so much so for the less common names. Browsing the tree you will see that there are many less common names where the numbers are not used.

They are needed in many areas - and valued by many SA tree users. We cannot ignore that.

I propose we give people 24hrs to vote on this here, and on FB:

IN THE CASE OF FACTUALLY INCORRECT DV NUMBERS THAT CONTRADICT THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER (eg Theunis/Appel) & THE CORRECT SIBLING RANK ORDER (eg newly 'discovered' SV kids from slaves in between kids from White wives ), SHOULD WE:

1) Keep the factually incorrect GISA DV numbers in the suffix?
(Ignoring the mis-merges this will create because it contradicts the Geni tree)

2) Remove the factually incorrect DV numbers to the aka/About, and put the factually corrected DV numbers in the suffix & lock the name/suffix field?
(Ignoring the fact that GISA hasn't got the resources to update them yet )

3) Leave the DV numbers out of the suffix altogether & put them in the aka only (& lock the suffix field to prevent them being added there.)

Is this a good idea?

(It leaves out the question of adoption and the question of length of generational numbers to be added to the suffix in the case of 1) & 2) - only because I think they're separate/ subsequent questions. )

Sharon -

1) Keep the factually incorrect GISA DV numbers in the suffix?
(Ignoring the mis-merges this will create because it contradicts the Geni tree)

Surely there is no question that incorrect DVNs should be left in the suffix field. Where changes have been made and documented these have been changed and Curator notes added - in line with your point 2.

Point 3 I have addressed in my previous post.

Out of interest do we have examples of newly discovered SV kids from slaves in between kids from White wives?

Your time period probably needs to be extended to over the weekend - maybe a Monday deadline.

=1) Keep the factually incorrect GISA DV numbers in the suffix?
(Ignoring the mis-merges this will create because it contradicts the Geni tree)
Surely there is no question that incorrect DVNs should be left in the suffix field. =

Surely that's exactly the question we're debating with Theunis? His Botha descendant DV numbers are now factually incorrect because he appears in the Appel tree on our screen?

=Point 3 I have addressed in my previous post.=

Yes, but it is still an option that Don thinks is viable - so must be included as an option for people to vote on, as much as Point 1 (which I feel I have addressed quite a lot)

=Out of interest do we have examples of newly discovered SV kids from slaves in between kids from White wives?=

I have no idea - you seemed to suggest that above. But, given the work happening in that area on GENI and in DNA research it would surely be foolish to take any decision that doesn't take that into account? I don't want to be doing this all over again next month, or even next year, because we took a workaround decision now.

=Your time period probably needs to be extended to over the weekend - maybe a Monday deadline.=
Good point - should be extended.

The Theunis question is one that is being discussed right now and a solution sought - I think your statement is misleading in GENERAL terms. This vote if specifically about the situation on the Botha line should be called for there - if it is about a specific situation.

As a rule we should certainly NOT keep the factually incorrect DV numbers in the suffix. I think but can't find evidence right now that GISA was established to preserve the resources - the numbers were not established by them but by de Villiers.

EK wil die volle nommer gebruik. My persoonlike oordeel. Ek het net te veel merges vandat ons begin karring het aan 'n sisteem wat gewerk het.
I prefer to use the full de Villiers Pama numbers as June says it is not something that is in practice and can just b e brushed away. I just had too many merge issues since we started meddling with the system that worked.
As this is for all users I think we should let all have a say.
Two questions:
1. Why FB?
2. Why voting.
Who are going to take on the job of voting.
I also think it is time for us to start letting people know by name and then there family can see.
I will start with 3 names and if each of you can do that, we will soon have a wider audience.
Won't work. so I will send it on to them
Wil nie werk nie so stuur aan vir hulle.
June agree with you. Even until after the weekend. There is people who are actually working and as the schools start on Monday will be spending time getting the things ready for school this weekend.

The outcome of the Botha debate will affect the general use of DVNs now and in the future.

Judi, the decision about not using the full number in the suffix was taken months ago, and agreed to by you.

I don't understand why not FB, and why not voting?

=The Theunis question is one that is being discussed right now and a solution sought - I think your statement is misleading in GENERAL terms. This vote if specifically about the situation on the Botha line should be called for there - if it is about a specific situation=.

The rule we apply for Theunis will affect the whole tree. It is an underlying principle about how we will treat biological fathers. It would be misleading to have the vote there when it affects the whole tree.

How does an abbreviated DVN cause extra matches/merges?

I vote for full de Villiers Pama numbers. Thanks

Please let's stay on the topic so we can come to a conclusion on this one. The length of the numbers in the suffix was decided on a while ago. Anyone who wants to re-open that, please start a new discussion.

I propose we give people until Tuesday morning to vote on this here, and on FB:

IN THE CASE OF FACTUALLY INCORRECT DV NUMBERS THAT CONTRADICT THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER (eg Theunis/Appel) & THE CORRECT SIBLING RANK ORDER (eg newly 'discovered' SV kids from slaves in between kids from White wives ), SHOULD WE:

1) Keep the factually incorrect GISA DV numbers in the suffix?
(Ignoring the mis-merges this will create because it contradicts the Geni tree)

2) Remove the factually incorrect DV numbers to the aka/About, and put the factually corrected DV numbers in the suffix & lock the name/suffix field?
(Ignoring the fact that GISA hasn't got the resources to update them yet )

3) Leave the DV numbers out of the suffix altogether & put them in the aka only (& lock the suffix field to prevent them being added there.)

Pieter - we are not voting for or against the DV numbers. THE DV NUMBERS WILL ALWAYS BE ON THE PROFILES.
We're voting on where to put them, and if to use out-dated ones that might create mis-merges in the Suffix field .

It would help a lot if you gave us a 1, 2, or 3 about your preference on that.