Request regarding DVNs on the tree of Theunis

GREAT idea June!
Does that mean we can leave them out of the Suffix??

If everyone was prepared to use the flip node - but I suspect not!!

I don't think everyody knows how to use it, so it will be teaching millions of people again. I am all for using the 1st 5 SV-e and then the last. I do think Daan suggested that. But SV only if there are more than one.
BUT A vote was asked for and the majority voted for full, so I don't really think we can go back.Suffix it must be. In full.
Or am I misunderstanding again? Don can you post it in Afrikaans so that people like myself and Martin and the rest can also be sure, please.
June as always you are way smart my dearest friend. But you are correct in your answer above. "........but I suspect not......."
☺

There was no vote for full no's Judi.....

If anything, the recent vote suggests No support for traditional DVNumbers in the suffix where they contradict the facts; & a growing concern that they should be removed from the suffix altogether if they are going to contradict the tree Judi.

June - are you going to put the publication no with them as a source as well?

I have been adding the b number to the abbreviated number because it does help - especially in the lower reaches of the tree. It means that if a profile has b1... g2h1 as a number, and the father is b6...f1g2 there is obviously something amiss that needs looking at.

After reading Erica's posts I believe that we do need to cite the source for the number, so - at the top of the about notes I am adding ...

"b1c5d7e7f2g3 SAG v9 p 330" for Maria Jacomina Jansen van Rensburg - my Great Grandmother. In the suffix I am adding "b1...f2g3".

In instances where there is no number in SAG because the research didn't include further children, subsequent generations etc. I am adding "Generated" in italics before the SAG reference.

I will be adding the adjusted and previous number in the top lines of the About section where they have been changed according to documented findings, not just in the Curator note.

The flip node tool is not difficult to get the hang of - just look at the preferences at the bottom of the screen on tree view and experiment.

I do not recall that there was a vote regarding the full number in the suffix field - just a consensus of opinion that the numbers needed to stay, but it was thought that an abbreviation was considered the best compromise, taking into consideration all points raised in discussions, whilst also bearing in mind that this is a world tree and that many non-South African users find them irritating and cumbersome. The only thing I have not embraced is the use of a1 etc. because I believe it unnecessary UNLESS there was more than 1 SV/PROG.

In fact quite a number of years ago there was a big call to reduce it to 3 generations - I am sure the discussions can be found somewhere - which boils down to what I am doing by adding the b number. It means that the last generation to have a full number is the third - b1c1d1.

So Sharon - not as a source but as a note in the About. This I will gradually do - it is too big as an exercise in itself - just as abbreviating the suffix number is.

I do believe that although many people would rather have the full number in the suffix field it is impractical and unfriendly and cumbersome as it can distort the name presented on tree view where the number is very long (there is limited space in the tree node). The flip node is a viable alternative but the number has to be in the top lines of the "About" notes. In the end people are going to use the numbers as they see fit - this just seems to be the most effective and least disruptive way of using them on the communal world tree.

If I am shot down by GENi users I am perfectly willing to reconsider.

I am doing this mainly on profiles where I am a manager - but obviously this often crosses over into profiles managed by others as well.

June
Same approach from my side

If there was no vote regarding the full number in the suffix field, why not start one? Too many cooks spoil the dish.

Previous discussions -

http://www.geni.com/discussions/132812

http://www.geni.com/discussions/136100

Should we be deleting all numbers that don't include this on the GENI tree :-)