Pierre Tremblay 1660-1736 wife of Marie Madeleine Roussin 1169-1743... AND Marie Madeleine Simard 1667-1684

Started by Paul Louis Doré on Tuesday, December 29, 2009


Profiles Mentioned:

Showing all 24 posts
12/29/2009 at 8:49 AM

Please note the firts names of the 2 wifes are identical but that their birth and deaths dates, certified , are DIFFERENT.

The 1st wife Marie Madeliene SIMARD AINÉE died shortly after giving birth to Pierre Tremblay 1684-1709, in 1684. Another pitfall to avoid: is that SIMARD had a sister of the same firts name, (for whatever reason the parents had).

The 2nd wife Marie Madeleine ROUSSIN, had all the other children of SIEUR Pierre Tremblay père.

MERGING these profils should thus (as any others) must be carefully scrutinized BEFORE proceeding.

This is the 3rd time I've had to UN MERGE erronneous merges of the same nature confonding Madeleine SIMARD with Madeleine ROUSSIN.

I'm doing this to honour a collaboration right consented to me by my first collaborators , relatives on my wife's side.

PLEASE EXERCIZE CAUTION BEFORE INITIATING a MERGE ! Collaborating rights are a priviledge not to be taken lightly).

Happy New Year and may your genealogy be in 2010 be a pleasant one.

Private User
12/29/2009 at 8:59 AM

I am not a manager on this entry, but wanted to point out that this is one reason I use only maiden names in my tree. The married name is obvious, but if the maiden name is not displayed in the tree, it's easy to make mistakes like this one.

Private User
12/29/2009 at 1:08 PM

Seems to be happening too often. I have been demerging so often.. I have given up fixing the errors. There are just too many errors in the tree and it is taken time away from my old research.

There are fathers merged onto sons. Sisters merged together...

One way to make sure that this does not happen is to..

1- Display a woman's maiden name not the name of her husband.

Maiden names actually did not exist legally in Quebec prior to the 1970s. A woman's legal name was the name on her birth certificate. So, Marie Boucher who married Francois LeFond became Mme, Lefond but her name stayed Marie Boucher. There is a difference between title and name.

It also reduces confusion and is the accepted genealogical convention.

2- Display all of a woman's given names. Most woman had Marie or Madeleine in their names,

3- Don't assume that just because there are two daughters or sons with the same first name, they are the same person. Re-cycling names was common.

3- Before a "final" merge, verify that the dates line up and make sense. If, in doubt, verify the information.

12/29/2009 at 3:31 PM

You're right on all the suggestions .

Especially First names being reused traditionally throughout the extended family so that an average of 8 children per family re cyled often the same names in all 8 families thus in a small community such as ST-Augustinde-Desmaures, it wasn't unusal to have 8 Augustin in the same generation. And of course natality deaths being important, we find very often 2 and 3 persons with the same first name as in my great grand parents in Rivière-à-Pierre.

However about maiden names in Quebec I would add a precision.

Before from 1660 to 1970, Vital acts were the responsibility of the churchs thus ALL birth, marriages and deaths were registered under maiden names along with spouses and parents.

The weakest link being however deaths where more often then not very little "synalytique" info was present.

Thanks !

12/19/2010 at 7:12 AM

It took me a couple of months to realize that I needed to use maiden names only. As a descendant of two of these French Canadian families I have run into several cases where there were two wives with the same first name and had to unmerge these women repeatedly. After working on my 'Cyr tree' for months I have returned to my 'Dufour tree" only to see it is a hugh mess. I appreciated your suggestions prior to this discovery but even more so now.
Thank you Merci Paul

12/19/2010 at 11:08 AM

Great !

Private User
12/20/2010 at 5:42 AM

I'm ON IT.

Private User
12/20/2010 at 6:04 AM

Private User, I was looking through the tree and noticed you made lots of merges. I think you need to set your middle name value to showing in your Advanced tree settings. You erroneously stacked a few Maries. I unstacked them and fixed their names to Marie-Madeleine, Marie-Josephte, etc. So that their baptismal "Marie" shows with their Birth name Madeleine, Josephte, etc..

Hope that helps. The tree looks a lot cleaner now...

And like Marty Beaudet said, please keep BIRTH names "Maiden" names in the last name fields, as French-Canadian and French women did NOT take on a "Married" name, plus, it helps us prevent things like this where a man is married to 2 women with the same first name.

Private User
12/20/2010 at 6:34 AM

One caveat - there are Acadian families on the US side of the border (Northern Maine and Louisiana) who did use married names for women earlier than 1970. There's a big Louisiana Daigle tree that's connected that shows this.

Private User
12/20/2010 at 6:38 AM

I don't see how using one name is better than having both names available, unless the woman was married more than once. It's additional information and seems illogical how you would make better choices with less information, particularly when you can display the names however you like on the preferences. I prefer not to remove the choice from people and allow them to display it how they like to display it, which requires putting in both names.

We should be solving confusion with curator notes, or actually adding identifiable information to those fields if they are different people. Such as Unknown 1 and Unknown 2.

Private User
12/20/2010 at 6:52 AM

Additional information can go in the Nickname or About me fields. It causes issues when people are making hot matches and merges.

If people would have kept birth names (I hate to say Maiden Name) in the surname fields, then we wouldn't be in the messes we are getting into in the trees. There are too many people married to the wrong people because of "married" names being listed. I see it ALL the time.

For instance there were about 6 or 7 generations of Duncans and they all seemed to be married to women with the same first name and "last name" because people input a "married name." They all got merged together and there was a tangle of people stacked, children stacked and merged with their kids and grandkids.

If people would have not put "married" names in then they wouldn't have showed up in a hot-match to be merged. I am even guilty of this in the past. I used to use married names because I WANTED the women to be found in search by all alternative names. BUT, it caused excited newbie Pro-members to hot-match profiles and get profiles mixed up. Even older members "still" merge erroneously, and may times it is because of last names.

The Church tree was another one. There were a few generations of men named John Church who were married to women named Catherine. They were ALL mixed up...because each Catherine was listed as Catherine Church. Well, one of those Catherine Church's ended up being merged with a "biological" Catherine Church, making a man look like he was married to his sister.

I had to MP and curate note A TON of profiles because of this. I don't think people understand the importance of BIRTH names over any other name. All alternate names should go in the About Me, in a Document or in the Nickname field.

Private User
12/20/2010 at 7:04 AM

PS I know we are curators and volunteering, but it isn't fair to us to have to stray away from our own family trees, because everybody else wants or needs a curator note because they keep having preventable errors.

Daily, I get emails from various different families asking for help (just check out my activity of me bouncing around from tree to tree...one minute I will be in the Wilsons, then in the Tremblays, then in the Penningtons, then in the Plantagenets, etc). It is almost ALWAYS the same thing...someone was merged with someone of the same name because of a married name instead of a birth name. It's almost ALWAYS the same thing...and I have to go in and add curator notes such as "Not to be confused with [insert woman's name] whom was also married to her husband."

That's "my time" away from "my tree" or "my life." I don't do this for money, I do it because I like to help, but if people practiced genealogy the way the genealogists do it (which is by birth names to follow a pedigree) then we'd have a very consistent and accurate tree and less errors. While I'm helping others clear their "merge centers" mine is now up to over a thousand again.

Private User
12/20/2010 at 7:21 AM

This doesn't seem to be an issue of having the married name, but a lack of people putting in the birth name. I agree that using the birth name is preferred to using the married name if you put in one or the other, but I don't see how you would make those same errors if both names were in there.

Private User
12/20/2010 at 7:38 AM

"but I don't see how you would make those same errors if both names were in there."

A lot of times siblings married siblings and their kids had similar names, causing confusing in trees.

John Smith is married to Mary Brown.
John Smith has a sister named Mary Smith who is married to John Brown whom is Mary Brown's brother.
They both have sons named John, one is John Smith Jr and the other is John Smith Brown.

Someone merges Mary Brown (Smith) into Mary Smith (Brown) because they quickly glanced at the husband's name and the son's name. Oopsy, they made a mistake...and instead of fixing it, they take off and go work on another part of the tree and hope someone else will take care of it.

Meanwhile, someone looks at their tree going, "WTF, who merged the two Marys? They are CLEARLY different women." I get an email from someone who is super-angry their tree looks jacked up. Mary Brown is merged with Mary Smith. John Smith Brown is merged with his cousin John Smith and has 4 wives since both men were married twice, and 24 children. John Brown and John Smith are not merged and has a Yellow triangle because that's where the user decided to quit screwing up the tree.

This is something I get all the time.

Private User
12/20/2010 at 7:53 AM

I can understand that - thanks for explaining. Until technical solutions can help reduce the user error, I guess it makes sense to alter behavior to minimize issues from those not paying attention, which ends up creating work for everyone else. :-) I certainly appreciate your efforts and those of other curators. I like to help others and thought about volunteering for curator duty myself if there was a hat to put my name in for consideration, though I'm not sure I want the abuse that comes with it. ;-)

Private User
12/20/2010 at 7:56 AM

When I say abuse, I'm not meaning that curators abuse. I was talking about the abuse of the work and users abusing the curators. Just thought I'd make that clarification.

12/20/2010 at 8:07 AM


As you know I disagree with you in the Anglo American tree. To me, the more information available, the better; all my ancestresses back to the 1600s were recorded by their married names in documented records that I've been able to find; and maiden name is *not* the same as "birth name."

My grandmother was born in Odessa, 1901, under one name. She emigrated in 1910 and the family name was changed to (the mother's family name); that is the name reflected in her naturalization papers. Her name was legally changed at marriage in 1918 to her husband's name. Therefore, documented records are under FOUR names:

"birth name" (Odessa - if I ever find it;) )
"legal name" (state of Louisiana - naturalization record)
"maiden name" (state of Louisiana - marriage record record)
"married / legal name" (death certificate / Social security death index record)

If I didn't know all four names and have that reflected in the genealogy program as best I can, I would not be able to find my own grandmother.

Happy ancestor hunting!

Private User
12/20/2010 at 8:43 AM

Maybe we need to create some guidelines on the Wiki, if we can agree. :-) We could hit all those odd things like, should Marie Madeleine be structured as the first name (with space), first name (with hyphen), or first name and middle name. I don't know that we have a Geni "guide to layout".

12/20/2010 at 8:53 AM

We do have a "naming conventions" section on the Geni Community Wiki -- link at the bottom of every page -- and directly to the naming conventions section here:


Requires separate (free) account to edit. Caveat: the server is outside the "geni veil of privacy" so you may want to use a different name, but link to your geni profile.

"Wikimedia formatting" of "overview / about me" sections was just implemented, like, a week ago, so it will take time.

I follow a convention of this at the top of that page:

- Birth Name (in bold), "also known as" (in italics, and repeated in "nickname" field), date of birth / location; baptism / christening; date of death / location; burial date / locaton
- Parents
- Marriage(s)
- Children (with spouse name listed)

then section breaks for Notes, Sources, Works Cited, Footnotes, Brief Biography ... whatever seems relevant.

All information I can find is sourced with at least a wikipedia link and hopefully much better than that.

When a profile is particularly confusing I try and summarize in curator notes, of course.

Private User
12/20/2010 at 8:59 AM

Excellent - Thanks Erica

12/21/2010 at 7:30 AM

I'm definitely on the side of Jeffrey and Erica in this argument. But the fact that we're having this discussion at all tells me that something more is needed on the software side.

I am pretty strongly opposed to using fields for purposes that are clearly different than originally intended- especially when better technical solutions could be implemented. For example, I wish Geni provided a way to manually identify two profiles that are definitely known to be different people. The purpose would be to prevent those two profiles from ever being merged together [again] by accident.

In my opinion...
Changes to a person's last name (for whatever reason, including marriage) should be recorded in the Last Name field.
Birth (family) names belong in the Maiden Name field.
Nicknames belong in the nickname field.

12/21/2010 at 7:33 AM

Instead of users resorting to using creative ways around the problem,
Geni needs to display ALL of the fields needed to minimize the chance for confusion on every appropriate screen.

12/21/2010 at 9:28 AM

Agreed, David, and for exactly the reason you state.

I have done quite a few database migration projects. Whenever the field was used, not as named, but as a workaround to input screen / database field limitations, the result was truly a nightmare, and the upgrades took 3 times as much manual labor as it should have.

We have asked Geni that the "nickname" field be re-labeled to "also known as," made more prominent in display, and more easily input and edited. These seem to be easily doable enhancements by Geni and should make it in the next release (fingers crossed).

It doesn't address all the naming issues but it can be a big step. Making sure "display name" shows in more views would be another big step, and restore the handiness of this otherwise useful field that has become a liability.

12/21/2010 at 9:38 AM

Meanwhile, what we, as community members can and should do, is make it easier on each other by posting period / culture / language / country specific guidelines on the Geni Community Wiki.

This is for us, the users, to determine, after all.

One thing I need to caution for those who have genealogy conventions they would like to see, and that is -- the U.S. has specific social security laws on "legal names," based originally on the English Common Law.

Since that is where the government documentation that we need is going to be found, we need to respect that even more than "genealogy programs."

Showing all 24 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion