Jump to content


Photo

Maiden name parentheses being change to quotations marks

source templates maiden name parentheses

  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 puzzler

puzzler

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8 posts

Posted 06 June 2020 - 08:18 AM

I have tried to enter a woman's name including her maiden name in parentheses into a "name"-type field into sources using a number of templates e.g. both of the Correspondence templates, "Books, Basic Format" template and "Books, General (Author(s) known)" template to name just a few.  I entered Jane (Smith) Johnson as the Author in the Book, Basic Format template and RM7 changed the parentheses into quotation marks resulting in this:

Footnote:
Jane "Smith" Johnson, Tall Tales (N.p.: n.p., n.d.).

Short Footnote:
Johnson, Tall Tales.

Bibliography:
Johnson, Jane "Smith". Tall Tales. N.p.: n.p., n.d..

 

If I put a comma in front of the name like this ,Jane (Smith) Johnson the footnote works but the short footnote and bibliography go crazy, like this:

Footnote:
Jane (Smith) Johnson, Tall Tales (N.p.: n.p., n.d.).

Short Footnote:
, Tall Tales.

Bibliography:
, Jane (Smith) Johnson. Tall Tales. N.p.: n.p., n.d..

 

I have tried this on similar fields in a number of templates with the same results.  I also tried this on both my laptop and my desktop (both use Windows 10) in case it was my keyboard.  I recently got both a new desktop and laptop.  No joy!!  Help please!!  Is my software corrupt or is this happening to everyone?



#2 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6435 posts

Posted 06 June 2020 - 09:52 AM

RM interprets the (...) or "..." as a nickname, not maiden name, and applies the nickname style setting.

 

Entering it as Jane /(Smith) Johnson/ may give you the result you desire. The /.../ designates the enclosed string as a surname and applies no style rule.


Tom user of RM7630 FTM2017 Ancestry.ca FamilySearch.org FindMyPast.com
SQLite_Tools_For_Roots_Magic_in_PR_Celti wiki, exploiting the database in special ways >>> RMtrix-tiny.png app, a bundle of RootsMagic utilities.


#3 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3930 posts

Posted 06 June 2020 - 11:56 AM

This is an interesting issue that I have never encountered before. I had to think about why because I use parentheses a lot with names and never use quotes. My parentheses don't get changed to quotes. That's because I don't use nicknames. Instead, I enter names into RM's given name field with parentheses, for example, Sarah F. (Sallie) Smith. And for women, I only enter their maiden name into the surname field.

 

But you are talking about names in citations, not names in RM's main given name and surname fields. After thinking about it, I realized that the reason I don't encounter the issue is that I enter a person's name into a citation in the same way it's entered into the cited document. A deed for A. H. Smith is a deed for A. H. Smith, not a deed for Alexander Hamilton Smith even if I know his full name. An obituary for Jane Smith is an obituary for Jane Smith, not an obituary for Jane Doe even if I know that her maiden name was Doe. That's the way the document reads. That's the way the document will be indexed. And that's the way the document can be found.

 

Jerry

 



#4 puzzler

puzzler

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8 posts

Posted 06 June 2020 - 03:45 PM

Jerry, I agree with your concept of entering the information as found on the document.  Unfortunately, that is what got me into this mess.  <_<  :(   On a self-published book, the author referred to herself as Given Name (Maiden Name) Surname.  Also the inscription on the back of some photos includes maiden names and married names.  I have not been able to find a way to duplicate either of those as I enter them into my source citations. 

 

Tom, using the Jane /(Smith) Johnson/ method would result in both (Smith) and Johnson being included as the surname so that the reverse surname would be (Smith) Johnson, rather than Johnson.  According to page 133 of Evidence Explained by Elizabeth Shown Mills, the book should be indexed by the surname Johnson, not the maiden name.

 

UPDATE:  One problem solved; one needs fixed by RM.

 

Aha!  I found a protocol that works - well, sort of* but it is a bit convoluted** .  If I set the Tools > File Options > General > Nickname format to use parentheses and then in the template (Books, Basic Format for example) I enter the Given Name(s) followed by the maiden name as (Maiden) and then the Surname (e.g. Jane (Smith) Johnson), then the source will index by the surname when needed. 

 

*The "sort of" refers to the following:  Although on the Source Citation screen the footnote looks good, as soon as I try to print a report like Narrative Report or Individual Summary, the footnote ends up with an extra space between the given name(s) and the maiden name just like someone else reported previously in this forum.  SO what you see on the citation screen is NOT the same as what happens on the print screen, both in the preview and in the actual printed copy.  Please, please, please get this fixed!!!  It is frustrating to spend all that time getting your footnote to look correct on the citation screen only to have it show up differently in the print screen!!!   :wacko:

 

**The rest of the convoluted protocol is that I cannot use a nickname also in the source citation PLUS I have to enter nicknames in the names screen on the Given Name(s) line with quotation marks around the nickname.  This I can deal with manually by strict protocols.



#5 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6435 posts

Posted 06 June 2020 - 07:38 PM

I thought you would not be happy with the reverse name. Years ago, I searched without success for an escape character so that these special characters in name-type fields would be treated as literals. There is an escape character for other sensitive characters in text-type fields; you'll see why it won't work in name-type fields. Tried again tonight and thought I was onto something. If you replace either or both the ( and the ) with &#40 and &#41 respectively, the sentence previews behave as you would like:

 

Author: Jane &#40Smith) Johnson

 

Footnote:
Jane (Smith) Johnson, Book Title (N.p.: n.p., n.d.), [Page].

Short Footnote:
Johnson, Book Title, [Page].

Bibliography:
Johnson, Jane (Smith). Book Title. N.p.: n.p., n.d..

 

However, this is another situation where the source preview and the report writer do not match and the latter outputs "Jane &#40Smith) Johnson".

 

You may notice that in HTML, the proper encoding for "(" ends with a semi-colon. But that, too, is a special character in the RM sentence language for name-type fields used to separate multiple authors in the Author field. It expands into commas or "and" in the sentence.

 

Final suggestion that does work but you may not like the style: use square braces instead of parentheses. While they need to be escaped in text fields as special characters, apparently they are not special in name-type fields. So:

 

Author: Jane [Smith] Johnson

 

Footnote: Jane [Smith] Johnson, Book Title (N.p.: n.p., n.d.), [Page].

Short Footnote: Johnson, Book Title, [Page].

Bibliography: Johnson, Jane [Smith]. Book Title. N.p.: n.p., n.d..


Tom user of RM7630 FTM2017 Ancestry.ca FamilySearch.org FindMyPast.com
SQLite_Tools_For_Roots_Magic_in_PR_Celti wiki, exploiting the database in special ways >>> RMtrix-tiny.png app, a bundle of RootsMagic utilities.


#6 puzzler

puzzler

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8 posts

Posted 06 June 2020 - 09:23 PM

Tom,

 

Thanks for spending time on that! 

 

Choosing between brackets and an extra space is a tough choice!  Neither quite fills my perfectionist needs.   :D  One looks like poor understanding of the formatting while the other looks like sloppiness.  So...whether to be thought stupid or sloppy...tough choice!   :rolleyes:



#7 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3930 posts

Posted 07 June 2020 - 06:44 AM

I've been thinking about this problem some more. I wonder if it would solve the problem if you just used text type fields instead of name type fields in some cases. To do so is straightforward if you are making your own templates. If you wish to use RM's templates that use name type fields, you would have to copy the templates you were using, change the name type fields to text type fields, and then use the customized copy of the templates instead of the original templates. It is often recommended to make copies of RM's templates before using them anyway, even you don't make any changes to them. That way, if you discover a misplaced comma or an extra blank or some such error, you can fix it yourself. You can't fix errors in RM's templates themselves and RM itself has never made promised fixes for the templates. You can make such corrections to your own templates but not to RM's.

 

I think using this idea would have to approached with considerable caution. For example, there are cases where you really need the firstname,lastname reversal you can get from a name type field such as the author's name in the bibliography sentence for a book type template. On the other hand, I think that dealing with the issue of name reversal and non-reversal has led to far too many book type templates. It seems to me that some of the excess in book type templates exists only to support reversal of names for individual authors (John Doe vs. Doe, John) and non-reversal for organizational authors (The Boondock County Genealogical Society as an author). So there are often two nearly identical book type templates that differ only in the reversal or non-reversal of the author's name in the bibliography sentence.

 

I haven't looked at this issue in detail in a long time. But it has seemed to me that the issue could be dealt with in a couple of ways. One way would be some sort of variable to indicate whether the author was an individual or an organization. The template wouldn't display that variable, or at least not exactly. Rather, it would use that variable as a value switch to choose reversal or non-reversal of the author's name, depending on whether it was the author was an individual or an organization. I think where I get bogged down is when there is more than one individual author - e.g., John Doe and Jane Smith - how does the name reversal work?

 

The other way would be to have two different author fields as text fields. One variable might be called [FootnoteAuthor] and the other might be called [BibliographyAuthor]. In the case of individual authors, [FootnoteAuthor] might be John Doe and [BibliographyAuthor] might be Doe, John. You would have to take responsibility for the name reversal yourself. Then the footnote sentence could use the [FootnoteAuthor] variable and the bibliography sentence could use the [BibliographyAuthor] variable. You as the user would have to figure out how properly to reverse an author such as John Doe and Jane Smith. You could set  [FootnoteAuthor] and [BibliographyAuthor] to the same value for organizational authors, or the template could be smart enough to use the [FootnoteAuthor] variable in place of [BibliographyAuthor] if the [BibliographyAuthor]  variable were null.

In any case, using text type fields rather than name type fields should surely deal with your problem of parentheses becoming quotes, or with any other strange things that might happen to names in name type fields such as getting extra blanks.

 

I worry that something important might be lost by using text type fields for names. But name type fields as source/citation variables are not linked to individuals in your database nor are they are listed in the name index in reports. The only reason for name type fields vs. text type fields seems to be formatting. You have a use case where you need to suppress part of that formatting, and you could deal with name reversal another way. So maybe text fields for names would be a solution for you.

 

Jerry



#8 puzzler

puzzler

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8 posts

Posted 07 June 2020 - 06:15 PM

Jerry,

 

Thanks for all the thought, time, and energy you put into this!  I have decided to live with the extra blank space when the reports are printed (and be thought of as being "sloppy" by other researchers).  ;)   I am hoping that RootsMagic will fix the bug eventually so that my reports will then look better.  :lol: