Re: [Gramps-users] Alias and nicknames into Gramps

[Nick H. <nic...@ho...>]

Benny Malengier wrote:
>
>
> 2010/10/29 Nick Hall <nic...@ho... 
> <mailto:nic...@ho...>>
>
>
>
>     Benny Malengier wrote:
>
>
>
>         2010/10/27 Nick Hall <nic...@ho...
>         <mailto:nic...@ho...> <mailto:nic...@ho...
>         <mailto:nic...@ho...>>>
>
>
>            Good idea. My understanding is as follows:
>
>            Call Name is the translation of the German "Rufname".
>
>            In Gernamy a child may be given more than one forename. One
>         of these
>            forenames will be the one intended for normal use, but is not
>            necessarily the first one. The name for normal use is
>         called the
>            Rufname
>            and is often underlined on official documents.
>
>            Google for "Rufname" for more details.
>
>
>         You can use it in same meaning today also. Many English people
>         have several first names (I see it in citations), but only one
>         is used normally, and in many forms, people hence only give
>         one of them. I suppose it normally is the first , like my name
>         is Benny Gaby ..., but you don't see me signing with B.G.C.
>         Malengier.
>         For genealogy, all given names are stored, but I rather see
>         only the callname, Benny, in a report.
>         As all given names are official, one need not take the first
>         given name as actual callname, hence the need of a field to
>         hold the callname. Otherwise we could just offer to default to
>         the first given name in reports.
>         If one is lenient, an abbriviation of one of the given names
>         could be taken as callname, and perhaps even Bill instead of
>         William, but that is going in the direction of a nickname, the
>         police will not take lightly you signing things with Bill I
>         think. Once it becomes 'Big Red', then it definitely is a
>         nickname :-)
>
>
>     In England people are usually, but not always, called by their
>     first name or a shortened form of it.
>
>     I have used the Call Name field to store names by which people are
>     usually known, where they differ from their first given name.
>
>     In version 3.3, we will have the choice of both a Call Name or
>     Nickname field for these.   Which would I choose to record the
>     name "Bill" for a "William"?   As you say, it is not really a
>     Nickname like "Big Red", but it is not really a Call Name either.
>
>     If I use Call Name then the field will highlight red to indicate a
>     validation failure.  This dosen't really matter, but may be
>     confusing for users.
>
>
> Let's take president Bill Clinton. His name:
> *William Jefferson* "*Bill*" *Clinton* (born *William Jefferson Blythe 
> III*)
>
> So two names, with preferred name the first. I would say Bill is the 
> Nickname, and you can use the name formatting to have it appear as you 
> find it here on wikipedia.
> If you use callname, then some reports will look for it in the given 
> name to underline it, which is not possible with Bill.
>
> So Bill would be nick name. If people would have called him Jefferson 
> Clinton, in daily use, then Jefferson would be call name.

OK.  That makes sense.  I will be moving my Call Names into the new 
Nickname field.


>
>
>     How will the choice of field affect the output on reports?
>
>
> As said, callname attempts to underline a given name in some reports.
> In this respect Gedcom 5.5EL used in germany is perhaps a bit more 
> clear, as one has an entry per given name, and callname is a flag on 
> one of the names. This slows down data entry of given names though if 
> done in that way.
>

The way you are doing it seems fine to me.  I suppose you could have 
just specified the Call Name as an integer defining which given name to 
underline.


Nick.


> Benny
>