Talk:Norway Personal Names

This page does not follow the references it cites (http://arvegods.blogspot.com/2012/02/norwegian-names.html)

How to enter names: "First Name" field: All given names and the patronymic "Last Name" field: Farm name at birth, or the earliest one you know - the fact that you do not know the farm name does not mean there is no farm name - search sources to find out

The wiki also makes a number of claims that are wrong .. "As such, [farm names] should be added as part of the locality information and NOT a part of the person's name. "

In 1801, 2% of the male population was named "Ole Olsen". Do you really want 9000 records for Ole Olsen in FamilySearch in 1801?

Also, this is confusing - there is no "surname" field in FamilySearch..

"Farm names indicate residence, and should be recorded as part of the event locality - not as a surname"

Response
The reference cited is not the basis for the instruction. It is a reference source for people to look at for more information. The stated claim that [farm names] should be added as part of the locality information and NOT a part of the person's name." is not wrong. It follows instruction and recommendations made by professionals in Norway. Specifically, by Yngve Nedrebø, director of the state archives in Bergen, who was selected by the Norwegian government to provide instructions to persons research their Norwegian ancestry.

While there is no Surname field in FamilySearch, there is a Last Name field, which is commonly understood to be a synonomous term. SvareJM (talk) 09:35, 2 May 2021 (MDT)

Reply
Since you mention Yngve Nedrebø, please check his references like How to trace your ancestors in Norway. "In addition, a third name was often used. This was usually a farm name. This "surname" did not necessarily identify a family or a relationship; it signified a place of residence. If farmer Ole Olsen Li moved from Li to another farm, such as Dal, he would then be known as Ole Olsen Dal." Again, this page recommends removing farm names from ALL name fields and adding it to the location. That will cause all kinds of problems with searches, record hints and merge duplicates in Family Search (in addition, most farms are not standard locations in FamilySearch).

Also check how names are actually used in old church books too or also find those rare records for farmers traveling outside their parish. Using the given name and farm name is actually very common in my experience with Orkdal and the patronymic is rarely used (except in censuses). Cstubben (talk) 10:36, 2 May 2021 (MDT)

2nd Reply
I will point out that Yngve Nedrebø's article which you reference is quoted and cited in this article. I am quite familar with this work, and with Mr. Nedrebø. I have consulted with him personally multiple times on multiple points of research, including this topic with which you seem to take so much exception. SvareJM (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2021 (MDT)

3rd Reply
You keep making an appeal to authority, but I don't think you understand the issue. I constantly see people deleting farm names and then adding comments like farm names were not used or quoting this wiki page to say that farm names should be added to locations and not as part of the name. Or yesterday, someone posted a link to this Wiki on the Norwegian genealogy Facebook page telling everyone that FamilySearch's recommendation is to not use farm names. I will tell them that prior to the adoption of fixed surnames, most Norwegians were farmers and used a three-part name, given name, patronym and farm name and you should include all three in the name since they were all used depending on the situation (where to place these three names in FamilySearch's existing system is another issue that this page should clarify - that would require checking with Familysearch to see how they optimize search, merging and record hints). Cstubben (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2021 (MDT)

I most certainly do understand the issue. That's why this article exists: to help people understand the issue. If you chose to use the farm name as a surname, which farm name do you use? The farm they were born on? The farm they were living on when they were confirmed? The farm where they were living when they were married? The different farms they lived on when their children were born? The farm they were living on at the census? The farm they were living on when they became a pensioner? The farm they were living on when their spouse died? Or the farm they were living on when they died? Houses in cities also have names. In that case, which house name would you use? If you don't agree with the recommendation, you are under no obligation to follow it. SvareJM (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2021 (MDT)

The main issue is that users are deleting or not entering farm names since this article says that farms are "NOT a part of the person's name". Also, the first reference you cite by Anne M. Berge in the Wiki and the one I posted above is excellent - "use the Farm name at birth, or the earliest one you know". And then list the later farms as alternate names plus the given name and patronymic to pick up record hints in FamilySearch. You list a number of different situations and if you have an actual record of that person's different name usage, then add it as an alternate name with details like date used and a link to the source. Cstubben (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2021 (MDT)

Yet Another Reply
Again, the farm indicates a person's residence. It is not part of their surname. Residences can change over time, so they are inconsistent.

I will point out to you the intended audience of Anne Berge's article is general researchers, not not persons using FamilySearch. This Norway Personal Names article is intended as a resource for users of FamilySearch products. If you want to add an alternate name to an individual that includes a farm name, fine. But the farm name indicates residence, and nothing more. Again, If you don't agree with the recommendation, you are under no obligation to follow it. SvareJM (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2021 (MDT)

You really don't understand this issue at all and we are talking in circles. Please read Anne Berge's article again and you will see that it's clearly meant for anyone using a collaborative database like FamilySearch.

"For collaborative databases online ... it is however essential to use the farm names whenever possible. There will be thousands of Ole Andersens in a Norwegian genealogy database, and easy to be confused about who is who. If you have Ole Andersen Sukkestad, Ole Andersen Selboskar, and Ole Andersen Stedje, you know so much more. You really do not want to add just half the data about a person, right? We want our genealogical information to be as complete as possible, and always adding the farm names is necessary."

Again, I would point out that this is the Ole Olsen problem. 2% of the male population in 1801 was named Ole Olsen and this wiki is recommending that FamilySearch users should only store the first two parts of the name and add the farm name to location (which are not even supported as standard locations). I think that makes absolutely no sense at all and will severely impact searching and merging and more importantly does not even follow the use of names in old church books and probate records, which mostly used the given name and farm name. Even Nedrebø says that "a third name was often used. This was usually a farm name."

Finally, I could also say the same things about patronyms - a patronymic indicates a person's father and it is not part of their surname. Patronyms change every generation so they are inconsistent and so on. Cstubben (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2021 (MDT)

I fixed Hans Hansen Svare born 1857 MRYC-C5S for you and deleted the farm name from the name field. Now Hans Hansen is just one of many Hans Hansens born in 1857 in Oppland, Norway. I'm still not sure why you prefer names like this - your last name was used in church records dating back hundreds of years, but you are telling everyone to delete them from FamilySearch on this page. After browsing your tree, it looks like you are doing your best to wipe your last name from existence as well as many of your close relatives - it is not only wrong but pathetic Cstubben (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2021 (MDT)