On 18/07/2011 12:18, [email protected] wrote: > I agree with those who do not take the label "AKA" literally. When I > hover the cursor over the AKA icon, the sticky note that appears reads > "add or edit other names or spellings." I enter any variation that may > have any value to me or others down the road.
One of the reasons why I use the AKA field for, very specifically, AKAs only is that I don't want a silly sentence in Reports reading "James was also known as Jame Brown, Janes Brown, Jas. Brawn, James Browne and Jas. Brown." However, I would want one, where appropriate, reading "James was also known as Peter Smith." I would, though, record each and every one of those variations as it occurred in my Source Citations, transcriptions and (because of the way I use Censuses) in a Census Description field. In the case of my James Brown example, I would probably have "Jim" as a Quoted Given Name if it was obvious that this was his fequently-used nickname. (Not saying anyone else is right or wrong, just explaining more fully what I do and why.) -- Jenny M Benson Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
