Identity thief

I'm working on Charlemagne right now - what seems to be the problem?

What about him?

There are 682 managers of that profile (which by the way is the record). He is just listed with an Added By list because a released claimed historical profile got merge into it, - something you should know all about now ;-)

Aren't Charlemagne and Carolingian brothers ,not one in the same. Or is the brother spelled differently. According to what I read the brother died suddenly and there was speculation that he had help leaving this world if you get my drift!

Judi, Carolingian is an adjective referring to the period of Charlemagne's era and also it often refers to members of his dynasty. It is not a personal name. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolingian_dynasty

Fred, please add most of these (the ones that are falsely claimed historical figures) to the Fake Profiles project. Thanks!

JUDI, Carloman is the brother you're thinking of, and he did die at a convenient moment for Charlemagne - whose actual name was Charles before he became 'Charles-the-Main'. They're all called Carolingians after their grandfather Charles. To make it worse, Charles is often translated as Carlos. Don't ask me what happens to Carloman in translation? ;-> Merge nightmare stuff!

BJORN & FRED, I'm just worried my 70hrs of work could accidentally be deleted if the profile appears here. Otherwise, not complaining. ;-)

Sharon,
the question if he should be called Charles or Charlemagne at all.
Should not the name be Carolus (Karolus) and Carolus Magnus (Karolus Magnus)?

Regards

Knut

Very possibly, Kurt - but in this case - with the 600 managers and merge nightmares that occur almost daily with this profile, the further we get away from a name that encourages him to be merged with 'Carloman' any more often than he already is, the better. ;-)

However, if it's not already there (I think it is) please make that point in the About Me section - as the long term aim is to create external links with well-sourced biographies outside the Merge action. Here we will want the most accurate naming, rather than the one that discourages mis-merges that take hours and hours to untangle.

Well the history channel refers to him as Charlemagne. Why not list all his names. A lot of historical profiles , the people in them have several names .

Sharon, thank you You knew exactly what I was talking about. Judy

Also all history books and many magazine article of historical nature have him as Charlemagne, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and then lists his other names.

There are no enough fields (and the nicknames field is too short) to list all names in different languages for historical profiles.
For Estonians Charlemagne was Karl Suur, for Russians Карл Великий etc.

Private User The First name field has max 50 character spaces and the last name also max 50. This is not enough for writing all name versions in different languages and in different alphabets for well-known historical persons.

Well, what names (within the 50 characters) would you guys suggest we prioritise and put on that line?

Taking into account 2 things about merges:
1) He is quickly confused and merged into Carloman - so that needs to be avoided
2) The more characters in the name field, the less other data that fits onto the the toggle thingys on the tree view (eg birth dates). That being said, I agree with you both - that as many well-known names as he is known by would be useful to have in the name field.

What about putting his original Germanic name Karl in the name field and his name in French, Charlemagne, in the display field?

His name in reconstructed Frankish would
have probably been something like "Karl se Mikil".

I agree with putting the original name (which is normally used in official documents) in the name field and probably the most commonly used name in the display field and other names in some other field.

Sharon, I did not know that! Never tried to put all that much in there. Guess all one can do is fit what you can in.
Victor If you put Karl most of us wouldn't know who you were talking about. In my area of the work we know him as Charlemagne and in any genealogy book I've run into that's how he's record, which the other names following it. Any historical program or magazine article I've seen or read also records him that way. I'm not sure but wasn't Charlemagne, French?

Charlemagne was a Germanic Frank. It seems silly not to have his real name listed.

The group of us who work in medieval Europe have some guidelines for naming conventions.

http://www.geni.com/projects/Medieval-Kingdoms-of-Western-Europe

Victor Charlemagne was best know by this name.. He born between the Loire River, in France and Rhines river in Germany. I gather he could be claimed by both countries.

Private User, that's why I'm saying, put his real germanic name in the name fields and his modern French name in the display field.

@Judith, I just re-read your post. Charlemagne was definitely not know by that name anywhere near his lifetime. He was either known by his Germanic name or his Latin name, Carolus Magnus. In Old Gallo-Romance it became Karlus li Magnus which would later become Charles li Magne in Old French, and finally in Middle French, it was condensed to Charlemagne.

Victar is correct.

Sharon Doubell, what are your thoughts? There definitely needs some systematic renaming of Charlemagne's family. The most ridiculous thing is that their surname is Carolingien. Even Charlemagne's ancestors!

Victar - I suppose the solution one favours depends on which we prioritise:

1) the necessity for the profile to be identifiable by the most no of contemporary users TO AVOID MISMERGES or DUPLICATE profiles that make a hang of a lot of extra work for curators - on this profile especially.
For this reason, my initial point about using Carloman / Charlemagne names that are as distinct as possible remains my own first priority.
This is also my reason for leaving in the Carolingien/an / Caroling Dynasty marker (It applies to his ancestors too because it is derived from Charles Martel's name, not Charlemagne's.) It is recognisable to most contemporary users, and my first aim is for the profile to be easily recognised for who he is to the most number of people.
This is also why it seems to me to be a good idea to add in any other names he is well-recognised by today. (Although - if there were as many names as there are languages, I would prioritise those in order of how many people would recognise that name)

2.) Or the requirement for historical accuracy according to his own time - irrespective of whether that name is recognisable today. Which question is an ongoing debate on Geni, and most profiles are not as prone to mismerges / duplicates as this one, so this might be a special case.

Your display name vs field name point is probably one solution to this. I've avoided using the display name field because I think it duplicates the problem, as it is also subject to the same dilemma; it was 'unstable' when I became a curator; and I was told it was likely to be done away with.

My clean-up on Charlemagne has, however, not been focussed on the naming conventions at all; and I've been clear about leaving that to a popular decision. I've been aiming at getting sources onto the profiles and the Clean-Up project, and merging duplicates according to those templates. So, where I could, I opted just to keep as much of the naming data across the merged profiles, rather than culling it. So a conversation about this is a good one to have.

http://www.geni.com/projects/Charlemagne-Emperor-of-the-West
Clean up Project

Victar , I know that is true but this now and you have to realize that for centuries this is how he is referred and lot of people won't know who are talking about, that's all I am saying.You're of course right about the last name being ridiculous. I don't think a lot of people even think of him having a last name. He's Charlemagne, period. Kinda like altho Queen Elizabeth the 2nd has a last name and of it should be included in her case but to most of us she's Queen Elizabeth and this side of the pond when you say The Queen, no name we know who you mean, even tho there are other queens in the world. Thanks for the list of modern French names. Altho I don't know what that has to do" with the price of apples" In my family on my father's side we had Emile, Gaston, Julian( which can also be English)my father hated that name, Joseph , Yesault, my aunt never went by it as the kids tested her and called her Ye salt and Pepper, she went by Kathleen, Felix, Jules, Marie, Huber, and the other version Herbert just to name a few. You see alth my mother's side is all American , originally from England and Scotland and way back France, and Native American, my father's side, which I only have about five gen. on, came from Belgium,originally from Frances , escaping during The Eve Of St Bartholomew Massacre, and what was then called Holland , and they by their names were also French back ground, He spoke both french and Flemish was Huguenot and g. grandfather was in the King of Belgium's Guards,Why they all left in the 1870's I do not know. All I know is they were pround to be American. Like I said my father hated his French name altho to me it was a name that was nornal for England and America. But he hated. I think the people in the neighborhood gave him a lot of trouble about his background,it was an almost all itian neighborhood. Some Americans, old family there, plus he was deformed so he got tomented about that too. Up until recently , I worked with a woman who from that neighborhood and referred to my family as " The French Family" and it didn't sound too nice. No wonder he didn't like Italians. He didn't like too many people. Not an easy person to knw, which is why I'm glad I lived with my mother's family not his or him.

Victar, just took a very quick peek at what you sent me on French names ete. Most of it I already knew. Any one with a brain would know their version of Mr. Mrs and Miss and several ranks in the army. A lot of French words are incorporated into the English dictionary and language. The French were here at the same time the English and Spanish were here. Altho the Spanish were still part of Spain and had nothing to do with The Revolutionary War here but the French were heavily involved. Paul Revere was originally French, I think you've heard of him, Lafayette, well we all know who he was! The French were in Canada first. Altho many were forced out many are strongly still there. I forgot to mention Grand ma Loubris, who by the way had Irish last name was Canadian French. Her father was Irish and her mother was French. She spoke French as well as English,but my grandfather told her she didn't speak it correctly, as it was Canuck( not sure of the spelling on that one but you get the drift)nor Parisian, which he spoke.See not only American can have attitude, I personelly think we get a bad rap. We're really very nice here!

In Germany (or the Netherlands) he is not called Charlemagne but Karl der Große (or Karel de Grote).

Thank you Stijn for letting us know what he is called in Europe. Charlemagne is basically how we learn about him in America.