Talk:Suffix (name)

message: Just for reference, the legal name on my birth certificate is "James Patrick Howard, II" and my father is "James Patrick Howard".
:I believe you, but it's still not de rigueur. Quill 21:48, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Anecdote

message: Whoever deleted this reference is completely wrong.  The wife of Mr. John Doe, Jr. is indeed Mrs. John Doe, Jr. 
Please refer to Emily Post's Etiquette if you won't take my word for it.
Quill 20:37, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wife DOES use husband's suffix 

message: Clarification and/or expansion is needed here.  What about the use of primus and secundus?  And is such use limited to boys? Quill 22:02, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Public Schools 

message: Does anyone know the history of how the convention of naming subsequent generations with numbered suffixes came about in the U.S. as it is almost non-existant in other English speaking countries (ther than aristo's of course)? 86.136.27.54 13:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd venture that the answer is at least partially explained in your question: Imitating the aristocrats and stroking the ego by starting a dynasty of one's own. This practice has several practical complications, for example fathers and sons constantly receiving one another's mail. And, if the practice of "promotion" is used, a second source of confusion arises from the fact that written documents aren't necessarily updated. So it becomes necessary to know the senior's date of death as well as the date of any written record where a person in the chain is mentioned. Seems to me that these practical complications aren't really outweighed by any real benefits to the family or society. Naming laws are anathema in the US but I believe that outlawing this anachronistic practice would save lots of money in the long run. --CodeGeneratR 00:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of US social convention? 

message: So there is debate in my family as to the proper customs when a generation is skipped.  If the father is not named after his predecessors (ie. NOT named john smith III) can his son pick up the number where it was left off?  Or would the new son be considered the first?
:I'm not from the US, but a paragraph in the article would seem to give a clue: Primarily in the U.S.A. (and never in the U.K.), boys who should be styled junior are sometimes incorrectly labeled with the suffix ‘II’, particularly if there is a third or fourth with the same name. Even if a legal title, this is socially incorrect; strictly speaking, ‘II’, pronounced the second, refers to a boy who is named after his grandfather, uncle, or cousin. The suffixes ‘II’, ‘III’, etc. are also correctly written 2nd, 3rd, etc. (Emphasis mine.) If the numbering down the generations goes "John Smith, Henry Smith, John Smith II", it would seem logical that it would also go "John Smith, John Smith, Jr, Henry Smith, John Smith III". (Besides, if a son had to have the same name as his father to continue the numbering then presumably "II" would never be used, which clearly isn't the case.) Proteus (Talk) 19:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is the same as yours, Proteus.  Things can get confusing very quickly, e.g. in your second example, upon the death of John Smith, or if John Smith also sired Michael Smith and Robert Smith, either (or both!) of whom decides to name his son after his father.  In the anon. user's case as well as the others, I would opt for a different middle name so that the new son is, indeed, the first.  Quill 01:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  skipping a generation 

message: My father has the same first name and middle initial as I do, however different middle name.
I know it's not right, but I happen to consider myself "Robert J. Salender, II"
I don't think it is right to be a junior by middle initial... just by middle name. So that's why I do this.
But it's completely wrong.
Most businesses want first name and middle initial. They are both "Robert J." for my father and me, so what am I supposed to do?Rjsec4ever 07:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Complain to your dad perhaps? :-P Anyway, I think it's entirely up to you to style yourself "Jr" or "II" as you please, so-called "etiquette" be damned. --CodeGeneratR 06:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: A tradition for several generations in my family was for one generation to have the first name "William" but different middle names and so avoid the use of "Jr." or "III" etc.  But all this is a matter of convention and there is no reason why I couldn't have used a generational suffix, other than personal preference and the fact that I don't know how far back this practice goes, so I don't know whether I am a "III" or something higher. Oh, and by the way, I have never heard, until now, of the practice of "promotion" following the death of an ancestor, not to say it doesn't exist. Wschart (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about same middle initial? 

message: Where should the suffix be placed when the name is rendered in "Last, First" order?  Should it be "Williams, Hank Jr." or should it be "Williams Jr., Hank"?  Or is there not really a definite guideline? A Pattern O 15:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question of suffix placement in Last, First 

message: I suggest that most of the details about post-nominal letters could be moved to that article and this article could provide just a summary. Nurg (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to [[Post-nominal letters]] article 

message: The scheme described as "two's compliment" appears to be more what is known as a "one's compliment" system.
I never heard of "two's compliment" with regard to name suffixes, but if it does have any basis in actual usage, it was
misnamed.  When the next lower number from positive zero is negative zero, that described a one's compliment
system and not a two's compliment system. -L.Smithfield (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two's compliment scheme 

message: The following claim was added by User:EEEThomas1:
In some American cultures, it is considered disrespectful for a son to move up from Jr. to Sr.
	
This moving up, actually erases the thought or memory of the Father or Senior family member in the tree line which causes the confusion and is more or less a slap in the face to the Senior because it states there was no other Senior before the son who moved up.
This definitely causes confusion on family trees when family members are trying to trace their roots.
I am not convinced of this and would like to see some reliable sources to support this claim. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't have any sources, but that quote entirely agrees with my sentiments. I have known several people with Sr/Jr/III etc suffixes and have never heard of this "promotion". It seems to go completely against the entire point of the suffix. That is just the impression I've gotten growing up in the culture of the American south. --Khajidha (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Are juniors who become seniors disrespectful?

message: The following talk contributions were made on talk:Junior, at times when that page had already been (and presuambly still was) a Dab page. They were off topic there, and have been struck thru. They may be relevant here. (The box was added by me for clarity of attribution status.)--Jerzy•t 01:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "By convention, the child must have the exact same name as the parent (same first, middle and last name)."
So if, for example, John Smith (with no middle names) is the father of John Paul Smith, then what is the correct way to refer unambiguously to the father? -- Smjg 11:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Same way we unambiguously refer to former U.S. presidents John Adams (no middle name) and John Quincy Adams, I suppose...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.69.160.1 (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2007
=== (Uncle?) ===
The definition says 'They are sometimes also called II, '. I had heard that 'II' refered to being named after an uncle, not the father. Any truth to this? 69.221.67.242 12:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant misplaced talk 

message: The definition says 'They are sometimes also called II, '. I had heard that 'II' refered to being named after an uncle, not the father. Any truth to this? 69.221.67.242 12:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Uncle?) 

message: What could be done about this? Perhaps divide the section into regional subsections?
85.156.227.198 (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section on professional suffixes is rather U.S.-oriented 

message: This article should avoid the term "legal name". Just within the US, there are various agencies and states which do, or do not, include a suffix as part of one's legal name. Then there is the rest of the world to contend with. I don't believe it is possible to define the term "legal name" except in a narrow context that would not be suitable for a Wikipedia article. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: User:67.180.129.85 cites no reliable sources and the claims are without merit. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: So-called legal names

message: The current version of the "Esquire" section indicates that in the US, "Esq." is used both socially and by lawyers. Certainly it is used by lawyers, both male and female. It's used occasionally by men socially, but it's pretty unusual. Perhaps this should be reworded. If we are to indicate it is used socially by men of high social standing in the US, it might be good to find a reliable source that says so. Maybe it's only used by US men who think they are in high standing socially. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Esquire

message: On the basis of the style established in the early versions below, I am marking this article as using American spelling and dates formatted like September 9, 2013.
#https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suffix_%28name%29&oldid=19483650
#https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suffix_%28name%29&diff=next&oldid=265190049
Jc3s5h (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Style

message: Does anyone else feel that the many paragraphs devoted to particular families and the succession of suffixs down several generations is over long given the breadth of the article? 
One family might be interesting if it has a lot of corner cases, but there are multiple ones in the article.  It seems over weight for the scope of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If I ever find a useful discussion of the topic in a thoroughly reputable source, I'll replace the whole awful section. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Way to much detail on particular families

message: I've added Template:More citations needed and Template:Overly detailed to the US generational suffixes section. There's nearly a dozen paragraphs and only six citations, and half of them are from one source, The Emily Post Institute.
Etiquette and, in a much broader sense, human name practices are highly subjective and have few, if any, hard and fast rules. This section should present different schools of thought and attribute them accordingly; it should not assert that some are more correct than others, as it currently does. Sjedits (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive detail and few citations on US generational suffixes