I agree with you, and for myself I've just determined that all names are by the known birth name (women caused me to lean in this direction:o) I used the name I thought it was until I have the birth cert or equivalent and then go by that name. The wonderful thing about notes or aka is that can gather other info about docs having different spellings I'm finding out! Sue At 05:26 PM 5/13/2001 -0500, Donald R. Newcomb wrote: >"Newcomb" even though the Canadian cousins spell it "Newcombe". I defer to >their spelling when it is known. For lines I research, I use the spelling I >find in the official records for each individual, regardless of how other >generations spelled it. Sometimes this is the median (most common) spelling. >One example is the Childerstone surname. This is found as everything from

I can't claim to have a perfect solution. For lines that have already been researched, most of the time I use the spelling that the researcher used, but not always. For instance, Bethel M. Newcomb wrote the Newcomb genealogy. He consistently spelled the name "Newcomb" even though the Canadian cousins spell it "Newcombe". I defer to their spelling when it is known. For lines I research, I use the spelling I find in the official records for each individual, regardless of how other generations spelled it. Sometimes this is the median (most common) spelling. One example is the Childerstone surname. This is found as everything from "Chylderstone" to "Chillison". My wife's Basque ancestry is proving most interesting. Not only are the names totally unpronounceable (e.g. de Ochandategui) but the spellings are all over the map. For instance, the name "Zugadi" is found with that spelling as wells as "Sugadi", "Zugari", "Sugari" and probably a few others. The key thing to remember is that it was not the same way then as it is now. Only a few people knew, or cared, how their names were spelled. No one cared what your exact date of birth was. You probably didn't have a birth certificate. And when you decided to change how your name was spelled, you didn't have to get a permit from a judge. About 1880 one of my cousins changed his name from Childerston to Childerson because he thought Childerston sounded "too English". One day, he just announced, that from then on, that was going to be his name. All of his descendants are "Childersons." Don Newcomb ----- Original Message ----- From: Yvonne Bennett <yvonne@monmouth.com> | How do some of you deal with multiple spellings of the same surname? I

Thank you to every on that replied to my spelling question. I have some very good options to choose from. This "list" is the best, even if we do get a little "carried away" sometimes! ;-) Yvonne

> Thank you to every on that replied to my spelling question. I have some > very good options to choose from. > This "list" is the best, even if we do get a little "carried away" > sometimes! ;-) > Yvonne > You said it, Yvonne! There are some very clever people on this list. Whenever I've asked a question, I've been amazed at the variety of excellent suggestions and comments. The hard part has always been which one (or ones) to select. Bill

That's a great idea. I hope you'll add it to the official wish list. Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donald R. Newcomb" <DRNewcomb@attglobal.net> To: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 6:55 PM Subject: [FO] Wish List Item > Continuing the discussion of how to model Family and Local History > relationships, as opposed to strictly Genealogical relationships within FOW, > I'd like to add this item to the wish list for FOW v.20. It is my hope that > these ideas can contribute to making FOW a more useful and general tool for > the recording and study of all types of History, not strictly Genealogy. > > FOW presently has user definable facts. However, all the relationships > between people are predefined. I've had many occasions in my experience > studying Genealogy and Family History where I would like to create new types > of relationships and groups. For instance, I've seen cases where there > seemed to be a lot of intermarriage between various families but couldn't > figure out why until I realized that all the men were members of the same > Masonic lodge. I think it would be a great feature to be able to create an > object (e.g. "Beau Gest Lodge F.&.A.O.M") along with the rules and > characteristics for that class of object (Fraternal Lodge) that would allow > me to attach individuals to that object as "members". > > Under this schema, the present FOW object classes, Person, Family, etc. > would become some of the pre-defined classes supplied with FOW, just as > Birth, Death, Marriage are some of the predefined fact types supplied with > the program. However, the user would be able to define new object classes > according to the dictates of his research. I understand that this may not be > a feature that everyone would be able to use (or even understand), however, > I think it would be a great boon to historical research. > > Donald R. Newcomb > DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net >

Those of you who still can, do something nice for your Mom today. Donald R. Newcomb DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

The way I have handled it so that all of the people with the surname come up in the alphabetical listing is: Kersey/Kiersey Kersey/Kirksey Kersey/Coursey ete, etc. Joyce Kersey Karr joycekersey@hotmail.com > >How do some of you deal with multiple spellings of the same surname? I > >have one name "Covenhoven" spelled Van Covenhoven, Van Couvenhoven, > >Couwenhoven, Kovenhoven, Kouvenhoven, etc. and finally Conover. > > You might consider entering the surnames in the form > 'oldway/finalway'. > For example: > Covenhoven/Conover > Van Couvenhoven/Conover > Kovenhoven/Conover > etc.

Happy Mother's Day to all mothers out there. . . . . past, present and future. Take care of your mother while you still have her with you. I lost mine at far too young an age to cancer about ten years ago, and I still cannot get through Mother's Day or her birthday without fighting back a tear or two. Sooner or later you will enter date in one of the three major date fields in her entry in FO, and take my word for it, it will not be easy to do, so take care of her while you can. David MSgt David E. Cann, USMC (Ret'd) Phone: 540-372-7868 Fax: 540-372-7707 E-mail: decann@infi.net HOME PAGES Family: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~decann Genealogy: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~decann/genealogy I'm a RootsWeb Sponsor. Ask me how you can be one, too. Researching Bradford, Brewer, Cann, Cashatt, Ewing, Fitch, Linson, Markley, Merkle, Oliver, Redkey, Schottler, Shockey and Vance surnames and any others related by birth, marriage or adoption.

Yvonne Bennett <yvonne@monmouth.com> wrote: >How do some of you deal with multiple spellings of the same surname? I >have one name "Covenhoven" spelled Van Covenhoven, Van Couvenhoven, >Couwenhoven, Kovenhoven, Kouvenhoven, etc. and finally Conover. You might consider entering the surnames in the form 'oldway/finalway'. For example: Covenhoven/Conover Van Couvenhoven/Conover Kovenhoven/Conover etc. Then a search for a surname containing "Conover" would eventually take you through all the various spellings of the name. Or you could reverse the form to 'finalway/oldway' and then have all the variations sorted together in the find list. Also, don't forget that the FO search can search on "soundex" by choosing the "sounds like" criteria. That will work well on some spelling variations but not too well on the particular ones above. Wayne League

It's interesting how attitudes are preconditioned. I've long contended that people who can't stand to come face-to-face with unpleasant truths should not get involved in genealogy. The much older cousin who got me involved in genealogy sent me a note about getting in touch with the descendants of "cousin Ada". He went into some detail about where they lived, etc. but there was just one little problem; I'd never heard of "cousin Ada." After some discussion he said, "I must be slipping as I get older. Cousin Doris and I had vowed we'd 'take this to our graves.'" Turns out that "cousin Ada" was the 'natural child' of one of our great(nth) aunts. She was born in the 1840s!!! And my cousin felt it necessary to protect the family from the information! I had already become very used to out-of-wedlock births after discovering their high incidence among my German and Swedish ancestors. But for my cousin it was more than he could bring himself to talk about for over 40 years! I, myself, am very uncomfortable with polygamy, however in many cultures, it is quite normal for a man to have more than one wife. Family Origins handles this situation very gracefully. However, there is a type of traditional polygamous marriage that FOW can't handle. In some cultures (areas of Nepal and Tibet) it is common for two (or more) brothers to marry the same woman. This is done to keep the family farm from being split between heirs. In this type of polyandrous marriage all husbands are considered to the equally the fathers of any children. This is one type of "traditional" marriage that does not involve one man with one woman and which Family Origins does not seem handle. Or at least I have not figured out a way to handle it. Perhaps there could be multiple contemporaneous marriages between one woman and two or more men and the children could be added to each marriage. Would this work? I'm sorry if discussion of this type of marriage upsets some people. However, they have been doing it this way for a thousand years. Fortunately, FromalSoft probably has few customers in rural Nepal and Tibet, so Bruce will probably never have to deal with this type marriage. Don Newcomb ----- Original Message ----- From: Alwyn ap Huw Humphreys <alwynaphuw@hotmail.com> | I don't like it, the Archbishop doesn't like it and (from the conservative | attitudes expressed on this list) most of you don't like it!

For the early generations, I generally use the most common spelling, since the same family surname is frequently spelled multiple ways in the contemporary records of the day. In such a case we do not know how the family really wanted it spelled. I sometimes use as a guide the spelling Torrey uses in his New England Marriages Prior to 1700 volume. For later generations, for which we have vital records, I use the spelling the individual family members have used. Living people are likely to be annoyed if you do not use the spelling they have adopted. You are likely not going to find a perfect solution. Margaret Scheffler ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yvonne Bennett" <yvonne@monmouth.com> Subject: [FO] Surname Spelling ? > How do some of you deal with multiple spellings of the same surname? I have one name "Covenhoven" spelled Van Covenhoven, Van Couvenhoven, Couwenhoven, Kovenhoven, Kouvenhoven, etc. and finally Conover. It's all the same family, just depended on who was doing the spelling or writing! I am having trouble finding the right person sometimes ....

Hi List, I have Pannebecker ancestors. Most of the time the progenitor in theis country spelled it that way. Since then, there are about 40 known variations. I try to follow the spelling for the particular line. It is a real mess any way you do it. A cousin who is doing great and wonderous things to the Umstead line does this.. There are almost as many variations there as well. She has inserted an 'Ums' as surname and then the given names and variable spelling in the given name field. That way, the sort is by Ums then given names. So if you find a John Henry Ums family you can grab him regardless of how he spelled the last name. That way you don't have to look in all the variations for all the John Henrys. If you don't have 10000 or so of a given name, you might consider this. Ron Mitchell ----- Original Message ----- From: mary stickney <stickneys@alltel.net> To: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 5:53 PM Subject: Re: [FO] Surname Spelling ? > > I only do it with my Yerington line as there are so many of them. > > they original spelling was Yarrington. should that not be what our name is? > > but I go by my Mother spelling Yerington. > > I have seen some of the same people , listed with different spellings in > the same year, > It must be someone else writing down what they think it sounds like. > > MorseSA@aol.com wrote: > > > Since I try and do my line with facts that were of that time, I do not lit > > the spelling diff interfere with my entries. If they were know in 1635 as > > Mors and then the next generation was Morse, then that is how it is placed in > > my system and done per person. I go by the policy that I am recording history > > and will try to stay as close to it as possible. Yes, it is hard to trace a > > John or Mary but it depends on how you wish to arrange your own line. > > > > Yes, use the AKA and the note section to explain the change, when it happen > > and why if you know. Each person has his or her own style and approach to > > this matter. > > > > This follows the question of the town name. Like Middleboro or Middleborough > > or what about a State like Org Terr for Wash State in the 1830s. Do you make > > all Washington State back to the early days? > > > > Stafford-Ames Morse > > > > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > > Searchable ARCHIVES - (might wrap so you have to type in part of the name, or copy and paste) > > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=FAMILY-ORIGI NS-USERS > > > > ============================== > > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp > > > > > > > > -- > (o o) > ------------oOOo-(_)-oOOo------------ > > Mary Stickney (IBSSG) - owner of 6 Rams and 1 ewe > > MY HOMEPAGES: > http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=stickneys > http://www.genealogy.com/users/r/o/g/Mary-L-Rognessstickney/ > > my mystery > http://www.alltel.net/~ms81250/ > http://blacksheep.rootsweb.com > http://www.genealogy.com/users/r/o/g/Mary-L-Rognessstickney/PHOTO/0058ph oto.html > http://www.genealogy.com/users/r/o/g/Mary-L-Rognessstickney/PHOTO/0057ph oto.html > > Surnames: Yerington, Rogness, Wade, Ankles, Sorensen, Overbeck, Jensen, > Duncan, Austin, Osborn, Goodall, Baldwin, Pearce, Suiter , Avery , Bill > > > > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > PLEASE send personal replies and "THANK YOU" message privately. All messages on this list are archived and archiving takes up valuable space. > > ============================== > Visit Ancestry's Library - The best collection of family history > learning and how-to articles on the Internet. > http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library > >

Since I try and do my line with facts that were of that time, I do not lit the spelling diff interfere with my entries. If they were know in 1635 as Mors and then the next generation was Morse, then that is how it is placed in my system and done per person. I go by the policy that I am recording history and will try to stay as close to it as possible. Yes, it is hard to trace a John or Mary but it depends on how you wish to arrange your own line. Yes, use the AKA and the note section to explain the change, when it happen and why if you know. Each person has his or her own style and approach to this matter. This follows the question of the town name. Like Middleboro or Middleborough or what about a State like Org Terr for Wash State in the 1830s. Do you make all Washington State back to the early days? Stafford-Ames Morse

I only do it with my Yerington line as there are so many of them. they original spelling was Yarrington. should that not be what our name is? but I go by my Mother spelling Yerington. I have seen some of the same people , listed with different spellings in the same year, It must be someone else writing down what they think it sounds like. MorseSA@aol.com wrote: > Since I try and do my line with facts that were of that time, I do not lit > the spelling diff interfere with my entries. If they were know in 1635 as > Mors and then the next generation was Morse, then that is how it is placed in > my system and done per person. I go by the policy that I am recording history > and will try to stay as close to it as possible. Yes, it is hard to trace a > John or Mary but it depends on how you wish to arrange your own line. > > Yes, use the AKA and the note section to explain the change, when it happen > and why if you know. Each person has his or her own style and approach to > this matter. > > This follows the question of the town name. Like Middleboro or Middleborough > or what about a State like Org Terr for Wash State in the 1830s. Do you make > all Washington State back to the early days? > > Stafford-Ames Morse > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > Searchable ARCHIVES - (might wrap so you have to type in part of the name, or copy and paste) > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS > > ============================== > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp > > > -- (o o) ------------oOOo-(_)-oOOo------------ Mary Stickney (IBSSG) - owner of 6 Rams and 1 ewe MY HOMEPAGES: http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=stickneys http://www.genealogy.com/users/r/o/g/Mary-L-Rognessstickney/ my mystery http://www.alltel.net/~ms81250/ http://blacksheep.rootsweb.com http://www.genealogy.com/users/r/o/g/Mary-L-Rognessstickney/PHOTO/0058photo.html http://www.genealogy.com/users/r/o/g/Mary-L-Rognessstickney/PHOTO/0057photo.html Surnames: Yerington, Rogness, Wade, Ankles, Sorensen, Overbeck, Jensen, Duncan, Austin, Osborn, Goodall, Baldwin, Pearce, Suiter , Avery , Bill

How do some of you deal with multiple spellings of the same surname? I have one name "Covenhoven" spelled Van Covenhoven, Van Couvenhoven, Couwenhoven, Kovenhoven, Kouvenhoven, etc. and finally Conover. It's all the same family, just depended on who was doing the spelling or writing! I am having trouble finding the right person sometimes because I don't remember how that particular person spelled his name. Your thoughts and suggestion's appreciated. Yvonne

I pick one spelling and change all the surnames to that , and then add an AKA fact with there preferred spelling. I have Yerington / Yerrington / Yarrington / Yarington / Yearington , all realted. Yvonne Bennett wrote: > How do some of you deal with multiple spellings of the same surname? I > have one name "Covenhoven" spelled Van Covenhoven, Van Couvenhoven, > Couwenhoven, Kovenhoven, Kouvenhoven, etc. and finally Conover. It's all > the same family, just depended on who was doing the spelling or > writing! I am having trouble finding the right person sometimes because > I don't remember how that particular person spelled his name. > Your thoughts and suggestion's appreciated. > Yvonne > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > FAMILY ORIGINS - Ordering, UPDATES, books, FAQ, FREE DEMO, Newsletter, etc. http://formalsoft.com For the 8.03 and 9.02 PATCHES and what they fix, go to: http://formalsoft.com/files.htm > > ============================== > Shop Ancestry - Everything you need to Discover, Preserve & Celebrate > your heritage! > http://shop.myfamily.com/ancestrycatalog > > > -- (o o) ------------oOOo-(_)-oOOo------------ Mary Stickney (IBSSG) - owner of 6 Rams and 1 ewe MY HOMEPAGES: http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=stickneys http://www.genealogy.com/users/r/o/g/Mary-L-Rognessstickney/ my mystery http://www.alltel.net/~ms81250/ http://blacksheep.rootsweb.com http://www.genealogy.com/users/r/o/g/Mary-L-Rognessstickney/PHOTO/0058photo.html http://www.genealogy.com/users/r/o/g/Mary-L-Rognessstickney/PHOTO/0057photo.html Surnames: Yerington, Rogness, Wade, Ankles, Sorensen, Overbeck, Jensen, Duncan, Austin, Osborn, Goodall, Baldwin, Pearce, Suiter , Avery , Bill

Linda - We royalty, and most other uses, I found that the Title Prefix is a perfect place to put in "Unproven". This shows up easily on most displays. Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Linda Scheimann" <linda514@ivillage.com> To: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 8:47 AM Subject: Re: [FO] Non-Traditional Use of FOW > > As I mentioned earlier, I have a database of European and other royal lineages in addition to my regular family databases. One of the problems I encountered was the alphabetical index for people who do not ordinarily use, and in earlier times did not have, surnames. Since this royal database is just for my own hobby interest and probably won't be preserved, I adopted the convention "of England," "of Cracow," etc. so that I could do efficient searches. I make exceptions once I reach house surnames such as Hapsburg, Wittelsbach, Windsor, Tudor, etc. > > One problem I haven't solved consistently is how to enter an "unproved" lineage. Notes aren't obvious enough on the first interface. You can see a note exists, but not content. In this usage, it would be nice if I could add a user-defined symbol, something like as asterisk, to each unproved individual in a line. In a normal database, you might omit unproven links, but before the year 1200 or so, that would eliminate too many connections that are likely but not fully verified. > > Linda > > > > On Sat, 12 May 2001, "Dick Wells" wrote: > > > > > For all those who desire FOW to be "more" than it is, consider using it in different way. > > > > I maintain two additional databases to supplement my standard FOW database used specifically for > > genealogy. By using the "User Defined Facts", I create specific topics. > > > > Here is an example. > > > > "General Information" database. The Root Person is named "General Info" in the surname filed. > > Children are named in a similar fashion. Some of the children are Dates & Calendars, Relationships, > > Naturalization, Immegration, Nobility, Occupations, Medical, etc. > > > > Each child has one of more topics created using the User Defined Facts. Take the example of > > Relationships. The topics are Cousins, Kissing Cousins, and Marriage Banns. For each topic, the > > Notes are used to contain the information, and the Sources is used to document the information > > sources. > > > > When a topic is too large for the Notes, I break it up into sections and identify the sections in > > the fact description field. Example of this is Feudal Terms (in my Terminology child). It is in 2 > > parts, A to M, and N to Z. > > > > Basically, the structure of this database is an Outline. When viewed in the Family View, it > > presents itself in an outline type of format. Nothing prevents adding another level of children > > (grandchildren) to the organization. > > > > Why do this at all? Well, it makes it easy to share with others, regardless of FOW, or PAF (4+), or > > other similar programs usage, a convienient place to gather genealogy related information that > > supplements research, and does not require the interested party to purchase or learn another piece > > of software. > > > > A second database contains maps collected over the years from a variety of sources. Each map is > > "linked" into the MultiMedia catalog. The maps are organized geographically as noted above. > > > > With these supplemental databases, I can pull them up while working in my main database and work > > with the information side by side. > > > > I know of others that use FOW for animal breeding records. This particular usage has deen well > > discussed already. > > > > Anyone else using FOW in a non-traditional way? If so, please share with the group. > > > > Dick > > > > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > > Family Origins GenForum - http://genforum.genealogy.com/fo/ > > Tech Support Knowledge Base http://www.familyorigins.com/support/ > > > > ============================== > > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp > > _________________________________________________________________ > iVillage.com: Solutions for Your Life > Check out the most exciting women's community on the Web > http://www.ivillage.com > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > The Genealogical Companion http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2399/tgc.htm > Browsable Archives: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/family-origins-users/ > > ============================== > Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: > Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time. > http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com

I am also putting together a new database using FO for Cemetery data. I take cemetery photos for people out of the area so I have each cemetery name as the "father". By putting the full name in the surname slot and the birth and death years in the title suffix slot and a fact called location I get this. I create the report in RTF format and eliminate the numbering FO created and delete "he/she is located in" and I get this. Artesia Cemetery District Blake, Anna M. 1885-1963 Block 84 Lot 1 Grave 4 Blake, Flora M. 1872-1961 Block 2 Lot 3 Grave 4 Blake, George W. 1855-1926 Block 2 Lot 3 Grave 6 Blake, Inez V. 1910-1957 Block 2 Lot 3 Grave 2 Harryman, Harvey J. & Mary Ellen 1827-1890 & 1844-1890 Block 68 Lot 3 Graves 6 & 5 Harryman, Van A. 8166-1940 Block 67 Lot 3 Grave 12 Logie, Annie Harryman 1874-1918 Block 2 Lot 3 Grave 8 Stanfield, Milton 1849-1919 front of office, exact location unknown Termaaten, Cornelius 1875-1963 Block 36 Lot 4 Grave 2 Peggy Hooper My home page http://www.myroots.net/ mailto:hooperhous@earthlink.net -----Original Message----- From: Dick Wells [mailto:dwells@chisp.net] Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 8:33 AM To: FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [FO] Non-Traditional Use of FOW For all those who desire FOW to be "more" than it is, consider using it in different way. I maintain two additional databases to supplement my standard FOW database used specifically for genealogy. By using the "User Defined Facts", I create specific topics. Here is an example. "General Information" database. The Root Person is named "General Info" in the surname filed. Children are named in a similar fashion. Some of the children are Dates & Calendars, Relationships, Naturalization, Immegration, Nobility, Occupations, Medical, etc. Each child has one of more topics created using the User Defined Facts. Take the example of Relationships. The topics are Cousins, Kissing Cousins, and Marriage Banns. For each topic, the Notes are used to contain the information, and the Sources is used to document the information sources. When a topic is too large for the Notes, I break it up into sections and identify the sections in the fact description field. Example of this is Feudal Terms (in my Terminology child). It is in 2 parts, A to M, and N to Z. Basically, the structure of this database is an Outline. When viewed in the Family View, it presents itself in an outline type of format. Nothing prevents adding another level of children (grandchildren) to the organization. Why do this at all? Well, it makes it easy to share with others, regardless of FOW, or PAF (4+), or other similar programs usage, a convienient place to gather genealogy related information that supplements research, and does not require the interested party to purchase or learn another piece of software. A second database contains maps collected over the years from a variety of sources. Each map is "linked" into the MultiMedia catalog. The maps are organized geographically as noted above. With these supplemental databases, I can pull them up while working in my main database and work with the information side by side. I know of others that use FOW for animal breeding records. This particular usage has deen well discussed already. Anyone else using FOW in a non-traditional way? If so, please share with the group. Dick

Make that eight. I don't want to be on a list of reactionary bigots who are more interested in creating stud books than researching family history ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alfred Eller" <adeller@santel.net> To: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 2:32 AM Subject: [FO] Relationships - significant other etc. etc. > I have lost 7 subscribers in the last day and a half, can anyone guess why? > > I think I can, They are sick and tired of this bickering. > > I am going to loose the next person who sends anything to the list about > this subject. > > He or she. will not be able to re-subscribe for at least a week. > > It has been more than two days ago that I first asked you nicely to find > another subject, so I don't think this is too harsh. > > Family-Origins-Users-Mailing list administrator > Alfred Eller > > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > PLEASE remove as much of the Original Message as possible when replying to a List Posting. Include only that part of the original message important to your reply. > > ============================== > Create a FREE family website at MyFamily.com! > http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST2 > >

I most heartily agree that user-defined symbols would be a GREAT addition. Right now they have to go into the surname slot and they louse up the alphabetizing. A separate field for user-defined symbols would be wonderful. JSG ----- Original Message ----- From: "Linda Scheimann" <linda514@ivillage.com> To: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 10:47 AM Subject: Re: [FO] Non-Traditional Use of FOW > > As I mentioned earlier, I have a database of European and other royal lineages in addition to my regular family databases. One of the problems I encountered was the alphabetical index for people who do not ordinarily use, and in earlier times did not have, surnames. Since this royal database is just for my own hobby interest and probably won't be preserved, I adopted the convention "of England," "of Cracow," etc. so that I could do efficient searches. I make exceptions once I reach house surnames such as Hapsburg, Wittelsbach, Windsor, Tudor, etc. > > One problem I haven't solved consistently is how to enter an "unproved" lineage. Notes aren't obvious enough on the first interface. You can see a note exists, but not content. In this usage, it would be nice if I could add a user-defined symbol, something like as asterisk, to each unproved individual in a line. In a normal database, you might omit unproven links, but before the year 1200 or so, that would eliminate too many connections that are likely but not fully verified. > > Linda > > > > On Sat, 12 May 2001, "Dick Wells" wrote: > > > > > For all those who desire FOW to be "more" than it is, consider using it in different way. > > > > I maintain two additional databases to supplement my standard FOW database used specifically for > > genealogy. By using the "User Defined Facts", I create specific topics. > > > > Here is an example. > > > > "General Information" database. The Root Person is named "General Info" in the surname filed. > > Children are named in a similar fashion. Some of the children are Dates & Calendars, Relationships, > > Naturalization, Immegration, Nobility, Occupations, Medical, etc. > > > > Each child has one of more topics created using the User Defined Facts. Take the example of > > Relationships. The topics are Cousins, Kissing Cousins, and Marriage Banns. For each topic, the > > Notes are used to contain the information, and the Sources is used to document the information > > sources. > > > > When a topic is too large for the Notes, I break it up into sections and identify the sections in > > the fact description field. Example of this is Feudal Terms (in my Terminology child). It is in 2 > > parts, A to M, and N to Z. > > > > Basically, the structure of this database is an Outline. When viewed in the Family View, it > > presents itself in an outline type of format. Nothing prevents adding another level of children > > (grandchildren) to the organization. > > > > Why do this at all? Well, it makes it easy to share with others, regardless of FOW, or PAF (4+), or > > other similar programs usage, a convienient place to gather genealogy related information that > > supplements research, and does not require the interested party to purchase or learn another piece > > of software. > > > > A second database contains maps collected over the years from a variety of sources. Each map is > > "linked" into the MultiMedia catalog. The maps are organized geographically as noted above. > > > > With these supplemental databases, I can pull them up while working in my main database and work > > with the information side by side. > > > > I know of others that use FOW for animal breeding records. This particular usage has deen well > > discussed already. > > > > Anyone else using FOW in a non-traditional way? If so, please share with the group. > > > > Dick > > > > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > > Family Origins GenForum - http://genforum.genealogy.com/fo/ > > Tech Support Knowledge Base http://www.familyorigins.com/support/ > > > > ============================== > > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp > > _________________________________________________________________ > iVillage.com: Solutions for Your Life > Check out the most exciting women's community on the Web > http://www.ivillage.com > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > The Genealogical Companion http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2399/tgc.htm > Browsable Archives: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/family-origins-users/ > > ============================== > Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: > Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time. > http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com > >