> I wish to be able to clearly and succinctly identify the sources, > and logic used to establish a parent child relationship. This is not > usually as simple as citing an individual source, but for me often > requires establishing a "network" of interlocking bits of evidence. > This does not seem to be supported in many Genealogy programs > [...] > > Quolla6@gmail.com One could create one's own Source (<my name> conclusion nnnn] with Source Text explanation of what bits of evidence were combined to reach the conclusion.

> I wish to be able to clearly and succinctly identify the sources, > and logic used to establish a parent child relationship. This is not > usually as simple as citing an individual source, but for me often > requires establishing a "network" of interlocking bits of evidence. > This does not seem to be supported in many Genealogy programs, and > I've been told that the reason for that is that the capability is > not built into the GedCom standards. > > If that's the case, then this would seem to be a severe problem. I > can't think of anything more important than establishing parent > child relationships. > > Can anyone confirm that this is in fact a limitation in the GedCom > standards? > > Quolla6@gmail.com wrote: GEDCOM does seem to require the forming of "family groups". The program I use for initial entry, Family History System (FHS) does not require this. You establish the parent-child relationship by inserting the father and/or mother's ID in the "Father" and "Mother" fields respectively. You don't have to "marry" the father and mother first, as most other genealogy programs require. When the data are exported to GEDCOM, the routine reports "x family groups created" -- the program has to create them for the GEDCOM format. -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk Steve Hayes <hayesmstw@hotmail.com>

> In the two programs I'm most familiar with - gramps and phpGedView - > blank surnames end up in either (gramps) an unlabeled "name" or in > an "unknown", umm, collector. The only time a blank surname becomes > a problem is when there's insufficient information to distinguish > between Mary and Mary and that's not usually a problem because > they're married to/partnered with a different man or their kids' > names are different or they're from different places. That's to > say, there's some point of discrimination. As well, each has > received a different "I" number at the time of entry. Admittedly, it > ain't perfect but it works without recourse to brackets, braces, em > dashes, multiple question marks or acronyms. > > Bob Melson <amia9018@mypacks.net> That's true of most programs I'm familiar with. I once tried Family Tree Maker, however, and it did not seem to display or print the record numbers that could be used to distinguish such people, which was one of the reasons I stopped using it. I wonder how many of the people who have problems with this are users of FTM? -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk Steve Hayes <hayesmstw@hotmail.com>

> I wish to be able to clearly and succinctly identify the sources, > and logic used to establish a parent child relationship. This is not > usually as simple as citing an individual source, but for me often > requires establishing a "network" of interlocking bits of evidence. > This does not seem to be supported in many Genealogy programs, and > I've been told that the reason for that is that the capability is > not built into the GedCom standards. > > If that's the case, then this would seem to be a severe problem. I > can't think of anything more important than establishing parent > child relationships. > > Can anyone confirm that this is in fact a limitation in the GedCom > standards? > > Quolla6@gmail.com Like many things involving GEDCOM, it depends on your interpretation. GEDCOM 5.5 does not support a citation for a specific father-son relationship, for instance. However, it does support source citations for the "family structure" which includes both parents and all children. The text of each citation could arguably specify which binary relationship is being documented. But if GEDCOM does not support something which you think is critical for your research, is that a good reason for your software to not support it? GEDCOM is the lowest common denominator. If you are willing to limit yourself to data which is supported by (or, let's say, reliably transferable by) GEDCOM, then you'll be missing out on a whole lot more than relationship citations. Bob Velke Wholly Genes, Inc. Bob Velke <bvelke@whollygenes.com>

Keith Nuttle wrote: snip > OP: This was the point of my original question. The use of any > standard characters puts all of these people in the same place in > the index, whether it is at the beginning of the index as ?? or > Unknown. IN TMG, a blank surname sorts at the beginning of the Pick List and Project Explorer. > I was trying to find an acceptable way to tie these people to the > family they belong without knowing their name. And undoubtedly you know the married name of the person; that wail also appear in the Pick List and Project Explorer. If your program does not allow multiple names, especially married names then I recommend getting a program that will. bob gillis bob gillis <robertgillis@verizon.net>

Keith Nuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> I thought it was Sweet Ol' Bob, nevertheless... >> >> I recognize the use of "Unknown" so all of them wind up in the "U" >> section of an alpha listing BUT >> >> in your personal opinion why would you not use ? or ??? for unknown? >> >> I deplore filling the blanks with "good intentions". >> >> Don't hold back - I'm used to comments from Sweet Ol' Bobs! 8-) >> >> Hugh <Eagle@bellsouth.net> (J. Hugh Sullivan) > >OP: This was the point of my original question. The use of any >standard characters puts all of these people in the same place in >the index, whether it is at the beginning of the index as ?? or >Unknown. > >I was trying to find an acceptable way to tie these people to the >family they belong without knowing their name. > >Some times when doing research you find Mary "mother of James Jones" >in other documents, Having them in an index quickly identifies >whether you have previously found James Jones's mother's first name. Unless, of course, you have more than one James Jones so research is still necessary. And "mother of" would not be in the "J" group, i. e., not adjacent. If she is linked to James Jones in the data base a double click on either name will take you directly to the family. >What every you do, you need a place to start collecting information, >birth place, date of birth, etc., about Mary "Mother of James Jones" >even though you don't know her maiden name. > >One of those place where you find information on unknown parents is >in the US census. In the census for several years the place of the >parents birth is shown without names, It would be nice to have this >information easily available. (James's birthplace may not be his >parent's birthplace.) > >Keith Nuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> Seems like the options are (a) to use some standard form for lack of name (b) to use some personalized form. Which to use might depend upon how widely your database is distributed. If widely used it should probably be less personalized. My starting point would probably be that I am not likely to find the maiden name of a female except by luck or the data base of another - at least not prior to 1900. So I would use a consistent, recoognized method. However I don't share my data base except one on one and for a person's direct line. So I could personalize all I wish. Since we will never get out of this world alive I would recommend as much standardization as possible with deviations explined by the use of notes. That should not confuse anyone who doesn't start off confused. A female living with a male doesn't allow one to make observations unless the data is furnished. A female could be the wed or unwed mother or step-mother - or various other relationships depending on age differentials. And once you have more than 5,000 or so names it rarely matters unless it is direct line. Hugh Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan)

Apparently this didn't make it to the list so I'm forwarding it, in hopes this time it will. Laurie Nelson - -------------------------------------------------- From: "Laurie Nelson" <lanenelson1@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:16 PM To: "GenMethods List" <GENMTD@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [GM] Mother in laws >>>>>Thank you for the responses to my question. This answers my question >>>>>in >>>>>the since there is no standard answer. >>>>> >>>>>As the database gains more families, I was trying to avoid several >>>>>Marys >>>>>in the index that are not traceable to a family. Same problem if I >>>>>identify Mary as Mary Unknown. >>>>> >>>>>I like the idea of tying in the family to the unknown an as in the >>>>>example above of Mary motherofJimjones. Maybe I will try Mary >>>>>JonemotherofJim, as that would tie Mary to the Jones family >>>>>specifically Jim. >>>>> >>>>>I have found incidences where two unrelated people with the same last >>>>>name have married. It keeps genealogy interesting. >>>>> >>>>>Keith Nuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> >>>> >>>>Keith, if you can stand one more response, several years ago I >>>>adopted a method suggested by another user of my genealogy program >>>>to indicate women with an unknown maiden name. >>>> >>>>For her surname, I would put ______ (Jones) [I always use 6 >>>>underlines to keep it consistent.] The person suggesting it said >>>>that, when she took her data to a family reunion or mailed it to >>>>someone, they could see immediately that the person's maiden name >>>>was missing and often filled it in. This has worked very well for >>>>me until I found the woman's surname. >>>> >>>>Laurie Nelson >>> >>>Oh, Lord, PLEASE don't use (parens) on anything but the maiden name! >>> >>>The (parens) for maiden name was the standard or norm or preferred >>>practice back in the 1950s (well before I started my genealogy), and >>>far's I know still is. Using it for anything else is guaranteed to >>>confuse someone somewhere down the line. And future generations >>>seem to be easy enough to confuse even when we go out of our way to >>>KISS it for them! >>> >>>Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> >> >> Cheryl, I have a Readme in my genealogy program (RootsMagic) that >> lists all the conventions I use, including the one for an unknown >> maiden name. If people who use my data don't like my conventions, >> they can change them. It's taken me several years to decide on the >> conventions I use, and they work for me. Sorry if I don't care >> whether they work for someone else. I don't like the conventions >> others use either; if I copy their data until I can research and >> verify it, I change it to my liking. >> >> Laurie Nelson >> >> P.S. The way I have a Readme is to create an individual named "#READ >> ME" in the Surname field and "Important Information in Note - " in >> the Given Name(s) field. My conventions are listed in the note for >> the "person." > > >>Whatever floats your boat.< > >>Although, it seems to me putting that boilerplate into each note to > explain something is a lot of needlessly redundant effort when one > /could/ just use commonly recognized (if not universally agreed-upon) > conventions. But, then again, it's your database.< > >>Cheryl < > > singhals <singhals@erols.com> > > > Cheryl, you misunderstood. I don't put the boilerplate in each note to > explain it. I put the explanation ONLY in the note for the individual I > named "#README". It works for me and that's all that counts. If I have to > deal with unexplained garbage from other people (as I have in the past), > they can deal with my conventions that are totally explained in the > "#README" note. BTW it seems few people are researching the same names I > am so it's really a non-issue for me. > > Laurie Nelson "Laurie Nelson" <lanenelson1@msn.com>

I wish to be able to clearly and succinctly identify the sources, and logic used to establish a parent child relationship. This is not usually as simple as citing an individual source, but for me often requires establishing a "network" of interlocking bits of evidence. This does not seem to be supported in many Genealogy programs, and I've been told that the reason for that is that the capability is not built into the GedCom standards. If that's the case, then this would seem to be a severe problem. I can't think of anything more important than establishing parent child relationships. Can anyone confirm that this is in fact a limitation in the GedCom standards? Quolla6@gmail.com

Keith Nuttle wrote: snip > OP: This was the point of my original question. The use of any > standard characters puts all of these people in the same place in > the index, whether it is at the beginning of the index as ?? or > Unknown. IN TMG, a blank surname sorts at the beginning of the Pick List and Project Explorer. > I was trying to find an acceptable way to tie these people to the > family they belong without knowing their name. And undoubtedly you know the married name of the person; that wail also appear in the Pick List and Project Explorer. If your program does not allow multiple names, especially married names then I recommend getting a program that will. bob gillis bob gillis <robertgillis@verizon.net>

Keith Nuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> I thought it was Sweet Ol' Bob, nevertheless... >> >> I recognize the use of "Unknown" so all of them wind up in the "U" >> section of an alpha listing BUT >> >> in your personal opinion why would you not use ? or ??? for unknown? >> >> I deplore filling the blanks with "good intentions". >> >> Don't hold back - I'm used to comments from Sweet Ol' Bobs! 8-) >> >> Hugh <Eagle@bellsouth.net> (J. Hugh Sullivan) > >OP: This was the point of my original question. The use of any >standard characters puts all of these people in the same place in >the index, whether it is at the beginning of the index as ?? or >Unknown. > >I was trying to find an acceptable way to tie these people to the >family they belong without knowing their name. > >Some times when doing research you find Mary "mother of James Jones" >in other documents, Having them in an index quickly identifies >whether you have previously found James Jones's mother's first name. Unless, of course, you have more than one James Jones so research is still necessary. And "mother of" would not be in the "J" group, i. e., not adjacent. If she is linked to James Jones in the data base a double click on either name will take you directly to the family. >What every you do, you need a place to start collecting information, >birth place, date of birth, etc., about Mary "Mother of James Jones" >even though you don't know her maiden name. > >One of those place where you find information on unknown parents is >in the US census. In the census for several years the place of the >parents birth is shown without names, It would be nice to have this >information easily available. (James's birthplace may not be his >parent's birthplace.) > >Keith Nuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> Seems like the options are (a) to use some standard form for lack of name (b) to use some personalized form. Which to use might depend upon how widely your database is distributed. If widely used it should probably be less personalized. My starting point would probably be that I am not likely to find the maiden name of a female except by luck or the data base of another - at least not prior to 1900. So I would use a consistent, recoognized method. However I don't share my data base except one on one and for a person's direct line. So I could personalize all I wish. Since we will never get out of this world alive I would recommend as much standardization as possible with deviations explined by the use of notes. That should not confuse anyone who doesn't start off confused. A female living with a male doesn't allow one to make observations unless the data is furnished. A female could be the wed or unwed mother or step-mother - or various other relationships depending on age differentials. And once you have more than 5,000 or so names it rarely matters unless it is direct line. Hugh Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan)

>> I generally leave the unknown portion blank, as I said. I do so >> because it unambiguously "records" the lack of information, unlike >> acronyms or the various punctuation options - IMO, it's kinda hard >> to misinterpret a blank. >> >> (p)Sychotic Ol' Bob <amia9018@mypacks.net> > > Where does the name wind up in an alpha listing? > > J. Hugh Sullivan (Eagle@bellsouth.net) In the two programs I'm most familiar with - gramps and phpGedView - blank surnames end up in either (gramps) an unlabeled "name" or in an "unknown", umm, collector. The only time a blank surname becomes a problem is when there's insufficient information to distinguish between Mary and Mary and that's not usually a problem because they're married to/partnered with a different man or their kids' names are different or they're from different places. That's to say, there's some point of discrimination. As well, each has received a different "I" number at the time of entry. Admittedly, it ain't perfect but it works without recourse to brackets, braces, em dashes, multiple question marks or acronyms. And this, I think, is the crux of the problem/discussion. There IS NO standard in this area, no consensus, as even Joan's cited article indicates. What works for me might not work for you and vice versa and what WE find useful might not be for the OP. While I believe leaving the unknown part or parts of the name blank is less prone to error or misinterpretation, I don't feel strongly enough about the matter to want to fall on my sword in its defense. And a final observation. If there WERE a standard for this particular question, don't you think the multiple genealogy programs out there would force its use as a default? Mary doesn't have a last name recorded? Insert [--??--]. No given name but a last name? Insert [--??--]. Neither given nor surname? Easy, [--??--][--??--]. As I said somewhere earlier in this discussion, standards are arrived at by consensus; so far as I can tell, th'ain't no sech animal in this case and I kinda hope that remains the case. Slippery Ol' Bob -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have. Thomas Jefferson Bob Melson <amia9018@mypacks.net>

> As with so many other things, this is one person's (the article's > author) idea of the ideal. Unfortunately, though, this idea is not > supported by practice .. umm, more honored in the breach than the > observance. > > amia9018@mypacks.net Bob- True, but it is also the NGS standard I believe. Joan

>>>>>Thank you for the responses to my question. This answers my question in >>>>>the since there is no standard answer. >>>>> >>>>>As the database gains more families, I was trying to avoid several Marys >>>>>in the index that are not traceable to a family. Same problem if I >>>>>identify Mary as Mary Unknown. >>>>> >>>>>I like the idea of tying in the family to the unknown an as in the >>>>>example above of Mary motherofJimjones. Maybe I will try Mary >>>>>JonemotherofJim, as that would tie Mary to the Jones family >>>>>specifically Jim. >>>>> >>>>>I have found incidences where two unrelated people with the same last >>>>>name have married. It keeps genealogy interesting. >>>>> >>>>>Keith Nuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> >>>> >>>>Keith, if you can stand one more response, several years ago I >>>>adopted a method suggested by another user of my genealogy program >>>>to indicate women with an unknown maiden name. >>>> >>>>For her surname, I would put ______ (Jones) [I always use 6 >>>>underlines to keep it consistent.] The person suggesting it said >>>>that, when she took her data to a family reunion or mailed it to >>>>someone, they could see immediately that the person's maiden name >>>>was missing and often filled it in. This has worked very well for >>>>me until I found the woman's surname. >>>> >>>>Laurie Nelson >>> >>>Oh, Lord, PLEASE don't use (parens) on anything but the maiden name! >>> >>>The (parens) for maiden name was the standard or norm or preferred >>>practice back in the 1950s (well before I started my genealogy), and >>>far's I know still is. Using it for anything else is guaranteed to >>>confuse someone somewhere down the line. And future generations >>>seem to be easy enough to confuse even when we go out of our way to >>>KISS it for them! >>> >>>Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> >> >>Cheryl, I have a Readme in my genealogy program (RootsMagic) that >>lists all the conventions I use, including the one for an unknown >>maiden name. If people who use my data don't like my conventions, >>they can change them. It's taken me several years to decide on the >>conventions I use, and they work for me. Sorry if I don't care >>whether they work for someone else. I don't like the conventions >>others use either; if I copy their data until I can research and >>verify it, I change it to my liking. >> >>Laurie Nelson >> >>P.S. The way I have a Readme is to create an individual named "#READ >>ME" in the Surname field and "Important Information in Note - " in >>the Given Name(s) field. My conventions are listed in the note for >?the "person." > >Whatever floats your boat. > >Although, it seems to me putting that boilerplate into each note to >explain something is a lot of needlessly redundant effort when one >/could/ just use commonly recognized (if not universally agreed-upon) >conventions. But, then again, it's your database. > >Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> Cheryl, you misunderstood. I don't put the boilerplate in each note to explain it. I put the explanation ONLY in the note for the individual I named "#README". It works for me and that's all that counts. If I have to deal with unexplained garbage from other people (as I have in the past), they can deal with my conventions that are totally explained in the "#README" note. BTW it seems few people are researching the same names I am so it's really a non-issue for me. Laurie Nelson "Laurie Nelson" <lanenelson1@msn.com>

> I generally leave the unknown portion blank, as I said. I do so > because it unambiguously "records" the lack of information, unlike > acronyms or the various punctuation options - IMO, it's kinda hard > to misinterpret a blank. > > (p)Sychotic Ol' Bob <amia9018@mypacks.net> Where does the name wind up in an alpha listing? And the first letter of your name above is silent - like the "p" in swimming! 8-) Hugh Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan)

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: > > Because Mary --?-- (Jones) is ambiguous to a newbie. A newbie > > probably won't notice the difference between ( [ and { either. My > > personal genie program has a suffix field; I use it for things like > > DD MD DDS and the like, but I know people who put married names in > > there...and I think it's ambiguous. > > > > Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> > > How 'bout CDR? I have /no/ truck with CDRs. I've moved on to DVDs now. ;) > On second thought forget it - I'm not in your data base! For these small mercies, Lord, we are truly grateful. Cheryl singhals <singhals@erols.com>

JYoung6180@aol.com (JYoung6180@aol.com) opined: >> The lack of consensus is clearly illustrated by the article you >> originally cited, with no one method clearly favored. >> >> What do _I_ use? I leave the unknown portion of the name blank. >> Why? Because I don't like any of the other alternatives, including >> FNU. That said, methinks the right answer to the OP is "whatever >> works for you, but be ready to explain yourself". >> >> Swell Ol' Bob <amia9018@mypacks.net> > > Bob- > > The article DOES explain what is preferred while acknowledging that > many people do not use it or know of it. As with so many other things, this is one person's (the article's author) idea of the ideal. Unfortunately, though, this idea is not supported by practice .. umm, more honored in the breach than the observance. > I'd accept your "whatever works for you" advice provided you are not > preparing your file for anyone other than YOU to use or view. If > others are to use it or even SEE it -- they are not going to come to > you necessarily for an explanation of your display methods...they > are going to draw their own, probably incorrect conclusions and > base their file upon their misconceptions. Don't you think a lot depends on whom things are being prepared for? If I'm trading information with my cousin, she's likely to already know that we're not descended from the ancient FNU tribe. On the other hand, if I'm publishing on, say, RootsWeb, I'm inclined to (1) look at what's already there for guidance and (2) ask what they prefer (get their style manual, in other words). I'd no more consider publishing my genealogical data without finding out the publisher's style preferences than I would a technical or professional paper without finding out whether they prefer the APA or Chicago style manuals. I certainly won't claim that there's one right way to do things. I will ask, though, what makes the way you've adopted the right one? The article you cite is one person's opinion .. two, maybe, counting you .. but has no force otherwise. Yes, it's great to have standards, but those standards are usually arrived at by consensus, not by fiat (or chrysler ;-D ). It's clear - to me, at least - that the article was an attempt to impose a standard by fiat in an area where there was no consensus at the time of writing and no consensus today. > Joan <JYoung6180@aol.com> Stubborn Ol' Bob -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have. Thomas Jefferson Bob Melson <amia9018@mypacks.net>

>>> <snip> >>> >>> Bob- >>> >>> It may seem HARMLESS until you are confronted with thousands of >>> Newbie (and some not so Newbie) genealogists searching for years in >>> vain for the LNU ancestors. I even had one gal tell me she never >>> realized she had Mandarin Chinese ancestors until she found FNU LNU >>> and figured it was a Chinese ancestor. For about a year (until the >>> board was eventually put out of its misery) I adminned the LNU >>> message board at RootsWeb and dutifully wrote to all the posters >>> letting them know they were probably searching in vain for their >>> wild LNUs. >>> >>> Joan <JYoung6180@aol.com> >> >> Believe me, I do understand that human stupidity has no limits - I >> learned the hard way while doing tech support at IBM in the early >> '90s, I won't regale you with my favorite stories, however; suffice >> to say they amply illustrate the point. >> >> But the present case seems to me to be somewhat otherwise, given the >> lack of consensus on the right and proper way, however you wish to >> define right and proper, to indicate unknown name elements. In many >> ways, it seems to be a High Church/Low Church or big-endian/ >> little-endian argument with no hope of resolution. The lack of >> consensus is clearly illustrated by the article you originally >> cited, with no one method clearly favored. >> >> What do _I_ use? I leave the unknown portion of the name blank. >> Why? Because I don't like any of the other alternatives, including >> FNU. That said, methinks the right answer to the OP is "whatever >> works for you, but be ready to explain yourself". >> >> Swell Ol' Bob Melson <amia9018@mypacks.net> > > I thought it was Sweet Ol' Bob, nevertheless... > > I recognize the use of "Unknown" so all of them wind up in the "U" > section of an alpha listing BUT > > in your personal opinion why would you not use ? or ??? for unknown? > > I deplore filling the blanks with "good intentions". > > Don't hold back - I'm used to comments from Sweet Ol' Bobs! 8-) > > Hugh <Eagle@bellsouth.net> (J. Hugh Sullivan) OP: This was the point of my original question. The use of any standard characters puts all of these people in the same place in the index, whether it is at the beginning of the index as ?? or Unknown. I was trying to find an acceptable way to tie these people to the family they belong without knowing their name. Some times when doing research you find Mary "mother of James Jones" in other documents, Having them in an index quickly identifies whether you have previously found James Jones's mother's first name. What every you do, you need a place to start collecting information, birth place, date of birth, etc., about Mary "Mother of James Jones" even though you don't know her maiden name. One of those place where you find information on unknown parents is in the US census. In the census for several years the place of the parents birth is shown without names, It would be nice to have this information easily available. (James's birthplace may not be his parent's birthplace.) Keith Nuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net>

>> > <snip> >> > >> > Bob- >> > >> > It may seem HARMLESS until you are confronted with thousands of >> > Newbie (and some not so Newbie) genealogists searching for years in >> > vain for the LNU ancestors. I even had one gal tell me she never >> > realized she had Mandarin Chinese ancestors until she found FNU LNU >> > and figured it was a Chinese ancestor. For about a year (until the >> > board was eventually put out of its misery) I adminned the LNU >> > message board at RootsWeb and dutifully wrote to all the posters >> > letting them know they were probably searching in vain for their >> > wild LNUs. >> > >> > Joan <JYoung6180@aol.com> >> >> Believe me, I do understand that human stupidity has no limits - I >> learned the hard way while doing tech support at IBM in the early >> '90s, I won't regale you with my favorite stories, however; suffice >> to say they amply illustrate the point. >> >> But the present case seems to me to be somewhat otherwise, given the >> lack of consensus on the right and proper way, however you wish to >> define right and proper, to indicate unknown name elements. In many >> ways, it seems to be a High Church/Low Church or big-endian/ >> little-endian argument with no hope of resolution. The lack of >> consensus is clearly illustrated by the article you originally >> cited, with no one method clearly favored. >> >> What do _I_ use? I leave the unknown portion of the name blank. >> Why? Because I don't like any of the other alternatives, including >> FNU. That said, methinks the right answer to the OP is "whatever >> works for you, but be ready to explain yourself". >> >> Swell Ol' Bob Melson <amia9018@mypacks.net> > > I thought it was Sweet Ol' Bob, nevertheless... > > I recognize the use of "Unknown" so all of them wind up in the "U" > section of an alpha listing BUT > > in your personal opinion why would you not use ? or ??? for unknown? > > I deplore filling the blanks with "good intentions". > > Don't hold back - I'm used to comments from Sweet Ol' Bobs! 8-) > > Hugh <Eagle@bellsouth.net> (J. Hugh Sullivan) Hugh, I generally leave the unknown portion blank, as I said. I do so because it unambiguously "records" the lack of information, unlike acronyms or the various punctuation options - IMO, it's kinda hard to misinterpret a blank. (p)Sychotic Ol' Bob -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have. Thomas Jefferson Bob Melson <amia9018@mypacks.net>

> Two more comments: I use "unknown" as in "unknown Jones father" or > "unknown Smith husband" in my Family Tree Maker software. Just > easier that way, and I think abbreviations would be confusing. > Second: I don't know of any genealogy software that accommodates > slave ancestry. I've had to improvise to record slave owners and > slaves using Excel or the notes part of Family Tree Maker. > > Kberry Kenyatta- While I haven't used Family TreeMaker in many years unless it has changed it can accomodate any culture where surnames were not used. There is a difference between having a surname and not knowing what that surname IS and not having a surname AT ALL. To designate no surname in FTM (unless it has changed over the years the entry is shown given name// -- the slashes mark the beginning and ending of the blank field. Joan PS: And, once again, with regard to the use of "unknown" or any variation thereof--if you are only making the notatation for yourself -- fine; but if others are to use or view it, using [--?--] (the bracketed m dashes with question mark in the middle) is the best solution. This notation can be used for the surname OR given name field and always represents an unknown (but existing) name whichever field it is used for. JYoung6180@aol.com

>>>>Thank you for the responses to my question. This answers my question in >>>>the since there is no standard answer. >>>> >>>>As the database gains more families, I was trying to avoid several Marys >>>>in the index that are not traceable to a family. Same problem if I >>>>identify Mary as Mary Unknown. >>>> >>>>I like the idea of tying in the family to the unknown an as in the >>>>example above of Mary motherofJimjones. Maybe I will try Mary >>>>JonemotherofJim, as that would tie Mary to the Jones family >>>>specifically Jim. >>>> >>>>I have found incidences where two unrelated people with the same last >>>>name have married. It keeps genealogy interesting. >>>> >>>>Keith Nuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> >>> >>>Keith, if you can stand one more response, several years ago I >>>adopted a method suggested by another user of my genealogy program >>>to indicate women with an unknown maiden name. >>> >>>For her surname, I would put ______ (Jones) [I always use 6 >>>underlines to keep it consistent.] The person suggesting it said >>>that, when she took her data to a family reunion or mailed it to >>>someone, they could see immediately that the person's maiden name >>>was missing and often filled it in. This has worked very well for >>>me until I found the woman's surname. >>> >>>Laurie Nelson >> >>Oh, Lord, PLEASE don't use (parens) on anything but the maiden name! >> >>The (parens) for maiden name was the standard or norm or preferred >>practice back in the 1950s (well before I started my genealogy), and >>far's I know still is. Using it for anything else is guaranteed to >>confuse someone somewhere down the line. And future generations >>seem to be easy enough to confuse even when we go out of our way to >>KISS it for them! >> >>Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> > > Cheryl, I have a Readme in my genealogy program (RootsMagic) that > lists all the conventions I use, including the one for an unknown > maiden name. If people who use my data don't like my conventions, > they can change them. It's taken me several years to decide on the > conventions I use, and they work for me. Sorry if I don't care > whether they work for someone else. I don't like the conventions > others use either; if I copy their data until I can research and > verify it, I change it to my liking. > > Laurie Nelson > > P.S. The way I have a Readme is to create an individual named "#READ > ME" in the Surname field and "Important Information in Note - " in > the Given Name(s) field. My conventions are listed in the note for > the "person." Whatever floats your boat. Although, it seems to me putting that boilerplate into each note to explain something is a lot of needlessly redundant effort when one /could/ just use commonly recognized (if not universally agreed-upon) conventions. But, then again, it's your database. Cheryl singhals <singhals@erols.com>