>>>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." "Laurie Nelson" <lanenelson1@msn.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>