>>>>>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>