Fw: Mother in laws
Laurie Nelson
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" <lanen...@msn.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:16 PM
To: "GenMethods List" <GEN...@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_...@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 <sing...@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 <sing...@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" <lanen...@msn.com>