Author
Reply
  • #6772

    My apologies. The problem is an error in my explanation above. (It was late πŸ™ ) I said:

    To get a β€œno” in the list requires a deliberate decision to untick that β€œyes” option, AND not to enter a date or source.

    What I should have said was:
    To get a β€œno” in the list requires a deliberate decision to untick that β€œyes” option, AND not to enter either a date or place.

    You don’t have either date or place in any of your examples.

    There have been (in past years on webtrees and PGV) some fairly heated debates about whether SOURce should also be allowed as a positive indication of the event (birth, death, as well as marriage have the same issue). The GEDCOM specification is a little ambiguous:

    All GEDCOM lines have either a value or a pointer unless the line contains subordinate GEDCOM lines. In other words the presence of a level number and a tag alone should not be used to assert data (i.e. 1 DEAT Y should be used to imply a death known to have happened but date and place are unknown, not 1 DEAT ).

    (Underlining is my addition for clarity)

    However my preference has always been to NOT allow source to confirm these events, as, for example, it could signify nothing more than that the couple were “together” rather than legally / religiously married. We should always err on the side of caution and not imply anything not well proven. A date or place when and / or where the event took place is such proof.

    Edit: That does leave two of your examples as “odd”. The first where you have 1 MARR Y which I “think” should result in “yes”, and the last where you do have a date 2 DATE AFT 1921. Again, this “should” result in “yes”. I will look at the code to see what the issue with these is.

    Nigel
    My personal kiwitrees site is www.our-families.info