Posts

I’ve noticed that other that the wife, others are not being marked as S (single) (not had any so far married). As intended?

----- [updated: 31Aug2023]

 Alter-Drukarsh connections |The Garelicks|Journal 3.3.12 -  PHP Version 8.1.17 - mySQL 8.1
The Royals |The Kennedys|The Gerrer Rabbis  3.3.12 -  PHP Version 8.1.17 - mySQL 8.1

First – please say which census you refer to, as each one can use different ways of suggesting entries. Its normally based on the definitions from the original census forms.

However, you did mention 1921 the other day, so I have assumed that one.  😊

I can’t answer the question “deliberate or not?”. That sheet had been around so long (before kiwitrees I think) I don’t even recall who provided the definitions.

I can tell you that particular census is coded to provide “M”, “W”, or “-“. Same  for both males and females. The calculation also requires MARR, DIV, or _NMR  family tags; and they must have dates ( for checking against the census date).

As per above, I can’t tell you why “-“ is used instead of “S” for unmarried people.

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

Sorry. Didn’t even think to mention 1921 Canadian. Didn’t know it’s legacy. No problem. was funny having young children married . The Canadian census site (Archives Canada) doesn’t give any recap like Ancestry or FamilySearch to review.

----- [updated: 31Aug2023]

 Alter-Drukarsh connections |The Garelicks|Journal 3.3.12 -  PHP Version 8.1.17 - mySQL 8.1
The Royals |The Kennedys|The Gerrer Rabbis  3.3.12 -  PHP Version 8.1.17 - mySQL 8.1

The code is very simple, not much to go wrong. So if it is suggesting children are married incorrectly I would recommend you first double check your data. If they married later, is that marriage date wrong?

If they are OK, give me a link and I’ll look further into it.

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