Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 20 total)
Author
Posts
  • #6759

    I’ve missed entering quite a few marriage dates so I did a list of families for the surname in question. Under “Marriage”, I see a few dates and all others say “No”. What’s the No? Where there is no date, should it not be “Yes” for married? I thought it meant I had forgotten the check but then, that’s automatic if nothing is entered.

    -----
    [updated: 11 Jun 2021]
    MacOS: 10.15.7  (Catalina)
    Safari   14.0.3;  Firefox 89.0
    PHP 7.4 FastCGI

    Alter-Drukarsh connections... 3.3.8 <private>
    The Royals 3.3.8<royals.rbcsolutions.ca
    >
    The Gerrer Rebbes 3.3.8 <royals.rbcsolutions.ca/index.php?ged=rebbes>

  • #6763

    When you add a marriage to a family record the “yes” option is ticked by default. It is ignored if there is a date or a source, but will otherwise display “yes” in the Families list.

    To get a “no” in the list requires a deliberate decision to untick that “yes” option, AND not to enter a date or source.

    So, if you feel you did not untick that box (and are you sure?) then it would suggest a problem.

    Please provide the full GEDCOM data for a family record that displays the “no” in the marriage column of the families list.

    EDIT: remember that a “family” can be created without a “marriage”. That is the most common reason for the “no” appearing in the Families list. Creating a family should never ASSUME that is is the result of a marriage. You need to specify that a marriage occurred, other wise the assumption is that it hasn’t.

    Nigel
    My personal kiwitrees site is www.our-families.info
  • #6769

    I checked 4 couples and they have no dates but do have a source and one has a place. Not sure if this is the GEDCOM you want. I just picked my “U” list, all the others are similar. Regarding your EDIT note, I’d not intentionally uncheck anyone as married. I’ve never tried to use that method to join two people who aren’t married but are together. I’ve used the other codes.

    LETTER U (just so I can refer back later) all show NO for married. All are married.
    1 WIFE @A11[email protected]
    1 HUSB @[email protected]
    1 MARR Y
    2 SOUR @[email protected]
    1 CHAN
    2 DATE 31 AUG 2013
    3 TIME 00:21:06
    2 _WT_USER admin
    1 CHIL @[email protected]
    1 CHIL @[email protected]
    1 CHIL @[email protected]
    ——————————————–
    1 HUSB @[email protected]
    1 CHIL @[email protected]
    1 CHAN
    2 DATE 01 JUL 2013
    3 TIME 14:31:07
    2 _WT_USER admin
    1 WIFE @[email protected]
    1 MARR
    2 SOUR @[email protected]
    ————————–
    1 HUSB @[email protected]
    1 WIFE @[email protected]
    1 MARR
    2 SOUR @[email protected]
    1 CHAN
    2 DATE 04 FEB 2013
    3 TIME 18:25:49
    2 _WT_USER admin
    1 CHIL @[email protected]
    1 CHIL @[email protected]
    1 CHIL @[email protected]
    ——————————-
    1 HUSB @[email protected]
    1 CHIL @[email protected]
    1 CHAN
    2 DATE 01 JUL 2013
    3 TIME 14:31:07
    2 _WT_USER admin
    1 WIFE @[email protected]
    1 MARR
    2 SOUR @[email protected]

    This one has a date from the “C” listing:
    1 WIFE @[email protected]
    1 HUSB @[email protected]
    1 MARR
    2 SOUR @[email protected]
    2 DATE AFT 1921
    1 CHAN
    2 DATE 12 OCT 2014
    3 TIME 06:36:14
    2 _WT_USER admin
    1 RESI
    2 DATE 1956
    2 PLAC Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    2 SOUR @[email protected]

    -----
    [updated: 11 Jun 2021]
    MacOS: 10.15.7  (Catalina)
    Safari   14.0.3;  Firefox 89.0
    PHP 7.4 FastCGI

    Alter-Drukarsh connections... 3.3.8 <private>
    The Royals 3.3.8<royals.rbcsolutions.ca
    >
    The Gerrer Rebbes 3.3.8 <royals.rbcsolutions.ca/index.php?ged=rebbes>

  • #6770

    I think I may have an answer. When I create new records, I’m probably adding the info and assuming it means / born / died, which it does. However, when I add the date/place for married I usually forget to check off married.

    So, how do I correct offline? Search MARR and add Y? While the record reads as if they are married, obviously the report doesn’t and the GEDCOM isn’t correctly showing the status. Sounds painstakingly time consuming. However, I ran the report to find married couples where I forgot to add the date of marriage, so assume it should be done. If my assumption is corect

    Edit: I thought I may have an answer. No, I don’t. I see when I add the spouse Marriage is already checked.

    -----
    [updated: 11 Jun 2021]
    MacOS: 10.15.7  (Catalina)
    Safari   14.0.3;  Firefox 89.0
    PHP 7.4 FastCGI

    Alter-Drukarsh connections... 3.3.8 <private>
    The Royals 3.3.8<royals.rbcsolutions.ca
    >
    The Gerrer Rebbes 3.3.8 <royals.rbcsolutions.ca/index.php?ged=rebbes>

  • #6772

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

    To get a “no” in the list requires a deliberate decision to untick that “yes” option, AND not to enter a date or source.

    What I should have said was:
    To get a “no” in the list requires a deliberate decision to untick that “yes” 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
  • #6773

    the examples I gave all have a Source and some dates. By default when adding spouse Marriage is checked and I’ve never unchecked it.

    Normally when I know for sure the couple weren’t married but had a child, I’ll change MARR to _NRM or _CML. But never knew to uncheck MARR.

    So, where does that leave me? I just checked the family name I’m adding a lot of members too. ALL have Source, NONE were deliberately unchecked for MARR. They state NO for married.

    No dispute about your explanation, just want to have the list show as I thought it would.

    -----
    [updated: 11 Jun 2021]
    MacOS: 10.15.7  (Catalina)
    Safari   14.0.3;  Firefox 89.0
    PHP 7.4 FastCGI

    Alter-Drukarsh connections... 3.3.8 <private>
    The Royals 3.3.8<royals.rbcsolutions.ca
    >
    The Gerrer Rebbes 3.3.8 <royals.rbcsolutions.ca/index.php?ged=rebbes>

  • #6774

    Normally when I know for sure the couple weren’t married but had a child, I’ll change MARR to _NRM or _CML. But never knew to uncheck MARR.

    Good. Don’t change what you are doing. Read the GEDCOM snippet I gave above. It says :1 MARR without ‘N’ AND without DATE AND without PLAC is not valid GEDCOM for anything and shoulld not be used.

    So, where does that leave me?

    Waiting for me to figure out the best solution. From what I can see so far what happens now is what has always happened (still does in webtrees as well!). Not saying it’s right, just that it’s been this way for ever. The code does not seem to be doing what you (and me) think it should.

    Nigel
    My personal kiwitrees site is www.our-families.info
  • #6775

    Just another thought – and probably the reason the issue has never been raised before. I think it is questionable whether a MARR event should be added at all if you don’t have either a date or pace to prove it happened. Without those facts you seem to be recording an un-proven assumption that is not good genealogy.

    Nigel
    My personal kiwitrees site is www.our-families.info
  • #6777

    if that rationale is held for marriage, so too it should be for birth, death and any other event. Yet, I know my cousins married for example. I know their spouses names. I just don’t know where/when. Does that mean I don’t record them? I don’t record all my second cousins births even if I don’t know where/when?
    Gee, that would mean not marking my grandparents married. I still can’t find where/when. But there were 7 kids that knew they were.

    So, there’s wee problem of “good genealogy” and reality?????

    -----
    [updated: 11 Jun 2021]
    MacOS: 10.15.7  (Catalina)
    Safari   14.0.3;  Firefox 89.0
    PHP 7.4 FastCGI

    Alter-Drukarsh connections... 3.3.8 <private>
    The Royals 3.3.8<royals.rbcsolutions.ca
    >
    The Gerrer Rebbes 3.3.8 <royals.rbcsolutions.ca/index.php?ged=rebbes>

  • #6778

    True, but I didn’t explain myself very well. Yes, of course you can record those events by the use of the “Y” if you wish (1 MARR/BIRT/DEAT Y”), but my personal belief is that if you do so it should be accompanied by either a source or a note that explains and justifies your assertion – even if it just gives you as the source and your assertion that “I know it happened”. At least that way in 20yrs time or more one of your heirs can read it and know how you came to the conclusion they were actually (legally) married.

    But I also think you are confusing “married” with “together”. If you can’t find a date or place for your grandparents wedding, and (I assume) none of those 7 children were actually at that event how do any of them REALLY know there was a marriage? So you can certainly record them as a couple but can you really record a marriage?

    I have plenty of examples where parents never married, and never admitted to that until extremely late in life, if at all. They simply let everyone assume they were married. I believe my own gt grandmother to be an example of that in respect of her second husband (after my gt grandfather died). All census documents describe them as “married” but that is just what an enumerator recorded. There is no evidence (documentary) that a marriage actually took place.

    Nigel
    My personal kiwitrees site is www.our-families.info
Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 20 total)
  • The topic ‘Families list’ is closed to new replies.