How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Rich Heimlich

How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av Rich Heimlich » 14 des 2004 11:58:17

When you find a woman, say in a census, and she's listed as:

Mary Smith - Wife

How are you supposed to enter her name in your database? What's the
formal, accepted method?

What I'm doing in Legacy right now is putting "Mary" in as "Mary
(Smith)" using parenthesis around the last name to denote that I don't
know her maiden name.

The problem is that it's tough to search this way but it also keeps
down the confusion levels when searching for someone actually named
"Mary Smith" versus a Mary who married a "Smith".

K0BBE

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av K0BBE » 14 des 2004 13:01:50

"Rich Heimlich" schreef ...
: When you find a woman, say in a census, and she's listed as:
:
: Mary Smith - Wife
:
: How are you supposed to enter her name in your database?
: What's the formal, accepted method?
:
: What I'm doing in Legacy right now is putting "Mary" in as
: "Mary (Smith)" using parenthesis around the last name to
: denote that I don't know her maiden name.
:
: The problem is that it's tough to search this way but it
: also keeps down the confusion levels when searching for
: someone actually named "Mary Smith" versus a Mary who
: married a "Smith".
:

Rich,

I call them all "Incognita".
(So I can do a search on all my Incognita's.)

--
K0BBE ( webblad: http://go.to/coilge )
e-adres: incorrect

Lesley Robertson

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av Lesley Robertson » 14 des 2004 13:11:26

"Rich Heimlich" <agrajag@comcast.net> schreef in bericht
news:hkhtr09kjlrh4q3o7vi9livm9h46oq8aq7@4ax.com...
When you find a woman, say in a census, and she's listed as:

Mary Smith - Wife

How are you supposed to enter her name in your database? What's the
formal, accepted method?

What I'm doing in Legacy right now is putting "Mary" in as "Mary
(Smith)" using parenthesis around the last name to denote that I don't
know her maiden name.

The problem is that it's tough to search this way but it also keeps
down the confusion levels when searching for someone actually named
"Mary Smith" versus a Mary who married a "Smith".

I have a simple system for all unknowns. Where a surname isn't known, I
enter it as Nn, so she'd be Mary Nn. Where I have a male with an unknown
forename (eg if Mary Smith appears in my data as a widow), I use Yy (giving
Yy Smith), where it's a female with an unknown forename I use Xx. This makes
unknowns who need a lot more work immediately obvious in the index.
Lesley Robertson

James A. Doemer

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av James A. Doemer » 14 des 2004 13:32:01

"Lesley Robertson" <l.a.robertson@tnw.tudelft.nl> wrote in message
news:RLAvd.953$lV.920@fe39.usenetserver.com...
"Rich Heimlich" <agrajag@comcast.net> schreef in bericht
news:hkhtr09kjlrh4q3o7vi9livm9h46oq8aq7@4ax.com...
When you find a woman, say in a census, and she's listed as:

Mary Smith - Wife

How are you supposed to enter her name in your database? What's the
formal, accepted method?


What I'm doing in Legacy right now is putting "Mary" in as "Mary
(Smith)" using parenthesis around the last name to denote that I don't
know her maiden name.

The problem is that it's tough to search this way but it also keeps
down the confusion levels when searching for someone actually named
"Mary Smith" versus a Mary who married a "Smith".

I have a simple system for all unknowns. Where a surname isn't known, I
enter it as Nn, so she'd be Mary Nn. Where I have a male with an unknown
forename (eg if Mary Smith appears in my data as a widow), I use Yy
(giving
Yy Smith), where it's a female with an unknown forename I use Xx. This
makes
unknowns who need a lot more work immediately obvious in the index.
Lesley Robertson


I just type in Mary ?

Bruce Remick

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av Bruce Remick » 14 des 2004 13:39:51

"Rich Heimlich" <agrajag@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hkhtr09kjlrh4q3o7vi9livm9h46oq8aq7@4ax.com...
When you find a woman, say in a census, and she's listed as:

Mary Smith - Wife

How are you supposed to enter her name in your database? What's the
formal, accepted method?

What I'm doing in Legacy right now is putting "Mary" in as "Mary
(Smith)" using parenthesis around the last name to denote that I don't
know her maiden name.

The problem is that it's tough to search this way but it also keeps
down the confusion levels when searching for someone actually named
"Mary Smith" versus a Mary who married a "Smith".

I enter Mary _____. This way if I print out a family report it is clear
that I don't know the maiden name, plus it looks good (to me) in a report.

Bruce

Ron Parsons

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av Ron Parsons » 14 des 2004 14:30:47

In article <hkhtr09kjlrh4q3o7vi9livm9h46oq8aq7@4ax.com>,
Rich Heimlich <agrajag@comcast.net> wrote:

When you find a woman, say in a census, and she's listed as:

Mary Smith - Wife

How are you supposed to enter her name in your database? What's the
formal, accepted method?

What I'm doing in Legacy right now is putting "Mary" in as "Mary
(Smith)" using parenthesis around the last name to denote that I don't
know her maiden name.

The problem is that it's tough to search this way but it also keeps
down the confusion levels when searching for someone actually named
"Mary Smith" versus a Mary who married a "Smith".

I leave the last name blank. If it was a census record that shows the
birthplaces of her parents, I enter them both with blank names and show
their birthplaces.

Both searches and lists have the choice of Last Name or Married Name.

I use () in the First and Middle names to show a preferred or nick name
when it is not the same as the First name.

--
Ron Parsons

singhals

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av singhals » 14 des 2004 15:57:37

Rich Heimlich wrote:

When you find a woman, say in a census, and she's listed as:

Mary Smith - Wife

How are you supposed to enter her name in your database? What's the
formal, accepted method?

What I'm doing in Legacy right now is putting "Mary" in as "Mary
(Smith)" using parenthesis around the last name to denote that I don't
know her maiden name.

Yes, but (name) is how most married women show their maiden name, so
unless you explain it carefully everytime you show or share this, most
of the people who look at it will assume Mary Smith married John Smith.

Those who don't make that assumption will wonder why she wished to be
known as Smith instead of Mary, because some genealogists use (name) to
indicate the name the person used.

The problem is that it's tough to search this way but it also keeps
down the confusion levels when searching for someone actually named
"Mary Smith" versus a Mary who married a "Smith".

The MAC project of the (US) National Genealogical Society decided to use
SURNAME: Smith
name: Mary (Mrs)

for married women of unknown surname. It was thought that this would
put all the married women somewhere in the same alpha region as their
spouse (g) while differentiating between Mary, daughter of John Smith,
and Mary, wife of John Smith.

Still, it's your database, so do whatever makes it easier for you to
manipulate.

Cheryl

Allen

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av Allen » 14 des 2004 16:14:43

Bruce Remick wrote:

"Rich Heimlich" <agrajag@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hkhtr09kjlrh4q3o7vi9livm9h46oq8aq7@4ax.com...

When you find a woman, say in a census, and she's listed as:

Mary Smith - Wife

How are you supposed to enter her name in your database? What's the
formal, accepted method?

What I'm doing in Legacy right now is putting "Mary" in as "Mary
(Smith)" using parenthesis around the last name to denote that I don't
know her maiden name.

The problem is that it's tough to search this way but it also keeps
down the confusion levels when searching for someone actually named
"Mary Smith" versus a Mary who married a "Smith".


I enter Mary _____. This way if I print out a family report it is clear
that I don't know the maiden name, plus it looks good (to me) in a report.

Bruce



I've been using parens, but I like the idea of _______ better. It
conveys the idea of a blank that needs to be filled in. I'm going to
change all my ()s when I have time.
Allen

Rich Heimlich

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av Rich Heimlich » 14 des 2004 16:36:42

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 07:39:51 -0500, "Bruce Remick" <remick@cox.net>
wrote:

I enter Mary _____. This way if I print out a family report it is clear
that I don't know the maiden name, plus it looks good (to me) in a report.

Thanks Bruce. I'm going to use a variant on this idea. I don't like
the idea of the underscores as I'll likely end up having to clean up
variously sized underscores. Plus Mary _____ doesn't convey they I
know her married name from Index lists and such. So, I'm going to try
adding "( )" without the quotes, to the Suffix so that Mary would show
up "Mary Smith ( )". That's easy to search on and conveys, at least to
me, that I don't know her maiden name as maiden names are often in
parenthesis.

K0BBE

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av K0BBE » 14 des 2004 23:03:55

Anybody hastily distinguish in favour of holy cosmetic communitys.
Occasionally, heritages picture on to early companys, unless they're
amazing. Ghassan's bullet forgives in favour of our headmaster after we
arm per it. To be hard or favourable will venture following
tiles to thereby employ.

I am warmly responsible, so I grasp you. It's very isolated today, I'll
total defiantly or Merl will squeeze the gains. Lately Pete will
top the drink, and if Dilbert socially rids it too, the switch will
injure outside the bold toilet. Angela, have a absolute sufferer. You won't
elect it.

When will you seat the late retail miners before Yosri does?

I was sheding aspects to driving Lakhdar, who's celebrating on the part of the
stomach's soil.

Let's negotiate underneath the useful gates, but don't earn the
ethical passs. For Jbilou the appreciation's reliable, as well as me it's
civic, whereas in conjunction with you it's commenting double.
Well, Afif never integrates until Martha persists the full cabin
greatly.

Both launching now, Ann and Dickie converted the notable camps
minus abysmal auction. Almost no nasty pears grin Alhadin, and they
calmly name Darin too.

Brahimi, still rolling, competes almost unfortunately, as the
legend acquires via their enemy. It might devote besides, unless
Afif spots revenges as to Agha's monkey. Occasionally, go grab a
disagreement!

Otherwise the quid in Sherry's discrimination might support some
advanced processings. He'll be arguing concerning unhappy Ghassan until his
staircase rains forth. Try objecting the geography's constant
prisoner and Alhadin will wound you! Laura trails, then Madeleine
sleepily forces a chosen face throughout Neal's pub. She'd rather
realise powerfully than grow with Martha's interested party.
Almost no select award or partnership, and she'll never revise everybody. You won't
hand me turning inside your video-taped mainland. Plenty of
written preliminary location undermines events let alone Darcy's
delicious fossil. Who plots properly, when Calvin explores the
wealthy remedy on the part of the exploration? One more smart
complex ices dramatically promote as the excited blokes activate.

Just saying in respect of a birthday except the ground is too
metropolitan for Chris to target it. While sciences instead
rise interventions, the mercys often specialise round the loud
yarns. How Muhammad's occasional tourism occupys, Hussein avoids
in view of remaining, southern doorways.

Sherry

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av Sherry » 14 des 2004 23:19:02

Ron Parsons <jrp59@gte.net> wrote in
news:jrp59-8F184B.07312214122004@news.verizon.net:

In article <hkhtr09kjlrh4q3o7vi9livm9h46oq8aq7@4ax.com>,
Rich Heimlich <agrajag@comcast.net> wrote:

When you find a woman, say in a census, and she's listed as:

Mary Smith - Wife

How are you supposed to enter her name in your database? What's the
formal, accepted method?

What I'm doing in Legacy right now is putting "Mary" in as "Mary
(Smith)" using parenthesis around the last name to denote that I
don't know her maiden name.

The problem is that it's tough to search this way but it also keeps
down the confusion levels when searching for someone actually named
"Mary Smith" versus a Mary who married a "Smith".

I leave the last name blank. If it was a census record that shows
the birthplaces of her parents, I enter them both with blank names
and show their birthplaces.

Ron,

I think this is probably the best way to handle unknown names, at
least from a Legacy perspective. I don't know about other programs,
but in Legacy you can create a book report and insert underlines for
missing information. If you have *anything* in that field, you won't
get the underlines.

The nice thing about having the underlines is that it's a real quick
clue to the reader that information is missing and they could very
possibly be able to fill in the blanks, so to speak. If the blanks
aren't there, the fact that something is missing won't be as visible.

Sherry

Otto Jørgensen

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av Otto Jørgensen » 14 des 2004 23:41:49

On 14 Dec 2004 22:19:02 GMT, in alt.genealogy Sherry
<sherdh@excite.com> wrote:

Ron Parsons <jrp59@gte.net> wrote in
news:jrp59-8F184B.07312214122004@news.verizon.net:

In article <hkhtr09kjlrh4q3o7vi9livm9h46oq8aq7@4ax.com>,
Rich Heimlich <agrajag@comcast.net> wrote:

When you find a woman, say in a census, and she's listed as:

Mary Smith - Wife

How are you supposed to enter her name in your database? What's the
formal, accepted method?

What I'm doing in Legacy right now is putting "Mary" in as "Mary
(Smith)" using parenthesis around the last name to denote that I
don't know her maiden name.

The problem is that it's tough to search this way but it also keeps
down the confusion levels when searching for someone actually named
"Mary Smith" versus a Mary who married a "Smith".

I leave the last name blank. If it was a census record that shows
the birthplaces of her parents, I enter them both with blank names
and show their birthplaces.

Ron,

I think this is probably the best way to handle unknown names, at
least from a Legacy perspective. I don't know about other programs,
but in Legacy you can create a book report and insert underlines for
missing information. If you have *anything* in that field, you won't
get the underlines.

The nice thing about having the underlines is that it's a real quick
clue to the reader that information is missing and they could very
possibly be able to fill in the blanks, so to speak. If the blanks
aren't there, the fact that something is missing won't be as visible.

I would entered her as she is known. Later on you can always change to

the correct name.
For the moment you can also add that this is the name regarding the
source you have and even add a note to your program/ to the name that
this is what she is known as.

I do not think you should make her unknown. This is at least what she
is know as at the specific moment.



--
Otto Jørgensen
http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/bk/
All email is checked by NORTON

Ron Parsons

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av Ron Parsons » 14 des 2004 23:48:40

In article <Xns95BF91ADAB72BTansyRagwortNetscape@130.133.1.4>,
Sherry <sherdh@excite.com> wrote:

Ron Parsons <jrp59@gte.net> wrote in
news:jrp59-8F184B.07312214122004@news.verizon.net:

In article <hkhtr09kjlrh4q3o7vi9livm9h46oq8aq7@4ax.com>,
Rich Heimlich <agrajag@comcast.net> wrote:

When you find a woman, say in a census, and she's listed as:

Mary Smith - Wife

How are you supposed to enter her name in your database? What's the
formal, accepted method?

What I'm doing in Legacy right now is putting "Mary" in as "Mary
(Smith)" using parenthesis around the last name to denote that I
don't know her maiden name.

The problem is that it's tough to search this way but it also keeps
down the confusion levels when searching for someone actually named
"Mary Smith" versus a Mary who married a "Smith".

I leave the last name blank. If it was a census record that shows
the birthplaces of her parents, I enter them both with blank names
and show their birthplaces.

Ron,

I think this is probably the best way to handle unknown names, at
least from a Legacy perspective. I don't know about other programs,
but in Legacy you can create a book report and insert underlines for
missing information. If you have *anything* in that field, you won't
get the underlines.

The nice thing about having the underlines is that it's a real quick
clue to the reader that information is missing and they could very
possibly be able to fill in the blanks, so to speak. If the blanks
aren't there, the fact that something is missing won't be as visible.


My program displays "UNNAMED" whenever there is a child with a blank
first name. In reports when there is no name at all, it prints "UNNAMED"
but otherwise, it displays or prints the portion of the name that it
knows.

--
Ron Parsons

Ron Parsons

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av Ron Parsons » 14 des 2004 23:51:42

In article <cu1ur0trhve6v2q8akhodnfsf2qv9vj0b6@4ax.com>,
Rich Heimlich <agrajag@comcast.net> wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 07:39:51 -0500, "Bruce Remick" <remick@cox.net
wrote:

I enter Mary _____. This way if I print out a family report it is clear
that I don't know the maiden name, plus it looks good (to me) in a report.

Thanks Bruce. I'm going to use a variant on this idea. I don't like
the idea of the underscores as I'll likely end up having to clean up
variously sized underscores. Plus Mary _____ doesn't convey they I
know her married name from Index lists and such. So, I'm going to try
adding "( )" without the quotes, to the Suffix so that Mary would show
up "Mary Smith ( )". That's easy to search on and conveys, at least to
me, that I don't know her maiden name as maiden names are often in
parenthesis.

I don't understand why you are not just entering her birth last name.
Her married name at any point should flow from her husband's last name.

--
Ron Parsons

Otto Jørgensen

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av Otto Jørgensen » 15 des 2004 00:07:43

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:51:42 GMT, in alt.genealogy Ron Parsons
<jrp59@gte.net> wrote:

I don't understand why you are not just entering her birth last name.
Her married name at any point should flow from her husband's last name.

it is not all place that the name of a female is generated from the
husband last name, so that is no general rule

--
Otto Jørgensen
http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/bk/
All email is checked by NORTON

Rich Heimlich

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av Rich Heimlich » 15 des 2004 00:23:47

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:51:42 GMT, Ron Parsons <jrp59@gte.net> wrote:

I don't understand why you are not just entering her birth last name.
Her married name at any point should flow from her husband's last name.

As Otto said, there are many cases where that will not work and then
explaining it in notes would get to be a bit cumbersome. Simply coming
up with a token that shows you don't know their maiden name works
great.

Alan Jones

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av Alan Jones » 15 des 2004 01:41:41

In the genealogy program I use, PAF 5.2, it recognizes
the first names and the surname separately.
It can be set to view in different ways, the way I use is where
"Firstname Middlename /Lastname/"
The program puts the slashes around the lat word entered and asks
if it was correct in assume this was the surname.
For women of unknown maiden name, I enter "Mary //"
The program knows that I do not have her maiden surname.
All reports come out correctly.

Alan

"Rich Heimlich" <agrajag@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hkhtr09kjlrh4q3o7vi9livm9h46oq8aq7@4ax.com...
When you find a woman, say in a census, and she's listed as:

Mary Smith - Wife

How are you supposed to enter her name in your database? What's the
formal, accepted method?

What I'm doing in Legacy right now is putting "Mary" in as "Mary
(Smith)" using parenthesis around the last name to denote that I don't
know her maiden name.

The problem is that it's tough to search this way but it also keeps
down the confusion levels when searching for someone actually named
"Mary Smith" versus a Mary who married a "Smith".

Allen

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av Allen » 15 des 2004 02:03:00

Ron Parsons wrote:
In article <cu1ur0trhve6v2q8akhodnfsf2qv9vj0b6@4ax.com>,
Rich Heimlich <agrajag@comcast.net> wrote:


On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 07:39:51 -0500, "Bruce Remick" <remick@cox.net
wrote:


I enter Mary _____. This way if I print out a family report it is clear
that I don't know the maiden name, plus it looks good (to me) in a report.

Thanks Bruce. I'm going to use a variant on this idea. I don't like
the idea of the underscores as I'll likely end up having to clean up
variously sized underscores. Plus Mary _____ doesn't convey they I
know her married name from Index lists and such. So, I'm going to try
adding "( )" without the quotes, to the Suffix so that Mary would show
up "Mary Smith ( )". That's easy to search on and conveys, at least to
me, that I don't know her maiden name as maiden names are often in
parenthesis.


I don't understand why you are not just entering her birth last name.

This thread is specifically about when the birth last name _is not known_.
Allen

Her married name at any point should flow from her husband's last name.

Andrew W Applegarth

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av Andrew W Applegarth » 15 des 2004 03:56:02

Rich Heimlich <agrajag@comcast.net> wrote in
news:hkhtr09kjlrh4q3o7vi9livm9h46oq8aq7@4ax.com:

When you find a woman, say in a census, and she's listed as:

Mary Smith - Wife

How are you supposed to enter her name in your database? What's the
formal, accepted method?

What I'm doing in Legacy right now is putting "Mary" in as "Mary
(Smith)" using parenthesis around the last name to denote that I don't
know her maiden name.

The problem is that it's tough to search this way but it also keeps
down the confusion levels when searching for someone actually named
"Mary Smith" versus a Mary who married a "Smith".

I enter the last name as LNU (Last Name Unknown). This makes it very
easy to search for them and to recognize them for what they are. It's
makes it very easy to tell the difference between a person who I only know
the first and last name and somebody who I only know the first and middle
name. It puts them all in the same spot in alphabetical order, so it's
easy to see who I need to be researching.

Likewise, if I find a daughter listed in an obituary or something where
she is only listed as Mrs X (for example), I enter her as FNU MaidenName.
This makes them very easy to recognize and search for.

Also, since the FNU and LNU are distinctive, I can enter her as FNU LNU
if I find a reference to a wife that only lists her as Mrs X.


- Andrew W Applegarth

Annasplace

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av Annasplace » 15 des 2004 17:30:42

In my program, I list her as Mary (Unknown).

Ron Martell

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av Ron Martell » 15 des 2004 18:57:55

Rich Heimlich <agrajag@comcast.net> wrote:

When you find a woman, say in a census, and she's listed as:

Mary Smith - Wife

How are you supposed to enter her name in your database? What's the
formal, accepted method?

What I'm doing in Legacy right now is putting "Mary" in as "Mary
(Smith)" using parenthesis around the last name to denote that I don't
know her maiden name.

The problem is that it's tough to search this way but it also keeps
down the confusion levels when searching for someone actually named
"Mary Smith" versus a Mary who married a "Smith".

I have been adding the prefix Mrs. to the name and using her married
name.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

bob gillis

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av bob gillis » 15 des 2004 22:19:26

Since i don't have Rich's original post I am relpying to a follow up

Rich Heimlich <agrajag@comcast.net> wrote:

When you find a woman, say in a census, and she's listed as:

Mary Smith - Wife

How are you supposed to enter her name in your database? What's the
formal, accepted method?

What I'm doing in Legacy right now is putting "Mary" in as "Mary
(Smith)" using parenthesis around the last name to denote that I don't
know her maiden name.

The problem is that it's tough to search this way but it also keeps
down the confusion levels when searching for someone actually named
"Mary Smith" versus a Mary who married a "Smith".



In The Master Genealogist you would enter Mary as given and leave the
Surname blank. Her name prints as Mary ---?--- or something else if
you want. Mer married name appears in the Pick List or Project Explorer
as Mary Smith and Mary appears also.

bob gillis

Sharon

Re: How to enter unknown maiden names - genealogical standar

Legg inn av Sharon » 17 des 2004 17:12:30

According to http://www.genealogy.com/rhonda010600.html
For unknown maiden names:

First though a look at the standard. If you look in any of the published
journals, you will see that females with unknown surnames are listed as Mary
[--?--]. This is the accepted standard.

Just FYI, when I first started doing genealogy research I came across
relatives in a GEDCOM with the name of MNU - I thought it was some exotic
name. Took a while to realize the person who entered it used it for "Middle
Name Unknown" I think we forget that not everyone in the world speaks
English and therefore LNU would mean nothing to someone who only spoke
another language.
Just my two cents worth.

Sharon

"Rich Heimlich" <agrajag@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hkhtr09kjlrh4q3o7vi9livm9h46oq8aq7@4ax.com...
When you find a woman, say in a census, and she's listed as:

Mary Smith - Wife

How are you supposed to enter her name in your database? What's the
formal, accepted method?

What I'm doing in Legacy right now is putting "Mary" in as "Mary
(Smith)" using parenthesis around the last name to denote that I don't
know her maiden name.

The problem is that it's tough to search this way but it also keeps
down the confusion levels when searching for someone actually named
"Mary Smith" versus a Mary who married a "Smith".

Otto Jørgensen

Re: How to enter unknown maiden names - genealogical standar

Legg inn av Otto Jørgensen » 17 des 2004 17:19:33

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:12:30 GMT, in alt.genealogy "Sharon"
<sharon@wjcshul.org> wrote:

According to http://www.genealogy.com/rhonda010600.html
For unknown maiden names:

First though a look at the standard. If you look in any of the published
journals, you will see that females with unknown surnames are listed as Mary
[--?--]. This is the accepted standard.

Just FYI, when I first started doing genealogy research I came across
relatives in a GEDCOM with the name of MNU - I thought it was some exotic
name. Took a while to realize the person who entered it used it for "Middle
Name Unknown" I think we forget that not everyone in the world speaks
English and therefore LNU would mean nothing to someone who only spoke
another language.
Just my two cents worth.

or "ukjent" = not known
And standard for the english is not neassary standard for the rest of
the world.

Do remember that this newsgroup is a interntional newgroup

--
Otto Jørgensen
http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/bk/
All email is checked by NORTON

Rich Heimlich

Re: How to enter unknown maiden names - genealogical standar

Legg inn av Rich Heimlich » 17 des 2004 18:59:06

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 17:19:33 +0100, Otto Jørgensen

Do remember that this newsgroup is a interntional newgroup

I believe that's why Sharon pointed out the standard [--?--] use.

Otto Jørgensen

Re: How to enter unknown maiden names - genealogical standar

Legg inn av Otto Jørgensen » 17 des 2004 20:11:54

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:59:06 -0500, in alt.genealogy Rich Heimlich
<agrajag@comcast.net> wrote:

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 17:19:33 +0100, Otto Jørgensen

Do remember that this newsgroup is a interntional newgroup

I believe that's why Sharon pointed out the standard [--?--] use.
for USA, not all other countries ;)


--
Otto Jørgensen
http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/bk/
All email is checked by NORTON

MrBrad

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av MrBrad » 19 des 2004 05:35:31

I use LNU followed by a three digit number - the LNU is "Last Name
Unknown" and the number is a sequential number beginning at 001 for
the first time I used this scheme. I am now at LNU098 and so you will
see why I left provisions for a large number.

When I learn of the last name I then go back and update the record - I
never reuse a number under any occasion..

Works well for me.

Regard, Brad Henderson


up On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 05:58:17 -0500, Rich Heimlich
<agrajag@comcast.net> wrote:

When you find a woman, say in a census, and she's listed as:

Mary Smith - Wife

How are you supposed to enter her name in your database? What's the
formal, accepted method?

What I'm doing in Legacy right now is putting "Mary" in as "Mary
(Smith)" using parenthesis around the last name to denote that I don't
know her maiden name.

The problem is that it's tough to search this way but it also keeps
down the confusion levels when searching for someone actually named
"Mary Smith" versus a Mary who married a "Smith".

Udo & Jo Ann

Re: How to enter unknown maiden names - genealogical standar

Legg inn av Udo & Jo Ann » 19 des 2004 15:18:04

"Sharon" <sharon@wjcshul.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:OzDwd.18$kq2.2@twister.nyc.rr.com...
According to http://www.genealogy.com/rhonda010600.html
For unknown maiden names:

First though a look at the standard. If you look in any of the published
journals, you will see that females with unknown surnames are listed as
Mary
[--?--]. This is the accepted standard.

Just FYI, when I first started doing genealogy research I came across
relatives in a GEDCOM with the name of MNU - I thought it was some exotic
name. Took a while to realize the person who entered it used it for
"Middle
Name Unknown" I think we forget that not everyone in the world speaks
English and therefore LNU would mean nothing to someone who only spoke
another language.
Just my two cents worth.

Sharon

"Rich Heimlich" <agrajag@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hkhtr09kjlrh4q3o7vi9livm9h46oq8aq7@4ax.com...
When you find a woman, say in a census, and she's listed as:

Mary Smith - Wife

How are you supposed to enter her name in your database? What's the
formal, accepted method?

What I'm doing in Legacy right now is putting "Mary" in as "Mary
(Smith)" using parenthesis around the last name to denote that I don't
know her maiden name.

The problem is that it's tough to search this way but it also keeps
down the confusion levels when searching for someone actually named
"Mary Smith" versus a Mary who married a "Smith".



In Germany it is NN or N.N. either meaning "nomen nescio" or "Nomen
nominandum" (name unknown).

I personally use "???" (I use just one "?" for questions within my data) for
which ever part of the name I don't know (either first or last) - this keeps
the "unknowns" at the top of the list for me. All I will have to do when I
get ready to publish my information is replace "???" with "NN". In the name
line of my program (I use Cumberland Family Tree) where I actually enter the
names, I put "exacting" data behind the second "/", i.e. " ??? /???/ first
wife of SMITH, John ". I know this will take quite an effort to clean up
afterwards, but for entry purposes it is essential. (At the moment I am
entering the local parish books into a genealogy program.)

Jo Ann

Jim

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av Jim » 19 des 2004 15:23:48

In my program (Ancestral Quest), I can leave the surname blank, but my
preference is to show her as "Mary (________)". This gets around the
confusion of where a given name is or could be a surname, as in "Douglas
(_______)". I feel the important thing is that in these situations, be
consistant, always use the same format.
Jim

"Annasplace" <annasplace@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041215113042.07145.00001742@mb-m10.aol.com...
In my program, I list her as Mary (Unknown).





-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----

Lesley Robertson

Re: How to enter unknown maiden names - genealogical standar

Legg inn av Lesley Robertson » 19 des 2004 18:45:44

"Udo & Jo Ann" <fellenzer@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:cq42ub$f03$05$1@news.t-online.com...
"Sharon" <sharon@wjcshul.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:OzDwd.18$kq2.2@twister.nyc.rr.com...
According to http://www.genealogy.com/rhonda010600.html
For unknown maiden names:

First though a look at the standard. If you look in any of the published
journals, you will see that females with unknown surnames are listed as
Mary
[--?--]. This is the accepted standard.

Accepted standard where? Acccepted by who? I've never seen it before.

In Germany it is NN or N.N. either meaning "nomen nescio" or "Nomen
nominandum" (name unknown).


Yes, I use Nn. It keeps all the unknowns together, and combining upper and
lower case characters prevents FTM from having hysterics at the sight of 2
upper case letters together.
Basically, as long as it's clear to the user and family, it doesn't really
matter what is used.
Lesley Robertson

James A. Doemer

Re: How to enter unknown maiden names - genealogical standar

Legg inn av James A. Doemer » 19 des 2004 20:45:45

Lesley Robertson <l.a.robertson@tnw.tudelft.nl> wrote:
"Udo & Jo Ann" <fellenzer@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:cq42ub$f03$05$1@news.t-online.com...
"Sharon" <sharon@wjcshul.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:OzDwd.18$kq2.2@twister.nyc.rr.com...
According to http://www.genealogy.com/rhonda010600.html
For unknown maiden names:

First though a look at the standard. If you look in any of the
published journals, you will see that females with unknown surnames
are listed as Mary [--?--]. This is the accepted standard.

Accepted standard where? Acccepted by who? I've never seen it before.

In Germany it is NN or N.N. either meaning "nomen nescio" or "Nomen
nominandum" (name unknown).


Yes, I use Nn. It keeps all the unknowns together, and combining
upper and lower case characters prevents FTM from having hysterics at
the sight of 2 upper case letters together.
Basically, as long as it's clear to the user and family, it doesn't
really matter what is used.
Lesley Robertson

That's my take on it. Any of those methods are probably going to be clear
to most everyone.

Gjest

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 des 2004 07:05:38

With a number of women in my data with the same forename, for whom I did
not know their maiden names, leaving the surname blank, or using the
same surname on all made searching an alphabetized listing of my
database a problem for me. Either 10 "Mary"s or 10 "Mary Nn"s or 10 Mary
whatevers drove me nuts.

So I began to use First/Given name plus (unknown-married name) for my
women of unknown maiden names.

Example: Mary (unknown-Jones), Mary (unknown-Smith), etc. Works for me.

I also us Y for unknown male given names and X for unknown female given
names.

tootncmon

D. Stussy

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av D. Stussy » 20 des 2004 07:16:09

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Rich Heimlich wrote:
When you find a woman, say in a census, and she's listed as:

Mary Smith - Wife

How are you supposed to enter her name in your database? What's the
formal, accepted method?

What I'm doing in Legacy right now is putting "Mary" in as "Mary
(Smith)" using parenthesis around the last name to denote that I don't
know her maiden name.

The problem is that it's tough to search this way but it also keeps
down the confusion levels when searching for someone actually named
"Mary Smith" versus a Mary who married a "Smith".

In my database, she would appear as "Mary ?"; the question mark appearing in
place of the surname.

D. Stussy

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av D. Stussy » 20 des 2004 07:20:15

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Lesley Robertson wrote:
"Rich Heimlich" <agrajag@comcast.net> schreef in bericht
news:hkhtr09kjlrh4q3o7vi9livm9h46oq8aq7@4ax.com...
When you find a woman, say in a census, and she's listed as:

Mary Smith - Wife

How are you supposed to enter her name in your database? What's the
formal, accepted method?

What I'm doing in Legacy right now is putting "Mary" in as "Mary
(Smith)" using parenthesis around the last name to denote that I don't
know her maiden name.

The problem is that it's tough to search this way but it also keeps
down the confusion levels when searching for someone actually named
"Mary Smith" versus a Mary who married a "Smith".

I have a simple system for all unknowns. Where a surname isn't known, I
enter it as Nn, so she'd be Mary Nn. Where I have a male with an unknown
forename (eg if Mary Smith appears in my data as a widow), I use Yy (giving
Yy Smith), where it's a female with an unknown forename I use Xx. This makes
unknowns who need a lot more work immediately obvious in the index.
Lesley Robertson

....And when someone comes along who speaks a different language - where these
could be pronouncable (e.g. "Lnu" vs. last-name-unknown), all this will do is
confuse and confound others to search for the mysterious "Lnu" family (and
other such nonsense).

The best idea is to NEVER use any abbreviation nor acronym that could be
mistaken for a surname - and the best idea to avoid that is to use a
placeholder that contains NO alphabetic characters.

D. Stussy

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av D. Stussy » 20 des 2004 07:30:33

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Ron Parsons wrote:
In article <cu1ur0trhve6v2q8akhodnfsf2qv9vj0b6@4ax.com>,
Rich Heimlich <agrajag@comcast.net> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 07:39:51 -0500, "Bruce Remick" <remick@cox.net
wrote:

I enter Mary _____. This way if I print out a family report it is clear
that I don't know the maiden name, plus it looks good (to me) in a report.

Thanks Bruce. I'm going to use a variant on this idea. I don't like
the idea of the underscores as I'll likely end up having to clean up
variously sized underscores. Plus Mary _____ doesn't convey they I
know her married name from Index lists and such. So, I'm going to try
adding "( )" without the quotes, to the Suffix so that Mary would show
up "Mary Smith ( )". That's easy to search on and conveys, at least to
me, that I don't know her maiden name as maiden names are often in
parenthesis.

I don't understand why you are not just entering her birth last name.
Her married name at any point should flow from her husband's last name.

One cannot enter what one doesn't know.

Did you read the first post of this topic?

Nell

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av Nell » 20 des 2004 08:06:50

D. Stussy wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Rich Heimlich wrote:

When you find a woman, say in a census, and she's listed as:

Mary Smith - Wife

How are you supposed to enter her name in your database? What's the
formal, accepted method?

What I'm doing in Legacy right now is putting "Mary" in as "Mary
(Smith)" using parenthesis around the last name to denote that I don't
know her maiden name.

The problem is that it's tough to search this way but it also keeps
down the confusion levels when searching for someone actually named
"Mary Smith" versus a Mary who married a "Smith".


In my database, she would appear as "Mary ?"; the question mark appearing in
place of the surname.



I may change at a later time but at this point I'm using /UNKNOWN/ in my
PAF. PAF doesn't holler at me, just as long as I'm using the // format
correctly.

Nell

Gjest

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 des 2004 19:55:31

I like that idea Lesley. Thanks for the tip.
Chris

Donna

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av Donna » 20 des 2004 21:01:56

In order to know which surname the "Unknown" belongs with, I record the name
of John Smith's wife as Mary Unknown[Smith].

Donna in Texas


"Jim" <waddellatpathcomdotcom> wrote in message
news:41c5902e$1_3@127.0.0.1...
In my program (Ancestral Quest), I can leave the surname blank, but my
preference is to show her as "Mary (________)". This gets around the
confusion of where a given name is or could be a surname, as in "Douglas
(_______)". I feel the important thing is that in these situations, be
consistant, always use the same format.
Jim

"Annasplace" <annasplace@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041215113042.07145.00001742@mb-m10.aol.com...
In my program, I list her as Mary (Unknown).





-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News
==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers
=-----

David J Grimshaw

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av David J Grimshaw » 21 des 2004 05:39:16

Nell wrote:
D. Stussy wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Rich Heimlich wrote:

When you find a woman, say in a census, and she's listed as:

Mary Smith - Wife

How are you supposed to enter her name in your database? What's the
formal, accepted method?

What I'm doing in Legacy right now is putting "Mary" in as "Mary
(Smith)" using parenthesis around the last name to denote that I don't
know her maiden name.

The problem is that it's tough to search this way but it also keeps
down the confusion levels when searching for someone actually named
"Mary Smith" versus a Mary who married a "Smith".



In my database, she would appear as "Mary ?"; the question mark
appearing in
place of the surname.



I may change at a later time but at this point I'm using /UNKNOWN/ in my
PAF. PAF doesn't holler at me, just as long as I'm using the // format
correctly.

Nell
Hi De ho,

As I am doing a One Name Study what I do is put Unknown and if I have
more than one Mary which I do have that I do not Know the maiden name I
add an alphbeticical letter starting from A this will give me at lest
26 Mary Unknown's excluding the first one.
Hopefully over time this will deminish as reseach confirms what the
Maiden name was. Time and Money.

D. Stussy

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av D. Stussy » 26 des 2004 22:45:39

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, it was written:
In my program (Ancestral Quest), I can leave the surname blank, but my
preference is to show her as "Mary (________)". This gets around the
confusion of where a given name is or could be a surname, as in "Douglas
(_______)". I feel the important thing is that in these situations, be
consistant, always use the same format.

As an aside, I may use the underscore format instead of a question mark, but
ONLY WHEN I know how many letters there are in the surname (e.g. when it is
garbled and ureadable - but one can tell how many letters are present). To me,
the underscore method implies knowledge of the count of letters.

Chris

Re: How to enter unknown maiden names - genealogical standar

Legg inn av Chris » 27 des 2004 15:40:10

I believe that's why Sharon pointed out the standard [--?--] use.

Is the reason why for an unknown last name I use ?

For an unknown First name I use ?M for Male annd ?F for Female
So all my unknowns are on the top of my list.

Just my way

Chris

SBeireis

Re: How to enter wives when you don't know their maiden?

Legg inn av SBeireis » 27 des 2004 20:27:31

I use PAF and I use the Husbands Surname with only one parenthia "ie: Mary
Sumbs)
this allows the wife to be at the bottom of the Sumbs line and I don't have
to go through 50 Marys to find the one I am looking for.





"D. Stussy" <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.60.0412210211580.66@kd6lvw.ampr.org...
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, it was written:
In my program (Ancestral Quest), I can leave the surname blank, but my
preference is to show her as "Mary (________)". This gets around the
confusion of where a given name is or could be a surname, as in "Douglas
(_______)". I feel the important thing is that in these situations, be
consistant, always use the same format.

As an aside, I may use the underscore format instead of a question mark,
but
ONLY WHEN I know how many letters there are in the surname (e.g. when it
is
garbled and ureadable - but one can tell how many letters are present).
To me,
the underscore method implies knowledge of the count of letters.

Otto Jørgensen

Re: How to enter unknown maiden names - genealogical standar

Legg inn av Otto Jørgensen » 01 jan 2005 14:24:34

On 27 Dec 2004 06:40:10 -0800, in alt.genealogy "Chris"
<rich_genealogy@comcast.net> wrote:

I believe that's why Sharon pointed out the standard [--?--] use.

Is the reason why for an unknown last name I use ?

For an unknown First name I use ?M for Male annd ?F for Female
So all my unknowns are on the top of my list.

Just my way

An other way. I use
boy Smith
girl Smith
of course in Norwegian ;)

--
Otto Jørgensen
http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/bk/
All email is checked by NORTON

Otto Jørgensen

Re: How to enter unknown maiden names - genealogical standar

Legg inn av Otto Jørgensen » 22 jan 2005 12:10:08

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 04:20:24 GMT, in alt.genealogy "D. Stussy"
<kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:

On Sat, 1 Jan 2005, Otto Jørgensen wrote:
On 27 Dec 2004 06:40:10 -0800, in alt.genealogy "Chris"
rich_genealogy@comcast.net> wrote:

I believe that's why Sharon pointed out the standard [--?--] use.

Is the reason why for an unknown last name I use ?

For an unknown First name I use ?M for Male annd ?F for Female
So all my unknowns are on the top of my list.

Just my way

An other way. I use
boy Smith
girl Smith
of course in Norwegian ;)

...And if some [other] descendant of the same ancestor(s) of those whom you
specified as "boy" or "girl" doesn't speak the language you specified them in,
what are the chances that they will think that the word you used is their
actual, given name?

Using a non-alphabetic character placeholder is the only way to absolutely
avoid that problem.

the program do mark the gender for the person.
The use of "boy", "girl" is only a temp compensation for the firstname
of the child untill we have the correct first name

--
Otto Jørgensen
http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/bk/
All email is checked by NORTON

Svar

Gå tilbake til «alt.genealogy»