TMG-L ArchivesArchiver > TMG > 2011-01 > 1294633153
From: Ian Singer <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Descendant Box Chart again - multiple wives
Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2011 23:19:20 -0500
References: <4D29B07C.email@example.com> <C960C8E3-AC0C-4528-946B-20E6381E7430@smartneighborhood.net> <4D29BFF3.firstname.lastname@example.org> <201101091438.p09Ec4Mi007683@mail.rootsweb.com> <4D2A155A.email@example.com> <201101092028.p09KSquR017774@mail.rootsweb.com> <4D2A3DBF.firstname.lastname@example.org> <201101100129.p0A1TRRb025226@mail.rootsweb.com> <4D2A6E95.email@example.com><201101100404.p0A44p6Y009580@mail.rootsweb.com>
On 1/9/2011 10:20 PM, Lee Hoffman wrote:
> The same applies to the parents of Ruth Huttman's husband. I fact,
> if you did not know Eli's first name, but only knew that Ruth was
> married, you would not even need a Marriage Tag regardless of the
> number of children that Ruth may have or not had.
Generically speaking, if I know someone existed, but do not know a name,
I use the convention First Name Unknown and/or Last Name Unknown. That
seemed to be logically better than TMG supplying -- unknown -- which
would then export in the GEDCOM.
The marriage tag was also a matter of convention to cut down flack from
relatives seeing someone had a child but was not married.
Oh, and the person I asked about that was called Unknown I was
misreading. It was actually saying that the husband was Unknown as there
was none shown but there were children.
See my homepage at http://www.iansinger.com
hosted on http://www.1and1.com/?k_id=10623894
All genealogy is stored in TMG from http://www.whollygenes.com
Charts and searching using TNG from http://www.tngsitebuilding.com
I am near Toronto Canada, can I tell where you are from your reply?
|Re: [TMG] Descendant Box Chart again - multiple wives by Ian Singer <>|