G2G: Why must marriage end date say ’to .. .”

Question

When someone, particularly someone who is not a Wikitreer, looks at a profile they often see a marriage date, such as 1730 followed by, for example, ”(to 1750)”.  The uninformed observer gets the impression that the marriage date is unknown, but occurred sometime between 1730 and 1750.  It would be more helpful, to post ”(ended 1750) instead, as seen when editing a marriage.  Why not?

Comments

I don't see it that way, especially when there is a subsequent marriage.

Name married before Jul 1889 (to 1917) in placename.

Name married 4 Mar 1919 in placename.

That looks to me to be saying what it is -- spouse #1 died, or the marriage ended in divorce, and the person married again.

If there is only one spouse, there's no need to put an end date at all.

---

That's exactly my practice. One spouse, no end date, even if the spouse died first.

---

I'm with Melanie and Jim. I don't see a need to add ending dates, except in cases of divorce.

But I can see how the word "to" could be misleading.

---

I have yet to understand why this data field exists at all.

If the end of a marriage needs to be documented, then there should be a field for divorce, annulment, or legal separation, or other legal act that ends the marriage.

Answer 1

What I am saying is for the software to use “ended” instead of “to”.

Answer 2

I agree with rarely needing to use an end date (except for divorce).  However since we have it, Gillby makes a good point about changing the wording to "ended" when that's the intent.

Answer 3

how about using "through" instead of "to"?

Comments

I think "until" would be better than "through" -- but I still don't have a problem with the current from - to.  (I have other problems with the marriage display as it currently is, but this isn't the place to air them.)

---

I agree with Melanie. Maybe the word to could be replaced by the word until.