What is the convention for listing a spouse when no other information is available?

Question

Example: "Jane Doe, b. May1, 1777, d. July 1 1845, m. John Smith"

When I am reading an old genealogy, and have only the name of a spouse, and no other information about that spouse, do I create a spouse for Jane Doe, with all information estimated or unknown, or just list in the biographical notes that she was married to John Smith?

 

Hope that's clear! Thanks!

Answer 1

That is a very good question, David .  With only that skeletal amount of information, I, myself, would put it in the biography. But if you have her maiden name certain and locations as well, she would get her own profile ( also quoting the source where you found it ).

Other folks here may do it differently.

Comments

WikiTree made a recent change where we now require a Birth, Marriage or Death Date to be able to create a profile.   If you didn't have any of those for her, you could estimate one if you feel comfortable, otherwise you could list her in her husband's biographical section. :)

---

I entirely agree with Maggie - creating profiles for people on which there is extremely little information (like just a given name) should be a rare exception used in very specific circumstances. As an example a profile for a 'name-only' person would be the 'easiest' way to tie together known half-siblings who share the 'name-only' parent.

---

One reason I'm running into so much trouble is that I have a lot of this kind of information, but the book I'm transcribing at present was written in 1902, and many of the people born in the mid 1800's aren't dead by then. I hate not putting in info that might be a match for someone, but that they don't see because it's in the bio of someone they don't know they are looking for yet..

---

Dave,

I think there is a fine line between what is or is not enough detail to warrant a profile.

Something that says, for example: "Lewis Jones married Anna (died 1st May 1680, aged 78) daughter of Simon Stone and Joan his wife" is not enough to create profiles for Joan and Simon - Anna is the only known child; we might assume Simon and Joan were married (date and place unknown), and we can guess that Simon and Joan were probably born sometime between 1557 and 1586 (assuming Anna's age at death was recorded accurately), again place unknown. This is too little fact to make a reliable match.

The same Lewis Jones and Anna Stone might have a child listed "Shubael born about 1651" We have a name "Shubael Jones" and a fairly specific birth date; we can make a reasonable guess he was born near Watertown, Massachusetts where Lewis and Anna settled. We have a family unit (two parents and three named siblings). Taken by itself we still have only a name and an estimated birth - but the total available information about the family (dates, places, names) is probably enough to make or reject a match reliably.

Returning to your initial example - For John Smith all details except name, marriage date, and spouse name are just guesses - by itself I do not think a profile for John Smith is warranted.

Answer 2

I think I'd go down a  different route. If you are sure that the person exists then they should have a profile. How that is entered is a different matter. LNAB may be genuinely Unknown until someone shows otherwise. CLN for a woman would be the married one. A birth or marriage date ought to be fairly easy to estimate, if only (for your example) DoB before 1845 or DoM between 1777 and 1845.

Comments

I'm not familiar with the terms LNAB or CLN.

---

Sorry - Last Name At Birth, Current Last Name.

---

Thanks, Martin, I should have figured that out! I appreciate it.

---

I agree that if they are certain, a profile should be made as this makes it easier for others to find the details in the search functions. I have several where the record of death says parents: X (deceased) and Y (lving), reported by Y. I have guestimated dates of birth and am putting dates of death in as Before or After the verified record in the hope that these can show up and be clarified by other descendents, who may not have known about the Sibling I am entering.

Where it is a family memory that X had a sister who might have been called Y, then it would go into te biography for me

Answer 3

I've run into this in some of my family histories that were published in the 1950's, and my solution is to not create a profile where only the name of the spouse is given with no further information.  I include the information in the biography and then add  a Research Notes section and list the marriage information and the source and state that further research is required to prove the husband and/or wife's name, date and place of the marriage, etc.