Family with parents never been married
Brought to you by:
canajun2eh,
yalnifj
Menu
▾
▴
What to do with a family with parents never been married? I guess there is just MARR tah missing but HUSB and WIFE still present. Please confirm or advise. TIA
tag is _NMR for a couple who had issue, but did not marry, unless they had a common law marriage.
Stephen
Is there anyway to keep the Family Group Report from identifying the mother and father as husband and wife?
<<for a couple who had issue, but did not marry>>
Sorry but I don't get it. What would be considered as an issue?
<<unless they had a common law marriage>>
I think here I have a common law marriage. They live in the same househeold, rise two kids but never got married (no marrieage licence)for to me unknown reason.
"issue" means children.
So in the case I have I should just have as I described initialy in this post, just MARR missing but HUSB and WIFE present?
Mitar
Lost me with the last question. Did the male and female in this relationship have children together (issue) or not. Even without, the _NMR tag will work, but if they lived together as husband and wife, in a common law-type setting, then the 'marriage' could be described as an EVENT, common law marriage, but the gedcom standard says this:
"The FAMily record is used to record marriages, common law marriages, and family unions caused by two people becoming the parents of a child. There can be no more than one HUSB/father and one WIFE/mother listed in each FAM_RECORD. If, for example, a man participated in more than one family union, then he would appear in more than oneFAM_RECORD. The family record structure assumes that the HUSB/father is male and WIFE/mother is female. "
Stephen
"So in the case I have I should just have as I described initialy in this post, just MARR missing but HUSB and WIFE present? "
Mitar, simple answer... replace MARR tag in the family record with _NMR. Everything else is the same as a 'normal' marriage.
To ease the process I have added _NMR to the list of 'add family facts' in the GEDCOM config. This avoids a need to manyually edit the raw GEDCOM data.
I don't think so. There has been a lot of similar discussion on this here before, as I recall. Not a lot of agreement over a resolution though. (one example: https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=4821315 )
What terms would you use instead? How does it work in other cultures / languages?
I think one problem is knowing whether a couple were married or not, when there is no tag at all (no MARR tag and no _NMR tag). Which would you assume?
I guess it could ONLY be based on the existence of a _NMR tag. Anything else would have to be 'as is'; and that is a problem in itself because the _NMR tag is not 'official' GEDCOM specification (hence the "_"). Also need to be careful to avoid confusion with the official "NMR" tag, which is a count of the number of marriages an individual has been in.
I'm using the _NMR tag and not that concerned with adhering to GEDCOM standards, but that being said couldn't the report generator look for a MARR event and the existence of children.
Obviously, if a MARR event exists, then the parents would be identified as Husband and Wife. If no MARR event exists, but children do then the parents could be identified as Mother and Father in reports rather than Husband and Wife. If no MARR event and no children exist, then no titles will exist in the report. If you want the titles, then you just add a MARR event with no date.
I'm sure anything is possible, it just needs someone to do it. Check if the Features Request area already has one for this (I think it might) otherwise you could add one - or better still come up with the code yourself. The over-worked developers will greatly appreciate the help, I'm sure. Otherwise, I'm afraid, as always, its a matter of priorities, and interest.
Hello ALL-
Adding a FWIW to this discussion. On my wife's PGV site, we have several similar relationships. She tells me that the non-family "partner" was added as such directly in PGV. I too personally think the Husband/Wife reporting is inaccurate for these situations, much as it would be in the case of adding an adopted child for an unmarried couple.
While most of the discussion about adhering to the "GEDcom standard" with regards to PGV's design is valid, I too feel it sometimes misses the mark on issues such as this. Besides, if PGV's adhering to the GEDcom standard is primarily for data exchange purposes, this is easier to accomplish by coding an "exceptions file" when someone wants "out" of PGV. As for me, I'm not going back (or forth) to another software!
Clearly here, non-blood related people become integrated into a "family tree" with little or no genealogical basis (think very-absent father, a common issue in the US). While respectful of Kiwi's experience in the PGV project, to me this is little of a cultural issue (happens everywhere) as it is more genealogy (historical data and sources) - - What the PGV software is all about ! I'm not saying the "partner" should be excluded, but instead properly identified in all respects to their status in the family tree.
Unfortunately, I am not (yet) a software coder either and so choose to be patient (while I keep the wife's install humming along) until standards (or time alone) dictate subtle changes as these be made. I do think Users like ourselves (and maybe some irrate family members) will be the driving force behind the Change!
[QUOTE]I do think Users like ourselves (and maybe some irrate family members) will be the driving force behind the Change! [/QUOTE]
Ha! What prompted me to search on this was a cousin approaching my mother about her site at the family reunion, and pointing out that he "was never married to that bitch!" LOL
In all seriousness, I'm willing to live with it for now. I'm not a programmer either, but have been known to modify things for my own purposes. I may pull out the family bible sized "PHP and MySQL" book I bought a couple of years ago and look at reportengine.php and see if I can work it out. Even if I am able to get it to put conditions on what label is used I'm sure my code would look atrocious to anyone who knows what they are doing. (Some changes I made on my Wordpress blog have been ridiculed by a friend who is a software engineer.)
I'm sure I'll feel defeated in about ten minutes, and my appreciation will grow for those who work on this project for free.
Sorry to "bump" post back up, but I couldn't go without thanking DugOut for "telling it like it really is". Your candid honesty is what I wish I could use when resolving issues and assisting Users in my role as "the IT guy" in a small office. As much as the technical perspectives often suffice to "overwhelm" the user enough to "make them go away", every now and then the users make it real personal (and human) and all of the computer "mumbo-jumbo" will fail you. When granma used to say "If you can't dazzle 'em with brillance, baffle 'em with BullS$%^&T" - just won't suffice ! Now, when you look into the abyss and realize the the "customer" may not always be right, but they are still payin' the bills !
But I too am encouraged to look at the ReportEngine file as well. However, until the GEDstandard "advances" to include "real" genealogy situations such as these, there really is no better data to pull out. I'm no PHP programmer either and applaud those who work hard to make this possible ! !
This dilemma kinda reminds me of the days of using punched cards on a mainframe. . . a scrambled deck of coded cards = Garbage In, Garbage Out. Perhaps PGV itself will be the DRIVER to advance the GED standard to the extent necessary for future generations to look at our work and simply be able to say " Job well done" !
Roland, you are totally correct, though I'm personally not optimistic that there will will be much of an "advance [to] the GED standard to the extent necessary " in the near, or even perhaps distant future. There is no driving body, it seems, willing or interested in promoting it. What we are getting is a whole raft of different solutions to all such problems as this one. No cohesion, sadly. PGV can do its thing or course; but there's a huge range of commercial software on and off-line now, all with their own ideas and solutions; and many of them with commercial motives for NOT having common standards.
But back to dugout's last post....
You may find it easier than you think to amend the code yourself. I didn't realise from the start that you were looking for a solution for printed output. I never use such things.
For one thing report.php is the wrong place to look, and for a second, you need XML skills only, not php or mysql. Reportengine.php is just a 'driver'. The actual data is collated in the various .xml files in the /reports folder.
Finally, don't worry about 'messy' code - its always easier to find people to tidy up messy than it is to write from scratch! You should see some of my attempts!
Actually, it's not just about the printed output. It just so happens that in my case a printed report that my mom took to the family reunion was the catalyst.
My goal would be that PGV evaluate every relationship on the fly and determine what the proper label would be based on the available information on that family.
Honestly, I know even less about xml than I do about PHP. I've at least attempted to work with PHP before. That being said, I've spent the last half hour deciphering what generates the family box on the right side of individual.php, and think I've found what I'm looking for in relationship.php. Please let me know if I'm not looking in the right spot.
I'm setting up PGV on one of my Ubuntu boxes to see if I can figure it out.
Thanks for the info and encouragement,
Matt
BTW...What's with the post box on SF being only 5 lines high?
Dugout,
"My goal would be that PGV evaluate every relationship on the fly and determine what the proper label would be based on the available information on that family."\
In my experience coding is a relatively trivial task compared to agreeing, what the code should do. Gedcom (and I believe it is a pretty good standard) has been concerned with genealogy: whose child are you, whose children are your parents etc.
Real life is always more complicated, people live together (or not) for many reasons, form close relationships based on need, friendship, circumstance, etc. Many programs now include such social links (and there are social networks like Facebook which are dealing only with those).
Your concern is with labeling or categorizing (in other words taxonomy), a never ending task of trying to squeeze bushy life into neat boxes (for the implicit purpose of being able to refer to a person as a member of a box: protestant, democrat, etc.).
A couple of questions to start with (but I can see a lot more lurking out there). What do you want to name the relationship in which:
a) A couple have children but were not married
b) Like (a) but they consider themselves married
c) Marriage state is unknown
d) She lived with her boyfriend, but had no children (is it a family?)
e) He had a wife and a child, but would like to hide the fact
f) The child was adopted
g) The child was born to my aunt, but raised in our family
h) The child lived with the family for 10 (3, 5, 15) years, then returned to the mother. (in those the question is whether you call him/her a child in the family)
i) My aunt lived with is always. I she part of the family? Should she be listed in the family group?
What about the case where a marriage was annuled? The case where she considers herself married (say it is a common-law marriage) and he does not.
Even a simple question whether a woman in a family with child is a wife or a mother cannot be answered in a single label in a table. Or can it?
If the goal is not to offend the sensibilities of the viewers, perhaps a better solution would be to match the display to the viewer's preference (this can relatively easily done by checking the ID of the logged person).
Have fun in defining the rules...
-Marek
Filed a help ticket request (#2108) on main Sourceforge site regarding Comment box size. Was a bit annoying to me too. I tend to type too much . . .
Filed a help ticket request (#2108) on main Sourceforge site regarding Comment box size. Was a bit annoying to me too. I tend to type too much . . .
Thanks, roland_l -- what's the URL? I'd also like to add bit about the font colour.
Just helping again, not intending to hijack the main topic of this thread.
With recent changes to the main Sourceforge site, getting tio their Help area has become more difficult. But from any page, click on Site Support in the top banner. Doing so now requires another log-in, use the same UsedID and password you already access SF with. Next click View Tickets, then Search the number given. Please add your experiences regarding this issue if you'd like. Here is the direct link you requested, if it allows access - https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sourceforge/ticket/2108
You could also create a new ticket using the above method, of course.
But guess what ? While typing this reply I noticed that a scrollbar now appears in the Posting area ! ! Maybe too much typing can be a good thing . . .
I know I am dredging up an old topic, but a current family addition had me searching for a solution to the problem of a child from 2 non married partners. Unless someone can find a reason I may have missed to resolve this, I simply went to the language file (english), and copied the 2 entries for "wife" and "husband" to the extra.en.php file, and renamed them "wife/partner" and "husband/partner". If the couple is married, then husband/wife is appropriate. If they are not married, then partner/partner is appropriate. Not a perfect solution, but it does resolve some issues. If someone complains they were not married "to that bitch", I would simply explain that is why it says partner as well. And if a child came between them, then at one point at least they were indeed partners!
FWIW, my 2 cents…
Doc
That would certainly work - there's nothing wrong with your solution other than that it looks ugly. You are correct in using the "extra.en.php" file in this way.
Unfortunately, the words "husband" and "wife" are used in a whole lot of other places too. I think it's not practical to change all the other occurrences in the same way.
Just out of curiosity, where else, for example, is husband used that husband/partner would not be appropriate? The only other solution I could see is perhaps an option as to what wording you would like to use with choices, and have the default be husband and wife, with some other options like maybe boyfriend/girlfriend, childs father/childs mother, etc. But since I am not a programmer, I don't know how easy or hard this would be to add.
Doc
Doc
It isn't so much the programming, as the GEDCOM standard. It does not accommodate these situations as the tags are HUSB and WIFE for any family union. Same sex and out-of-wedlock notations were not considered.
Use your text editor and search all the files in the PGV folder for the variable name "$pgv_lang" you wish to annotate/change with your extra file. This will show all the instances.
Considering that these unions are the exception, and not the rule, I too think it inappropriate to denote all marriages as partners. You would be better using the correct tag, _NMR and then the NOTE field to further explain the condiftions: One night stand, boyfriend/girlfriend who failed to practice safe sex, donated sperm, etc.
-Stephen