One of the grumbles is that the Charts only show the Preferred parents. But the user wants to diagram the biological and the adoptive/foster parents.
The other thing is that creating 2 families, one with each brother in a relationship with the known mother is misleading. One of the brothers is uninvolved.
Potential relationships are frequently postulated in a research tree and data is slowly gathered over time to prove (or disprove) the theory. A capacity to tag (and find) a ‘theoretical’ relationship would be useful thing. As would capturing ‘Disproven’ confidence for a relationship, Event or Source. (Multiple negative confidence levels are as useful the current multiple positive levels of confidence.)
Previous threads mentioning ‘dis-proven’:
It is an interesting idea. I aready record Disproven items… so that it isn’t necessary to re-run the disproving exercise the next time the same bad info pops up. (As an example, I often see the Christening information that was mistaken for Birth data. Such a widely held misimpression can often be traced back to single Source being transcribed incorrectly.) So marking other data as low-probability ‘theory’ would also be good if Gramps is to be a research tool rather than simple filing system.…
I use “Disproven” and “Unproven” in Zotero and Foam/Obsidian and a few other software I use, for sources/information that either does disprove something I have had unconclusive sources for or “Unproven” for sources that does not have enough information to be a proven fact, e.g., it in itself cannot prove a claim. Disproven I use for sources that tells me that the claims I am researching is wrong, I also add this as a TAG to any incorrect sources/citations. I also use: Unproven (Not proven cl…