Forum:Standards on dateless individuals

It seems to me that with support for the prefixes after and before, that there should not be many cases of articles like Cunigunda of Laon (?-?). Cunigunda had a child and a spouse with dates. Is there any generally accepted practice that would permit conventions such as these:

Birth
 * Child birth date known: The earliest known age of motherhood is 3YO, but motherhood is exceptionally rare for 10YO or younger. Guidance is therefore that if earliest know child birth year is 1500 then mother's birth year we can confidently assume is before 1490 (bef1490).


 * Spouse birth date known. Using the same assumptions, the spouse would have to be at least 10 to marry who we can reasonably assume to also have been no less than 10.  If husbands birth year is 1450 then can't we confidently state the supposition that the wife's birth is after 1460?

Death.
 * Child birth date known: Mother's death could be at conception, so with a child birth of 1500 we know that her death had to be aft1499. Fathers could die as much as 9 months prior to child birth, so death would be aft1498.


 * Spouse death date known. If spouse death date of 1500 then death would have to be aft1499.

Aren't those reasonable bits of guidance on dates? I am uncertain on genealogical best practice. If these are out of line, please propose alternative language with examples. PhloxBot 17:48, November 22, 2009 (UTC)