A divorced spouse with no children is still a spouse ?

I like that suggestion. It would be a great addition to the tree. Please consider adding this as an idea here in the Community. The FamilySearch Engineers do look at these ideas and use them as a basis for their future improvements to the system.

@Brett

Very little of what we strive to do is "new". Yet, we keep trying to improve. Persistence sometimes pays off. Otherwise why bother? The truth is that that not all ideas will be taken up by FS engineers, but many are. Their priorities just may not match ours. Changes may be slow to come, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage change and facilitate improvement. We sometimes just have to be patient until the desired change happens.

I do not like changing history. The fact that a person had a spouse, and that marriage ended in divorce with no children, doesn't preclude other important things from happening. What if one of those 2 names turns up as informant on the other's death certificate? How will someone know who it is after time goes by? Or what if the divorced spouse remained friends with children of the ex's first spouse, and appears in a number of family photos. My position is NEVER change history by pretending it didn't happen, and to say there is no genealogical contribution - well I just gave you 2 examples of where that may not be true.

@ThomasAn Yes, that is correct. I was addressing the discussion of whether these ex's should be removed from the tree because they don't contribute genealogically.

@ThomasAn Are you really saying that as soon as you reach an ancestor that is truly an "in-law" with no possible relation to you by blood, you will not update that record with genealogy information you may be in possession of?

This is why, whilst linking a source, I rarely carry across an event date / place from a marriage record. FamilySearch does not usually differentiate between the actual marriage and a banns or licence record, so if you unwittingly carry one of the latter across, being an earlier date, this replaces the correct marriage date / details on the couple's Person pages. As there is no pick-list for the detail you want to be displayed on the Person pages, it often comes to having to delete really useful information from the Relationship Events section in order to get the preferred (usually "correct") event displayed. (Julia illustrates this in her post.)

It is a disappointment to many of us that FamilySearch can't provide the resources to develop the whole of the Couple Relationship area, which has been in urgent need of attention for many years. (This would hopefully include enhancements to deal with divorce data, too.)

@ThomasAn As I have reviewed the comments made about annotating the divorce record and having is show on the detail page of an individual, all that is necessary is to add the divorce date and place is to edit marriage event. It is necessary to have it be the last event or at the top of the list. The divorce date and place will then show on the detail page of the individual. The problem still exists that anyone who adds another marriage date because it will them be placed on top of the list. And you cannot lock it in place.

@MarvinG, it appears that you, like others, are mistaken about what shows on the detail page in the couple box.

Once again: it ONLY shows the EARLIEST event entered for that relationship.

Really.

A divorce, by definition, is always later than the corresponding marriage, so divorces entered in a couple's relationship area almost never show on a person's detail page. The only ways to get them to show up in the couple box are to omit or delete the marriage event(s) or to enter incorrect dates.