Best Of
Re: Yesterday, the FamilySearch contributor made dozens of changes (and errors) to people I follow.
Thank you for your comments, which have at last made sense of the confusion I was having in accepting what I had recorded in earlier posts:
"… we are given to believe that a couple named Joseph and Dorothy WRIGHTSON had children with surnames of WHITE, KINSLEY, and BARRIS or BOWERS."
Viewing the detail behind the chart I can now see that the females with these different names ((recorded from US Census returns) were indeed children of Joseph & Dorothy Wrightson - but all showing in their married names (as is mother Dorothy, of course).
This further illustrates my point that these projects are fine as "stand-alone" efforts, but once added to Family Tree (either directly or via Computer Generated Trees) they break one of the main pieces advice that is given to users in entering the names of females: never to use a married name, but always the maiden one.
As already mentioned, these trees are going to cause many more duplicates being added to Family Tree, as well as leaving extra work to users in having to confirm and change all those married names being imported to the tree to the correct maiden ones.
I now understand the point being made by @Áine Ní Donnghaile in her comment:
"So we have spent hours, days, and weeks cleaning up the duplicates created by the USCensusProject only to have their "contributions" return."
Re: Kansas Naturalizations and all Nats Complexion
Mod note: Several posts were edited for Community Code of Conduct violations and to keep the flow of the conversation and the discussion was closed.
Re: Why have the indexed versions of England & Wales Marriage Registrations been replaced?
Thank you for your feedback. We have gathered all the information and this has been escalated.
Re: Why have the indexed versions of England & Wales Marriage Registrations been replaced?
Thank you for finding that. I thought I probably had raised the issue previously, but:
(1) I admit I find it difficult to make searches in Community for topics previously raised, and
(2) Knowing how literally inexperienced users take FamilySearch suggestions, I feel this really needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency rather than the problem still remaining without (at my previous post) any moderator acknowledgment that the matter has been escalated.
I'm pleased to see (in April) we were both able to use screenshots, which clearly illustrate the problem with the sources being offered in their current format.
Re: Duplicate sources: how do they get there and how do we deal with them?
Back in 2018 when these sources were attached, the Source Box allowed multiple attachments. I have no idea if the Source Box was used to make these particular attachments, but it's a possibility, since even then the Source Linker didn't allow multiple attachments. Another possibility is that the mobile Tree app source linker did allow multiple attachments back in that time. Neither Source Box nor the mobile app Source Linker allow duplicate attachments now.
Re: No ID number
The blue "attach" button on an index detail page brings up Source Linker. There are circumstances where Source Linker can create profiles or add relationships to existing profiles, but I don't think it's the best first step.
Instead, I went to Family Tree - Find, put in "Gabriel Contreras Penafiel", and got as the very first result a person with the right names of parents and country of death (though no dates): https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/GK47-P3V.
If that looks correct to be intended as your grandfather, then you can attach the profile as your grandfather by copying its ID, going to your appropriate parent's profile details page, scrolling down to Family Members, clicking "Add Parent", and choosing "by ID".
Independently of attaching the existing profile as your grandfather, you can attach the indexed death record as a source to the profile by copying the ID, then going to the index page and clicking the blue "Attach" button, and using the copied ID to choose the tree-side focus person.
~~~~~Forgive me if you already know all this, but perhaps an explanation of the basic structure of things on FS would help.
FS is a vast sprawl of disparate elements that are variously connected to each other. Two of those elements are the database of indexed records, and the collaborative, open-edit Family Tree. The intention is for the Tree to have one and only one profile per deceased person, and for every entry in the index database to be attached to exactly one profile in the Tree. Both are very distant goals, for various reasons. For example, the Tree was initially populated (a dozen years ago) from FS's prior systems, which had multiple profiles for the same people, and a lot of that duplication still hasn't been cleaned up. Another reason is indexing errors, or more broadly, the fact that indexes aren't actually the data, no matter how much easier they are for the computer to parse than the documents they're based on.
The primary tool for creating connections between indexed records and tree profiles is Source Linker. It's a highly flexible and efficient tool, but it can't do everything. For example, it cannot create a profile without a relationship, nor can it correct errors in an index. (It can, however, be used to connect everything as correctly as possible, despite such errors; it just sometimes takes some contortions.)
Re: Waldeckische Ortssippenbücher (Waldeck Family village books)
Yes, it's there now. Thinking the mod did do something. 😉
Re: Why have the indexed versions of England & Wales Marriage Registrations been replaced?
There is another thread containing more detail on this: