Merging whole families.
In the past it used to work!!
A married couple has 8 children who were duplicated with the same mother.
All the ID numbers are exactly the same.
Instead of having to delete the duplicated, children individually from the mother, we were able to do it in one step and that is just ADD the father's ID number to his spouse and, they are all immediately corrected.
Please try using this family Coenraad Hendrik Fick LZ8C-HW1 and his wife LH9Q-9HW.
It tells you that they are already linked. Surely this can be corrected again?
Memory Smith.
Answers
-
In all the years I have been here, profiles have merged only one at a time.
Adding a spouse to a parent with children has been a one-step process. Perhaps that is what you are remembering?
On his wife's profile https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/LH9Q-9HW I see she has all her children attached to her and him, and again to her. At this point, the remedy is to go to the list of her children without the other parent and detach each child. Delete the link, not the person.
1 -
Would a moderator please move this Discussion to Family Tree?
0 -
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you, I have no idea how many years you have been doing this, and I know what you are saying, and agree that detaching one at a time is what is needed now, but it was definitely possible to just add the missing spouse's ID, to the same wife with all their children, (with the same ID's) and the correction was made in a blink of an eye.
By the way I was active in the pilot projects of family search in South Africa before 2012, and there have been many changes since then in all aspects of the program, with this fantastic, amazing successful, Family Tree, and to think it started with the PAF program, which I just loved.
So idontknowifyouknowme? 😊
0 -
So it would seem that I have experienced something that was not known to others?
It would be very helpful if this feature can be implemented again, as it saves a lot of work.
Thank you for your reply,
Sincerely,
M Smith.
0 -
FYI
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Just in passing ...
[ And, I happen to be a Member of the Church ... ]
[ And, I have been a Staff Member, of Family History Centres", of the Church, for many Years ... ]
[ Plus, I have been around for a while ... ]
The confusion lies, in the "Title" of your 'Post' ...
What you are referring to, is NOT "Merging"/"Combining" ...
And ...
'Yes', if I recall correctly, you are correct ...
What you are referring to, is what we USED, to be able to do; but, we can NO LONGER do such.
I keep trying to do such, just out of habit ...
Now ...
That Said ...
Currently, the ONLY option, is as 'dontiknowyou', has suggested ...
In the case, that you reference ...
Under the Mother, with NO Spouse / Husband (ie. Father) ...
Go to EACH Child; and, "Remove", the Child from that particular "Parent-Child" Relationship ...
As an aside ...
Like you, I really miss; being, simply able, to "Add" either:
(1) a Spouse (ie. "Couple" Relationship), to for the Couple; or,
(2) a Parent (ie. "Parent-Child" Relationship), to the/each Child,
usually (1) was the quickest and easiest; especially, when a number of Children were involved.
There was some "Technical" REASON, for such "Change"; but, I cannot recall what that was.
Too bad really; because, it was MUCH "Simpler", that we have NOW ...
Just my thoughts.
I know, that this certainly does not help/assist; but, I hope, that this may provide you with, some additional, insight; and, perspective.
Brett
ps: I really wish, that I could recall the reason ...
pps: I hope, that another User/Patron, of many years of experience, may be able to shed some light, on this.
.
0 -
I too remember when adding the other parent would be enough. Alas, now the result is all the children are attached to the couple and to one parent solo. The solo connections then must be removed one by one, for each child attached to the solo parent.
Perhaps suggest a change, here: Suggest an Idea
0 -
FYI
Firstly ...
As far as I can recall, the ability that, 'M. SMITH'; and, I, refer to, was WELL before LAST Year; and, possible, even, the Year before that; which, I believe, is before, that you started using, the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', according to as you have previously advised.
Secondly ...
As far as I can recall, the ability that, 'M. SMITH'; and, I, refer to, was "Removed", for a SPECIFIC "Reason".
I seriously doubt, that 'FamilySearch', can; and/or, would, be able to REINSTATE such.
Hopefully, someone, may recall; and, be able to advise of, the SPECIFIC "Reason".
Again ...
It really is too bad; because, it was MUCH "Simpler", that we have NOW ...
Brett
0 -
@M. Smith, In this specific case, it appears that Coenraad Hendrik Fick (LZ8C-HW1) has a duplicate in the person/record of Coenraad Fick (G686-7LR).
I think that the use of the phrase, "children who were duplicated..." may have caused some confusion. A duplicate child would have a different ID. What we have, in this case, is same individual ( ie. children) showing up in 2 families, caused by the duplication of the father.
This is easily corrected, as you indicated, by (1) noting the "Possible Duplicate" notice, on the right, under Research Help; (2) clicking the notice, the then Review Merge; and finally (3) following the merge instructions. [I add all this only for completeness; I am confident that you are already aware of the process.]
Once you've completed the merge, only one family and one set of children, etc will remain.
1 -
Thank you Brett, Mike357 and dontiknowyou, for your suggestions and support.
I am also a member of the church, in Pretoria, South Africa, and have been around quite a while, called as consultant, director and consultant again, and helping a lot of patrons and members whenever needed.
In doing this, and due to all the changes happening, one is never too sure that what you are telling patrons will still be available, or that you are going to look foolish.
Your advice on "Title and Post" is noted, thank you, and I acknowledge that I have inadvertently used wrong descriptions, eg just confirmed by my grandchildren, that Family Tree (on phones) and Family Search (on computers/notebooks) are not the same. So I AM using a desktop computer. 🙂
However, I am able to keep up with most changes, frustrating to start with, (like the SEARCH now), but one gets used to it eventually and keeps on going, just very grateful for the ease of doing research online and from home, and for the wonderful response from Research Help which is absolutely so amazing, we are incredibly blessed to be experiencing this remarkable achievement in our lifetime.
Thank you again,
Memory Smith.
1 -
I cannot believe this, I don't know whether I should laugh or cry. I've just corrected my Fick LZ8C-HW1 family, by removing each child from their mother and now they have all dissappeared form the father as well!!!
M Smith
1 -
🙄 Well I never!!! Can hardly believe this, I just added the father's ID to his wife and children and IT ACTUALLY WORKED.
Thank you family search!!! Just going to checkif all their children are present. Thank you.
1 -
This comment is not really needed but I'll just throw in my experience in this regards. I have found that just adding the ID of a missing parent to fix duplicated relationships works just fine. Sometimes. But not very often. There seems to be a specific set of requirements as to when it will and when it won't. But I have never been able to figure out what those are. It's worth trying but don't be surprised it only works occasionally.
In the illustration that dontiknowyou posted above, there is a much more efficient way to solve the problem.
For the missing husband, click Add Spouse. Then enter a first name of Dad, mark him as deceased and save. Then merge Dad and the actual father. All the child relationships will merge just fine. This is far faster than clicking through 7 children and removing them one at a time.
@M. Smith, since you mentioned that you are a member of the church, I'll mention that deleting parent-child relationships is the quickest way to produce the dreaded Blue Box ghost parents on the ordinance page. I have found that unless a relationship is wrong, it is always best to merge relationships rather than remove them.
1 -
I like the merge method @Gordon Collett describes but avoid recommending it to others.
Usually my first step is to try to add the ID of the missing parent. That usually works but lately I get an error message and some children remain with a spurious second link to one parent.
0
