Does attaching a census record add a Residence fact for that year?
I frequently have to add the Residence event manually as the Source Linker does not offer this option when attaching the source. Sometimes it happens with only some of the family members, often with all of them. This problem has been ongoing since the census was released.
Yes, It can if selected or moved over to Tree. But by default you have to (last I checked) select it to be included in the Source Linker attachment process.
In my own portion of the family tree I've seen a variety. Some people have a census attached but it only appears as a source (or possibly in the timeline). Other folks have Census events but no source is attached. Is this operator error or just changing systems?
Yes, if while in the source linker you move that residence from the left side of the source linker to the right side of the source linker:
In the timeline you can change the settings/options to include/exclude certain events - so if some users don't see certain events, maybe they excluded them?
Likely where Census is attached but there is no Residence event - they just didn't select to bring it into Tree.
Thanks for quick responses! I understand what you both are saying. In the 1950 census for my family, not a one of us in the family had that residence/year as a possible addition to the persons. Although my father had the Residence 1949 option! I thought that glitch was being worked on.
At any rate, I'll go back and check for whether I have my options set to exclude certain events. Now I wonder where to look for that...?
When you go to the person's Timeline the SHOW/Settings triangle> Residence option will need to be selected. But for those Residence Facts to even appear in the Timeline - whomever attaches the Source (Census example) - will need to move the linked Residence fact from the Census Record to the Tree Residence Fact when attaching the Source.
Hope this helps a bit.
Just to report back. I detached and reattached the 1950 census to my family, still with no 4 April 1950 or Oak Ridge, Tennessee appearing to be added. Then I tried my aunt and uncle. They do have the suggested addition of date and residence place. I'm concluding that it must be related to the fact that my father was one of the persons selected for the supplemental questions. The infamous 1949 question must prevent the actual census date from appearing. I had read that it was a problem in some other way. Just didn't think this was another result of that issue.
At least, thanks to your advice, I'll make sure to check what is suggested to be added (or not) a lot more closely when I attach any record.
Thanks for reporting back. Hmm, I'm not aware of an issue - but yes, if the record and index does not include the Residence to be attached then you could do so manually OR when FamilySearch releases the 'edit every field' indexing app for the 1950 Census - you should be able to correct the index and link it to the record image - such that the residence is included. I believe at that point - if the Source Linker is able to pull from that newly edited Residence field (which I believe it should) - then the Residence should come across to the Tree. Oh well, something to look forward to editing in the near future I suppose.
I have come across a few instances recently (now that I think about it, probably all for US 1950 census) where the residence appears on the left of the Source Linker page for some family members, but not for others.
The source gets attached to all the named family members, but setting the residence was not an option for some of them and had to be done manually afterwards.
If I find another one I'll report back.
The infamous 1949 question must prevent the actual census date from appearing.
No, that's not it. Normally both 1950 and 1949 data are imported to Family Tree. I've done thousands of them, including a bunch today.
Have you examined the FamilySearch index record to see if the 1950 location was indexed?
In any event you can read the missing place names of the census record images and add them to the profile. Often the image has a more precise place name than given in the index.
I will look for more instances of this glitch.