Fixing the order of parents

Susan Richards

I have a family where the wife (female) appears in the father's position and the father is in the wife's position. I checked if their sex was input correctly and it is.

How do I fix this problem?

Áine.ní.Donnghaile

If they are deceased, could you share the profile identifiers, please? It's usually an easy fix, but easier to show if we can see the specific profiles.

Amy Archibald

https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/how-do-i-switch-parent-or-spouse-positions-to-change-the-display-of-family-lines-in-family-tree

ColinCameron

On a related matter: Why has "FamilySearch" recently been changing the order of parents with no explanation or reason statement.

eg.

Jane Hamilton 1838–1880 LRH2-WRT Parent Position Changed

Margaret Hunter 1876–1946 LB7D-48B Parent Position Changed

Janet Brown 1836–1919 93M4-TDJ Parent Position Changed

Margaret Smellie Young 1874–1958 93Q8-PT1 Parent Position Changed

Gavin Mccallum Young 1871–1937 93QL-J9M Parent Position Changed

These are just a few of the numerous examples I was notified of through my "Following" list.

Nyx773

https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/190017/fixing-the-order-of-parents

There is no correct position of the couple names. The male is traditionally before the female. It is not a requirement.

Nyx773

https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/631605#Comment_631605

I have been wondering the same thing.
I too was notified via my Following list between 6-14 June of "Parent Position Changed" by FamilySearch for the following profiles:
P3WS-9S8
K67W-DYW
K6WF-VMJ
K64D-RM2
PQD1-PHJ
GQ6W-VVM
L2M9-894 - This one has female before male, the others are the opposite

Alan E. Brown

https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/631610#Comment_631610

Although the male-first order is not a requirement, clearly that is the order that Family Tree prefers for male-female relationships. In the article that @Amy Archibald helpfully linked to, we read: "In male-female relationships, you can only adjust how the lines are displayed if the male name appears below the female name, and you can only switch one way."

The fact that you can only switch one way seems to be strong evidence that the male-first order is preferred. There is great benefit in having a standard order — it avoids inconsistent tree display. I wouldn't care one whit if the standard were female first, but that isn't the way that genealogical standards evolved (see, e.g., Ahnentafel). But I care greatly that a standard be followed whenever possible.

Nyx773

@Alan E. Brown
1— In my reply above I was being pedantic to help make clear: the relationship mentioned by the OP is not a "problem" and does not require "fixing." Since a link to the instructions to change the order was already given, I did not feel the need to reiterate that the OP could change it to however they want it.

I did read the article before writing my reply. To continue being pedantic: It states "default" which is not equivalent to "prefers" and neither words are equivalent to the word I chose: "traditional"

2— To reword and expand upon my other reply above:
If male before female is "default" and "traditional" or perhaps even "preferred," then why did FamilySearch change the parent position for L2M9-894 on 6 June so that her mother, the female, is first?

Alan E. Brown

@Nyx773 I was simply trying to explain that the order of male-female and female-male are not equivalent in Family Tree. It's not the case that "the OP could change it to however they want it." If the order is female-male, you can easily change it to male-female or simply leave it alone. But if the order is male-female, there is no reasonable way to change it to female-male (there's a rather complicated sequence of actions whereby you can achieve that result, but there is no straightforward Switch Positions option in that case). That's why the linked article says "you can only switch one way."

Based on Family Tree's choice of a default order, with the added fact that no way is provided to change the order from the default (you can only change the opposite order to match the default), I drew the conclusion that the male-female order is preferred. Most people who encounter this situation are looking for a way to fix the order (those are typically their words, not mine). I fully understand that "default" is not equivalent to "preferred" and that no documentation states that it is preferred, so I have no problem with others drawing different conclusions.

As for the mysterious change of parent positions for some profiles that happened recently, I can't explain that. My guess is that it is some sort of mistake that will eventually be rectified. But I certainly won't let these unusual isolated incidents affect my understanding of what is the default or even the preferred order.

Susan Richards

So the couple I was referring to were:

Brita Sundell #LBFF-JJ5

Erik Saterberg #K8WN-MWD

I have been doing Family History work for over 40 years. Even before we could do it on the computer we were instructed to put the Male information on the top line and the female line below; then the children are listed in order of birth.

There needs to be consistency in the way we list information - if not, it can mess up our Pedigree Charts and makes it confusing to know which family you are following in the next generation back…. How do I change how my couple are listed?? That's all I want to know!!!

Susan K Richards

Amy Archibald

https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/631660#Comment_631660

This link provides the step-by-step instructions on how to fix it:

https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/how-do-i-switch-parent-or-spouse-positions-to-change-the-display-of-family-lines-in-family-tree

Áine.ní.Donnghaile

@Susan Richards
I see you were able to change the position yesterday. Great!

I was surprised to notice on those profiles a "FamilySearch" change of parent position in early June.