Archiving shared temple names from temple list.

LegacyUser

Quilden Don Howard said: An older Brother that I have been helping has over 5000 names shared with the temple. Some have been there for as much as 11 years. He has 9000 more names to share with the temple. The shared names stay on his temple file for up to 10 years and it has clogged up his temple list. Would it be possible to have an archive, similar to the one used for memories, for names shared with the temple to clean up his temple list?

LegacyUser

Lundgren said: I do not work in/over the area that would develop this feature or have influence on it.

As an average user would say be to let people (his family at some point) find the names on their own using ordinance ready or working on their own trees.

That way people he is related to will be able to find them. If there are no member in his family today, there will be some day.

Finding family names to take to the temple is an awesome experience.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Quilden

"Welcome" BACK to this "FamilySearch" ("GetStaisfaction") 'Feedback' Forum.

I am just another User/Patron, just like yourself (and, happen to be a Member of the Church).

Finally, I love this suggested enhancement of yours.

A NEW "List" in our "Temple" 'Tab' being the Work for individuals/persons that we have "Share[d] with the Temple" that is called "Archived", where we can place these individuals/persons so that they DO NOT 'clog up' the other "Lists" in our "Temple" 'Tab'; and, such individuals/persons should NOT be included when we use "OrdinancesReady"; and, when "OrdinancesReady" does its "Search" for us.

Others will say there is no need to have so many names in one's "Temple" 'Tab'; and, also, "Share[d] with the Temple System".

They will indicated that, instead, they should be available for others Member Users/Patrons to "Request", if they so desire.

But, many of us also know that leaving them for others to do the Work does not always happen, there certainly has been success for some; but, not all of us.

Anyway, if another Member User/Patron contacts one and asks that the Work be "Shared" with them; the, well and good, we can do so - by "Un-Sharing" with the "Temple" System; and, either, "Sharing" with them or "Un-Reserving" so they can "Reserve".

Great suggested enhancement.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: The entire temple reservation and ordinance section is undergoing a major rewrite to update the code and get rid of issues that have existed "behind the scenes."

One of those problems have been "stuck" ordinances, which have resulted in some names being reserved forever. Once that area has been "fixed" the older ordinances, especially those that have been "stuck" will be taken care of.

Another problem is that the names that a person shares with the temple system has (at least in recent past) been assigned to the temple in which temple district they live. If the temple does not actively pull from the shared list (and some do not), then ordinances could easily sit for many years.

Although we have been told that this has not been implemented, one of the plans is the put all the shared names in a common pool for many temples and that will take care of the names that have been sitting for a long time because the temple is that user's district was not pulling (many) names. The plans are to implement the shared pool among many temples soon, but no dates have been provided.

Some of the discussion on what needs to be done has also indicated that FamilySearch is seriously considering placing a limit on the number of names a person can have in their temple list (shared or otherwise). Some have indicated a number as low as 200 while others have suggested 1,000 or more. Obviously the older brother has many more than either of those numbers, so if FamilySearch moves ahead and as part of the rewrite, places a limit, you may find that no more names can be reserved.

The idea of an Archive is a nice one, but for what purpose? The list can sorted by reservation date, so the older brother should be able to see those that he has most recently reserved by using the various sorting capabilities of the list.

The other thing to do, and I strongly recommend this, is the make sure that there is an established relationship between this older brother and those on his list. If the system cannot find any relationship, then he was not and is not authorized to reserve them. There has been a lot of increased emphasis by the Church on reserving only those persons to which you can establish a relationship. He should unreserve any person to whom he cannot establish a relationship.

To do this with as many persons as he has in his list, I would sort by reservation date and start working with the oldest reserved persons first. It is entirely possible that ten years ago, he was reserving anyone with a last name common with those with whom he had an established relationship.

Yes, that will take a lot of time and work, but it is something that should be done, just to make sure that those 10 and 11 year old reservations are valid.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: There is one other thing to do with those older reservations -- make sure they do not have duplicates in the system. It is entirely possible that because they were temple shared, someone created a duplicate so that the vicarious ordinances could be completed. If there are duplicates, then they should be merged. If the ordinances have been completed, then that will clear that person from the older brother's list.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: One other thing struck me and that is the 110 year rule. Until recently, the ability to reserve those born less than 110 years ago was not enforced. Today it is. Make sure all of those born less than 110 years ago went through the approval process. If they did not, they may have been reserved back when the rule was not enforced.