Heads Up for Folks Doing Relationship Editing
I've noticed that there have been some recent changes in the relationship editing functions recently that if you are not watching out for, they could surprise you.
In the following example, I would like to remove the couple relationship between the grandparents:
You normally edit the Couple Relationship by selecting the edit icon in the Couple Relationship box. That produces the Couple Relationship editing fly-out:
Normally you would select "Remove or Replace" to take one party out of the Couple Relationship. However, even though you are in the Couple Relationship editor, it will ALSO edit Parent-child relationships as well:
Because this also detaches the removed spouse from ALL their children, the detached spouse is now floating by itself in the database (if it had no parents itself). The "Remove or Replace Spouse" should say "Remove or Replace Spouse in Family". This technique for separating biological parents that never had a couple relationship together now has the potentially undesired effect of detaching one of the biological parents from all of their children.
So instead you must use the "Delete Relationship" function in the Couple Relationship editor and actually delete the couple relationship between them without affecting their relationship with their children. But this creates a new Family Information graphic that looks like this:
So now the old "Couple Relationship" box's meaning has become more ambiguous. It now shows some kind of relationship between the parents even though there is no couple relationship there. As such, this new relationship type cannot be edited or have any kind of sources or notes attached to it. Those will have to attach to the individuals themselves.
Furthermore, since there is NO Couple Relationship there that you can use to separate the individuals, the only way to do that would be to temporarily re-create a Couple Relationship so that you can remove their association with each other (as in the 2nd image above).
I can see some benefits in this since when the situation as shown in the last image above occurs, temple sealing ordinances will not be available (and is documented in an appropriate message in the ordinances status area). It also addresses the issue where a biological mother and father are recorded in separate Couple Relationship boxes, each with an "Add Spouse" button that so many people seem to think is mandatory. Also people interested in genetic tracing can use the old technique of putting both biological parents in the box together even though they never had a formal family relationship together.
In any event, some of these functions that we are used are behaving differently now, so just be aware.
Wow, I've never read that small print stuff before haha.0
That's because it's been changed around from what it was. Things that used to work one way, now behave differently. I only spotted it when I was experimenting with the new Couple Relationship box that now can be marked as having no couple relationship even though there are two persons in the same box (what does that mean exactly? There is obviously some kind of relationship between the individuals inside of the same box, but what is that relationship exactly since there is no "Couple Relationship" there any more?)0
Re your last graphic:
"what is that relationship exactly since there is no "Couple Relationship" there any more?"
It's a biological relationship that occurred on at least one occasion.
Essentially the issue here is that the world outside (outside what? Outside the LDS Church?) can see a biological relationship but FamilySearch has abrogated the term "relationship" to itself for something else. So far as I know, FS uses "relationship" to mean some sort of ongoing social relationship that can be commemorated with an LDS ordinance(?). This is a problem to those of us who really, really, don't need to understand Church doctrine - it's creeping out into the user interface. So the term "relationship" is ambiguous in the context of the last graphic between the Church's ongoing social relationship and my biological-type relationship.
Further, you will note in the last graphic that the software has an imperative statement in that it instructs us to "Add Couple Relationship". Which seems to suggest that the final graphic shouldn't be the permanent state - but what is it then?
I would suggest that the sensible way forward is to acknowledge that the world out there believes that "Couple Relationship" includes purely biological relationships lasting one night and that a type (not event) be added to the couple in the box to record things like:
- Unknown (the default);
- Very short term; no formal relationship (including one night stand);
- Medium term; no formal relationship (including living together);
- Formal relationship of any length (including Common Law)
This way there will always be a Relationship box but there will be a type in there that can be used by the Church to allow ordinances to progress. And there will always be a positive statement.0
Don't get me wrong. I see where FS is trying to take this and it looks like this could be a reasonable step forward in the implementation.
For example. Since a "Couple Relationship" is (was) already a single well defined entity that can have couple relationship type EVENTS attached to it, do you:
A) create a new and weird type of EVENT called something like a "never were a couple" event so that sealing ordinances can be controlled (BTW by pure definition "never were a couple" is NOT an event)
Create a new type of relationship between two PIDs where you don't have to have a "Couple Relationship" but they can still be enclosed int he same graphical box and have a label showing that they were never a "Couple".
"B" is a little cleaner and does not require the creation of a non-event type event. "A" just adds to the already ambiguous "Couple Relationship"
But it allows the issue of biological only type parent relationships which are quite common. It also allows navigation on pedigrees to be easier for those types of relationships as well. I see that all as a big plus.
My only thought was that some of the relationship editing functions now work slightly differently than what people have been using them for so a heads up might be useful.
And my more petty gripe is that things that are ambiguous on the website are now even more ambiguous.
BTW, the "Add Couple Relationship" seems to also be a reasonable trade off with the alternate where both parents were in their own box, EACH with an "Add Spouse" button that many folks have complained about (for the same reason you mentioned on the "Add Couple Relationship" button.0
Yes, I suspect that I am a little frustrated with understanding whether FS actually intends to do anything material, or is it just wandering around it?
My answer to your question is "B" by the way. At least I think it is... The 2 parents should, in my view, appear pretty much as in your final diagram above. (Good point about the pedigree, by the way - I really don't want to switch bits around just because my 3G GPs never married and even then never see my full ancestry. Especially on a fan chart).
Then I'd like to see, as you sort-of-suggest, a label or attribute or type (not a non-event event!), that gives those values I suggested earlier.
I would suggest that conversion of a "no formal relationship" to "formal relationship" should just be a matter of altering the type - not creating a replacement box. That would cover the case where you were sure they were never married - until the day that you found evidence that they were.
As I think I've said in the past, one of my guiding principles is always to require a positive input unless the default is 90% upwards certain. So I don't require an explicit statement that a child is biological but I would require an explicit statement about whether the relationship is unknown, informal, formal etc.0
The basic issue is when there is a child involved, to whom will the child be attached, once the relationship between the "Parents" is deleted . By using the edit feature offered in the lower right in the child's square, the child can be removed from one parent. Once that issue is resolved, and the child is now linked to only one parent, the relationship between "mom" and dad" can be deleted.0
Wouldn't it be nice if all of the images that were constructed specifically for this discussion had actually been brought in from the original database when it was converted? Without the images, it's pretty difficult to see what is going on here1
Sources and citations----plea for educating users.
I am a frequent contributor to the Family Tree. I often see edits that give their "source" for the their added info as "Ancestry" or Gedcom or something else that is NOT a source. FS does have a tutorial and info on how to and what constitutes a source....why not put that link in every space where info can be added.
This "educational" tool would not only add to the accuracy of the tree, but informs as well.
That is a great suggestion! However, I think that it will be lost embedded 'way down here in this "Heads Up For People Doing Relationship Editing" Idea discussion since it is not really related to it.
If you create a new Idea with the title that you gave (e.g., Sources and Citations -- Plea for Educating Users) and then copy your text from here to that new Idea post, it will be far more visible to the engineers and other participants in the Ideas area. That way it will hopefully get more consideration.0