Adding a baby icon for those who died as infants or young children.
LegacyUser
✭✭✭✭
Tessa Schmidt said: Ive recently been adding infant deaths to my database. My thought of the day is wondering if you had a generic baby icon or photo that could be attached to child who either died in infancy or as a young child. It could be an icon chosen as you were selecting the male or female option. Just add an extra male infant or female infant icon or something simple like that.
I am also having issues with being able to change to sex of a person who was entered incorrectly. I always have to go a round about way of adding new children and then combining the record with one of siblings. It would be less time consuming to have an easier option.
I am also having issues with being able to change to sex of a person who was entered incorrectly. I always have to go a round about way of adding new children and then combining the record with one of siblings. It would be less time consuming to have an easier option.
Tagged:
0
Comments
-
joe martel said: Today the system has the default portrait icons.
Are you suggesting two more "baby" portraits? If so, I'm curious as to what is the threshold to allow these portraits? Is it dependent on their age at death? What happens if later the date is adjusted to flip to the other side?
As for changing sex, you can on certain Persons. But today the system doesn't handle flipping it if it will cause a relationship that results in say two mothers. Also, if there was Temple work done, it probably won't allow the change.0 -
Tessa Schmidt said: I have an open mind. My suggestion leads towards infant or still born deaths. I considered adding a generic baby portrait of them myself in the photo area but thought maybe other options might come in handy.
Ive seen people who've added a spouse and children to babies who died in infancy. Maybe an icon of a baby might stop people who are too quick in adding family history that does not belong. It takes a lot of time to correct errors like that.
For now Ive been adding text that literally says "died in infancy and never married" under custom facts. Maybe a checkbox or an option to remove the add spouse or add children options to those who died in infancy. Like a "Hide Spouse and Children" option for just the one person. Something that can be checked and unchecked by the users of course.
On another note since you mentioned it. There are families out there with two mothers or two fathers. Ancestory, other sites, and home personal software have already made these changes possible. If we are going to record history we need to have the option available even if its not socially acceptable by some. I have some family members I cant enter in because the option is not availble leaving several wholes or errors in my tree that will cause conflict in the coming days. I cant create more than one tree and I wouldnt want to either. I dont judge my family, I just want to be able to record it as it is. I cant pretend they dont exist.
Thanks for getting back to me !
Happy Thanksgiving or Happy Holidays .. which ever you prefer,
Tessa0 -
joe martel said: There have been many requests to have icons and such to indicate certain attributes on a Person, Its a balance of what attributes matter more and "clutter" versus simplicity. It sounds your main intent is to prevent further research for spouses, children... There is a future feature that will allow you to indicate a Person "Never Married" or these two Persons are "Not Married Together" Would that satisfy your intent?
As for the other topic, that has been requested but is not possible under the current nFS syncing to FamilyTree. For now you could create relationships between the Person using two families with single parent.0 -
Tom Huber said: I've seen the same thing -- people not paying attention while merging records or not taken a close look at the individual when they add a spouse (with a marriage date that is outside the life line of the child who died young).
Right now, if everything is working correctly, Family Tree will raise flags when a person attempts to do this. At the least, there will be a orange or red Data Problem flag with respect to the problem and/or blue flags asking about the conflict.0 -
Tessa Schmidt said: In either case having more options is a good thing. It may be a challenge but todays tech is capable of amazing things. Dont be afraid of change. It doesnt hurt to play around. I am certain either change is easier than you think. Its all about choices and I like a little clutter in my life. It kinda just happens when doing family research in general. More details about the families could be given by the users if the extras were available.0
-
Christophe Lambinet said: I would say automatic baby icon (male or female) if died before x years (to be determined by FS). FYI, myheritage does that and I find it very useful.0
-
joe martel said: This sounds like it requires a birth and a death date. What would the x years threshold be?
What happens if birth or death are edited would the icon automatically be changed?
If there is a portrait (say a headstone) would that replace the icon, or is the baby icon something independent?
Also, this sounds like something different than the OtherInfo type - Stillborn?0 -
Tessa Schmidt said: I like how chrisophe explained it. Automatic dates based on years given.
Examples - Options - Other Ideas to throw around .....
Died before age 4 including stillborn - Automatic baby icon
Died before age 14 - Automatic removal or hidden spouse/child feature unless you could prove marriage. Give the user and easy option to turn on and off the option.
They could use a young childs silhoutte icon instead of the adult version. But thats pushing it.
All ages can be determined by family search .. i agree ... Ild say try out the baby icon change for awhile and see if it works out. If it doesnt than change it back.
Definately yes to automatic icon change if birth and death records are revised. Give the user the ability to make the change.
I see your thoughts about headstones and other portraits that do replace those icons after people uploads family photos. I wouldnt change that feature.0 -
Tom Huber said: In the United States, two states allow female children to be married at age 12 (Massachusetts) and 13 (New Hampshire). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_...
Most are 14 or above. In other countries, Equatorial Guinea allows males at age 12. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriag...
The legally prescribed marriageable age in some jurisdictions is below 18 years, especially in the case of girls; and even when the age is set at 18 years, many jurisdictions permit earlier marriage with parental consent or in special circumstances, such as teenage pregnancy. In certain countries, even when the legal marriage age is 18, cultural traditions take priority over legislative law. Child marriage affects both boys and girls, though the overwhelming majority of those affected are girls, most of whom are in poor socioeconomic situations. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_m... (also contains the list of recorded child marriages).
While child marriage is possible at any age, even for very young children, it was more common in the past. Some of the child marriages recorded include:
= Aisha, betrothed to Muhammad at the age of 9 in 623 CE.
= Margaret Beaufort, (age approximately 7) was married to John de la Pole (age 7) in 1450 by the arrangement John's father. The marriage was annulled in 1453.
= Joan of France, Duchess of Berry, betrothed in a wedding contract at age 8 days old, she was officially married at age 12 in 1476.
= Anne de Mowbray, 8th Countess of Norfolk (age 6) was married to Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of York (age 4) in 1477. She died at age 10 and he, as one of the Princes in the Tower is believed to have been murdered at age 10.
= Rukhmabai was married in India to her husband when she was 11 and he was 19. After a lengthy court battle, the marriage was dissolved by an order from Queen Victoria and the publicity helped influence the passage of the Age of Consent Act, 1891 which outlawed child marriages across the British Empire.
= Nujood Ali, an arranged marriage by her father to a 30-year-old man at age 10 in 2008. Coverage of her self-presented application for divorce later that year led to the legal age of marriage in Yemen to be raised to 18.
My recommendation, and only if the male/female default icon is to change, is to use an infant icon only for those children who died before reaching the age of 8. I would also lock the account against any temple work being done unless recorded substantiated evidence showed that the child reached the age of 8.
However, I have no problem leaving the default icons in place as they are now established.0 -
Tessa Schmidt said: Its crazy how young they were when they got married.
All good points to consider ! Thanks for all the great feedback.0 -
Brad Schoening said: This is an older topic, but still relevant. Please consider adding a child icon for those who died in childhood (12 or under) to existing male and female icons. This would make it visually quick to understand why there are no descendants.
It would require known birth and death dates. To reduce visual clutter, a single child icon can be used for male and female. Adult gender is more important when looking at paternal or material lines.0 -
Tom Huber said: Rather than have a third icon (which would require some work to implement automatically displaying the icon, but could be done), I'm going to suggest that someone creates an image that can be put into the portrait for infants.0
-
Tom Huber said: That said, one of the problems of using any image in a portrait is that the image automatically contains a link to the person to which it is applied.
So, yes, this is something that would need to be done by FamilySearch. However, I doubt that most people would use it as an option, so it would have to automatically appear.
What to do about historical people who were part of an arranged marriage is still a problem. They were, by law, married, even if still pre-adolescents.0 -
Brad Schoening said: Tom, thanks for your reply and thoughts. If the focus is on children who died as pre-adolescents, it's a pretty small percentage who would have both been married and died with surviving offspring at age 11 or 12. Not impossible, but a small number.
A child icon would be a hint the individual likely did not have offspring, not a formal confirmation. The opposite happens today, where those who died as children have no indication. they look like they are in need of research to discover spouses and possible children, until you realize their age at death.0 -
Tom Huber said: In most displays, both birth and death dates appear on the same line (summary cards and banner on the profile page).
While an icon can catch one's eye, researchers should look at the record to see if further research is needed. If there is no death date but the word deceased exists, then the death date record needs to be edited to indicate a death year, even if it is "before" or "about" and the year. About can be standardized to "about (year)" and that appears on the summary card in the banner.0 -
Tom Huber said: Another thought just occurred to me. If there is no death year provided, there can be no automated response with regard to the portrait icon. They would have to be edited to include a death year.0
This discussion has been closed.