Event preference on Couple Relationship page
Would it be possible to add a preference checkbox to the events on the couple relationship page, similar to setting a preferred spouse on the person details page? I have seen several instances where another researcher has added a marriage date that conflicts with what I found. However, that entry, which I believe is incorrect, is the one that shows up on the details page as the marriage date. Rather than delete the other person's entry, I would prefer to be able to select the entry to be displayed. See person #9SXF-B45 for example.
Miglior Risposta
-
As I have commented elsewhere today, please post such queries at https://community.familysearch.org/en/categories/family-tree in future, as they are likely to take a long while being noticed in this now little-used "group".
Regarding your actual comments, yes - the Couple Relationship section has been sadly neglected by the developers and needs enhancements, such as you suggest. The main problem I find is that in adding a source, you are able to move across the event details to the ID(s) concerned. It is very common in FamilySearch that a marriage licence or banns record has been indexed as if it were the marriage event itself. As any licence / banns record would carry an earlier date, this means it goes to the top of the events list, meaning it becomes the event displayed on the Details (Person) page.
It is a shame to have to delete details from the Couple Relationship section. Sometimes two perfectly "valid" events are recorded - say details of a civil and a religious ceremony - yet one of them "has to go" if you want the other as the "display" item. (Another example is when a couple married, divorced, then remarried - if you wanted the later event to be highlighted, you would unjustifiably have to delete details of the earlier one.)
Hopefully, the developers will hear our calls one day and enhance the program to allow, say, a choice of event from a drop-down menu listing the alternative events. I have found few obvious flaws in the Family Tree program, but this is certainly one of them.
0
