Nonsense Ancestry sources and No access

Question

I just adopted this profile, because I thought he deserved better.  I have maintained all the original Ged-dump material, and I would like someone with Ancestry access to tell me if anything below the line is of any value. It was orphaned, so using changes tab I had tried to contact the maker, but they closed acct.  Very frustrating, I see so many like this...a mass of text, but telling me very little.  Please, what should I keep?  The top is my work from the last few hours, and will add lots more good stuff.  See the info below the warning: Proceed at your own risk. Thanks, Cliff

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Runk-14

Comments

Thanks to all, I think each one had a little bit I can use to pare it down to a more manageable level.  Getting rid of dupes is a fershur, but as far as converting old Ancestry links to new......I think I'll leave that one alone.

Answer 1

Hi, Cliff.

The first two links, listed under burial information, repeat below, under "Notes" - the first is to a photo of the Runk Family Plot name stone (it just says "Runk") and a list of those buried there.  The second is to a photo of John Runk Jr.'s headstone - not as good a photo as appears on the free site, Find A Grave:  https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/45845735/john-runk

Derik Herron was the source for the Ancestry material as well as for the FindAGrave memorial and the original WT entry.  You can contact him through the link on FindAGrave, since he isn't active on WT.  He might give you permission to use his photos and the biography (a PDF file on Ancestry) he wrote.

You've managed to locate most of the sources elsewhere.  The problem with leaving the Ancestry links (even though they're all active) is that they go to a Family Tree, not directly to the source in the Ancestry database.  So, if the tree goes away (if the membership lapses, for example, or if an inheritor makes it private), the links will become useless.   My suggestion, therefore, is that you go with the FamilySearch documents you found and, where the profile has a tree link to Ancestry, eliminate the link and add a note to the source reference, such as: "Also available online at Ancestry.com - subscription required."

Additional note:  All the source and repository codings should be eliminated once the references have been manually matched to the sources, since they have no function on WT.

Answer 2

Not a single link from 11 through 31 leads to anything but an error page. Your other links in the "Note" section are valid and they lead to images associated with the individual.

Comments

P.S. The images do not have shareable links.

Answer 3

Hi Cliff .... I would keep most of the links as they all do work.  Might eliminate the duplicates....

Link 1 : Picture of headstone says "RUNK "  below name "erected by John Runk, Jr. October 19,1945.   I am assuming it's for John Runk, Sr.

Link 2:  John Runk Jr. headstone picture : says name and  "photographer 5-10-1878 -  10-19-1964"

Link 3:   Family photo of Balfanz family although the notes of people in the photo the name of John Runk, Jr. appears to not be in the photo

Link 4:  A word document of John Runk, Jr. biography

Link 5:  Same pic as link 1

Link 6:  Same pic as link 2

Link 7:  Picture of John Runk, Jr. smoking a pipe

Hope this help with your decisions, I also adopt quite a few profiles so thank you for that.   Trish (adopted born Loretta Morrison)

Comments

I am meaning the Ancestry links in the "Proceed at your own risk" section for the 1-7 which I listed above :)

Answer 4

If you really want to go to the trouble, you can convert the old Ancestry tree links to the current format. For example, in reference 11 under the heading "Original Sources of Limited Value", the link

http://trees.ancestry.com/rd?f=sse&db=mndeaths&h=2280809&ti=0&indiv=try&gss=pt

would become

https://www.ancestry.com.au/family-tree/tree/2280809

The latter link does work, although it seems to lead to a private tree. Perhaps some of the other trees will be public and worth looking at.

Of course Ancestry trees are not sources in themselves. Nonetheless they may lead to useful sources.  

Answer 5

Hi Cliff, I have an ancestry.com membership, and sources 17-37 are useless and take you nowhere on ancestry. I suggest deleting those sources that are dead ends off the Profile. Good luck my friend. As far as any US Federal Census on ancestry.com, they are not copywritten so you can show them in his images. There are other ways to see documents even if you do not have a membership.