Is it worth creating profiles if I'm not 100% sure?

Question

Hi all, and sorry if this is a silly question.

I've been searching through my own ancestry and have found that when you get back to 1841 the England & Wales census data becomes pretty unreliable right before it becomes non existent, and matching parish records together becomes educated guesswork.

I have found a bunch of potential relatives that I am fairly confident, but not 100% certain on; is it worth creating these profiles and linking them to my tree anyway? I'm not linked to the big tree but I'm concious that an error could send my branch of the tree way off course.

Answer 1

If you are close to 100% certain using parish records and census records then go ahead. I'm in the same boat with Irish records.

Comments

Thank you for the comment. There's enough information that matches to make me fairly certain, it's just a little odd because the family seems to have moved around a lot between 1800 and 1841, but that probably wasn't uncommon during the industrial revolution anyway.

---

And don't forget the "uncertain" option you can select...

Answer 2

I always find it hard to match an ancestor with accuracy when parents are not recorded on a birth or death certificate. When in doubt, record the process by which you think they match in a Notes section. I also add reference material on a profile, for example parents and their details if still uncertain whether there is a connection. Even details of immigration via a vessel with no other family detail but some certainty it is correct. That way, someone may be able to take it and find certainty in the connection. Hope this helps. PS: there is no such thing as a silly question

Comments

Thank you for the tips!

Answer 3

If you're pretty sure, you should add them in my opinion.

Whether or not you are currently "connected" to the main tree, Wikitree is collaborative, and thus a perpetual work-in-progress. Use the best info sources you have *now*; if there are complicated conclusions, you can explain them in Research Notes. If appropriate, you can mark relationships as "uncertain", too.

But by getting a profile started, it may help someone else someday add some new sources, and either solidify your info or adjust it.

Comments

Thank you, this makes a lot of sense. I definitely need to work on my research notes for some of these people!

Answer 4

I am in a similar boat.... There are a LOT of people with the same first and last names in the same general area of Warwickshire in the 1800s. The most common male names I've run across are George, John, Thomas, and Henry; common female names are Mary, Ann, Elizabeth, and Sarah.

I finally started a free space profile so I would have a place to stash information on people I wasn't sure enough to create profiles on. Every time I run across another one, I copy and paste whatever I've found, with sources of course, and park it in that profile, in best-guess birth year order. To date, that profile contains a whopping 14 Georges, all in Warwickshire, all born between 1808 and 1848. One of these days when the head-shaped dents in my walls don't look like they're big enough already, I'll go back to that list and see what I can do with it.

Comments

Yeah, I'm in Worcestershire and occasionally straying into the surrounding counties and having the same issue with everybody having the same few names! Thank you for the tips.

Answer 5

You should add them, but also include Research Notes. You can explain why you feel the relationship is correct, why you didn't include somebody else, and reference materials used to make the decision. If someone disagrees with your interpretation, you can both discuss it and (hopefully) come to an agreement on how to proceed.

Comments

Thank you, I will start writing profiles soon so I'll be sure to include research notes with that kind of information where appropriate.

Answer 6

I think you should.  Somewhere, someday, someone will find a bit of information that will help dramatically.  This has happened to me a couple of times.  Sent me in a direction I never thought of.

Answer 7

IMO it depends on the total strength of the combined circumstantial evidence.

If the relationship is likely but not documented (e.g. someone's father is John Bartley and I have records of a John Bartley matching several key points, but no documented direct relation) then I have created two separate John Smith profiles, and noted the likely match in the Research Notes for each. The separate profiles can always be merged later if better documented data is found.

Answer 8

So long as you are confident the person existed, it's OK to create the profile even if the person turns out not to be related to you. The real question is whether it is OK to connect the person as a parent/child/spouse of someone who you aren't 100% sure they are the parent/child/spouse of. If there is evidence (direct or circumstantial) that makes you believe that it is reasonably likely that the person is the parent/child/spouse, go ahead and connect them. If you think there is a significant possibility that they weren't the parent/child/spouse, indicate that the relationship is uncertain (if that is an option). You (or someone else) can always disconnect them if you/they find evidence that indicates that they probably weren't the parent/child/spouse. And be sure to discuss in the profile why you think they are related and what your level of confidence is - eg. "Based on X, Y and Z, it is reasonably likely, but uncertain, that Joe Smoe was the son of Joseph Smoe."