Is there a way to simplify duplicate source material generated by a gedcom?

Question

Gedcoms sometimes create multiple copies of material for a profile.  These extra lines should be removed from the profile this makes it easier to read and saves space.

This is an example:

Before

=== Name ===

: Name:  Francis /Wright/

:: Source: [[#S48]]

::: Page:  Database online.

::: Data:  

:::: Text:  Record for Francis Wright

:: Source: [[#S48]]

::: Page:  Database online.

 

After

=== Name ===

:  Francis /Wright/<ref>Source: [[#S48]] Text:  Record for Francis Wright</ref>

 

A complete example and changes to the source at shown at Simple Sources

 

 

Comments

Or:

=== Name ===

: Francis Wright<ref>[[#S48|Record for Francis Wright]]</ref>

 

Or:

=== Name ===

: Francis Wright<ref>[[#S48|Ancestry Family Tree]]: Record for Francis Wright</ref>

 

...although, this is an example where I might leave the source and remove the footnote. Do we need footnotes on the person's name? 

---

According to the experts, every fact should be cited.  A name is a fact.

---

I just meant that all sources listed should cite the name, therefore adding a footnote to the name is redundant. If the name is controversial or has alternate spellings, footnotes on names are very useful.

 

I checked a few names at Wikipedia and Werelate and they don't footnote names.

---

Wikipedia is not a genealogy site, so wouldn't typically cite a source for the name. Werelate may not have the functionality to cite the name. Or because so many people don't cite the name. Just because it's not done doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. ;-)

While, yes, you could use a cited birth or marriage date to support evidence for the name and relationship (to parents, children, spouse), sometimes a vital record does not exist or hasn't been found.

For example, a person's will may identify her children by name, but no birth dates are included. Therefore, you'd cite the will as proof that John Smith was the son of Mary Jones Smith. And the place to do that would be the name of John Smith.

And technically (I think I'm channeling Elizabeth Shown Mills here), when you cite a birth date, you're providing evidence for the DATE (and perhaps place) NOT for the name. Mills would argue that you need to cite both the NAME and the DATE, separately.

And in the example you provide above, it looks like whoever uploaded the GEDCOM *did* provide a source for the name. A crappy one, but a source nonetheless. In the absence of a better source, it should be retained.

---

Jillaine, I found a flag on a comment above.  I tried to remove it, but I may have made it worse. Vic

Answer 1

Yep, that is a great way to deal with this problem.  What do you do if the references are to differenceAncestry Family Tree records, i.e. Francis Wright and Nathan Wright?

But the next question is, what should we do with Ancestry Family Trees when there are other sources for the same info?  I delete the Ancestry info (unless it is a reference to a book or record).  I have found so much bad Ancestry Family Tree info that I am almost ready to delete all of it, but, if it is the only source, I guess it is best to leave it.

Comments

Vic,

I also would like some direction of how to handle ancestry.com links when no family or other source is shown.  Hopefully there is a project that will address that for us.  As it was entered, unless I can replace it with a solid source I feel that I have to leave it.  - If there is a good source - either that I have added or came with a merge, then I usually delete them.

At least the example here works for all cases, not just ancestry files, where there are duplicate references.

---

I delete the family tree source if there are real sources, if there are no other satisfactory sources I add a citation needed tag to the fact and add a note to the ancestry tree that it is being left in place until a better source is found.

---

The Style Committee is about to release its recommendations which includes this issue.

Basically, in absence of any other source, retain the link to the tree if it still works. (I come across a lot of broken links-- i.e., the tree isn't there any more.)

I like Rhian's suggestion to add a {{citation needed}} as well.

 

---

Even Ancestry itself isn't counting family trees as "evidence" or citations of anything. And, they have edited things to "unsourced citations" for trees that are no longer posted. I pretty much delete those references if I have anything else. The past couple of days I've run across a couple of profiles where all I HAD was the Ancestry family tree, so I simply made a note in the biography that I was unable to find sources and was continuing research. I mean, some people just seem to be historically invisible.