Parents [10 February 2016]
This person is attached to two sets of parents, the fathers Thomas and Henry are probably brothers. Henry has another child born the same year as this person which implies that Thomas is the son of Thomas. Removing Henry as father would remove the proposed merge for the two sets of parents. - Rhian 09:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't have anything like a strenuous objection... I'm just a little bothered by letting swaths of pre-1500s ancestry persist without any source support. A lot of this is still left around from early large-scale GEDCOM dumps to WeRelate by folks who didn't stick around. Over the years, I tried to improve things by large scale de-duplication and addition of simple sources like WP, Cawley and Lundy. I was hopeful that some interest would be developed here and there - and a bit has. But when I find things back this far that I can't immediately support - and that still haven't generated interest enough for someone else to do anything - I start to think we would be better off cutting it away. If someone has a useful source in hand - it's not as if re-adding the material wouldn't be easy when that time came. ??? --jrm03063 13:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- I removed both sets of parents as I can find no source yet for any parents, as you say adding them back will be no problem once there is some evidence. I also removed a wife who has no sources and I could find no evidence of a second wife. For reference the parents were Family: Thomas De Green and Margery Mablethorpe (1) or Family:Henry De Greene and Matilda De Mauduit (3)- Rhian 09:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Good - Sounds like we're on the same "page". Only thing - we don't want to just detach these pages, but add the marked for delete template too. I'll try to get started... --jrm03063 16:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- I was not sure about adding the delete template as one of the sets of parents 'might' be correct, there are still some procedures I am learning. In principle I am in favour of removing anything speculative and unsourced unless it is actively being worked on.Rhian 09:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, that large parts of what you find out here probably are - if we had the right sources in front of us - correct. There were a few known fabrications that we got rid of in the early days - but that still leaves a whole lot that's pretty vapid. So I tried to reach a kind of 'practical balance'. If no one seems to be working an area - it's utterly or nearly void of source - and it seems like it would be harder to find sources than to recreate it WHEN a source appears - well, then I think seriously about cutting it away. The question isn't that the ancestry might, indeed, be true. It's whether what's there is a useful starting point.
- On the point of speculation - I think that's a bit different. Knowing specific areas where researchers are speculating can be helpful to someone who wants to pick up from that point. Toward that end, I created some templates. Those are part of a larger "suggestion" proposing standard ways to assert facts that don't fit nicely in GEDCOM or on Person/Family pages. It's never been voted a community standard - but neither has anyone really objected or offered an alternative.
- Thanks for your interest and work out here! --jrm03063 16:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
|
