Is there an error in the error data base? [closed]

Question

In the last few weeks I've been suspecting some technical issues within WikiTree; I just couldn't put my finger on it though. 

Today (I wonder if this is not a symptom of something bigger) I was adding a source to a profile (the bio of which I will integrate at a later moment today), when the following Error alert showed up: 

Error data base alert: Warning: Check the data.

• A child's birth date (Du Plessis-5427 born 17 Feb 1750) should not be before a parent is six years old (Du Plessis-1777 born 31 Oct 1771) .

The wording is off - the child was not born in 1750 but the parent was ....! 

This is a request not to correct the error itself at this moment in time, but to take a look at the wording - the algorithm is not well .... When I have time later today, I'll check the errors further on the profiles involved (the errors on the so-called parent profile are more extensive).

Answer 1

The error looks right to me. The child was born in 1750 and his father was born in 1771, which would be 21 years after the child, causing the error.

Comments

On Du_Plessis-1777, you have 'before' Oct 1771. Parent of that profile was born 'before' 1720.

The only child of Du_Plessis-1777 that does not look correct is the 1st one Du_Plessis-5427, born 1750. The other children were born 1794-1818.

---

As I understand it the data (supported) by the source attached is correct. The wording is incorrect. The 'child' should apply to the child and not to the 'parent'.

---

Philip, are you sure you haven't got it back to front? Johannes Du_Plessis-5427 is the son of Carel Du_Plessis-1777, and that is exactly what the error message says.

As Linda pointed out, Du_Plessis-1777 is entered as born before 1771. If he was born well over 30 years before 1771, he could be the father (and the error checking wouldn't get it right because it doesn't take "before" into account, if I understand correctly). But if that's the case there should be a better "before" estimate available.

---

I understand now, Mistakes have been made - somewhere there is a 'loop' - sorting it at this moment ...

---

The 1750 birthdate may be on the wrong record, also, since there are no sources. He would have been 45 when child was born, so maybe birthdate is incorrect and wrong father is attached.

---

The issue has been sorted, thanks Linda (the child was attached to the incorrect parents).