Should parents of Thomas Gardner be removed? [closed]

Question

According to Anderson's Great Migration Thomas Gardner's origins are unknown. Parents have just been added to his profile. I believe they should be removed and PPP added to prevent future problems. Thanks!

Answer 1

The parents were unknown when I worked on Demaris Gardner research a year ago. These parents have been added at the same time Demaris sprouted a new first husband and all of these additions are based on family search pedigrees which don't even appear to be linked. For some reason these additions attachments being made to PPP profiles when this should not be possible.

Comments

There's a bug that was introduced with the recent coding change. Namely if you add a parent to an unprotected child, it automatically adds that parents as a spouse to the child's other (PPP) parent. The bug has been reported and I regularly nudge Jamie about its status. 

You can recognize this bug in action if the change log looks like this (emphasis added):

11:00: Dennis Hutchins added Samuel Shattuck (1595-abt.1698) as spouse for Damaris (Unknown) Gardner (1597-1674). (Connected spouses while adding father) [Thank Dennis for this | 1 thank-you received]

---

Did anyone look at Family Search? They have sources for those parents although I could not view them or copy them. Apparently they are Ancestry clues and it just takes you to the subscription page.

---

Adding the spouse connection can happen because someone puts one parent Wikitree ID at the top and selects Go 'without' scrolling to the bottom of the page and 'unclicking' the other parent, who was not previously connected as a spouse.

The 'parent' being protected is a new issue, but we really need to have 'other spouse' being checked by default, moved up to the area where the 'Go' is, also.  That was reported earlier as something that should be done.

Answer 2

I agree.  Actually, I already detached them before I came across this G2G post . . .  (and I added PPP).

Comments

He still has a veryspecific birth date and place; should that be genericized to about [year] in England?

---

Anyone know if the bug that allowed this to occur has been repaired?

---

I removed the 'exact' DOB (put it in research notes) and replaced it with estimate based on his 1661 deposition.