Reviving this... I realize I was distracted by the fact that we came up with a great replacement for "Historically Significant Ancestor" so I didn't see that the original issue I raised was not fully addressed. Namely:
We still need a way to lock a lowest-numbered profile, whether or not it's connected to a project. See this discussion where-- at least initially-- Liz felt she could not lock a profile because it wasn't (then) part of a project.
That just seems plain wrong to me that we can't protect a lowest-numbered profile from being merged away-- in Liz's example it's because of spelling variations. I'm going to run into this as I flesh out my husband's deVeaux ancestors who have gone by such spelling variations as deVeaux, deVeau, de Veaux, De Veaux, Deveaux, Deveau, Devoe, and more! They are not currently part of any Project.
What's a girl (or boy) to do?