Challenge of the week: help improve orphaned profiles [closed]

Question

Hi WikiTreers,

Will you join our "Data Doctors" Challenge of the week?

Once again, Aleš has come up with something to help us work together on a category of profiles that need our help. This time it's "orphans," i.e. profiles without Profile Managers.

Here is the list of orphaned profiles that could use some TLC.

Will you join us?

Every time you record a status update it will earn you a point. The member with the most points at 11:59pm EDT on Sunday night will get the Winner badge this week and the bragging rights. But we'll all benefit from a neater, cleaner shared tree.

If you're participating, please post here to let us know. It's nice to cheer each other on. Or post if you have any questions about how to participate.

Thanks for helping!

Real-time tracking results: See your stats 
alongside other participants here.

UPDATE:

Top 10

• NJ J. Penny - 1,001
• Paula J. Cullen - 743
• Jim J. Angelo Jr - 672
• Karen D. Harbert - 472
• Darren J. Kellett - 470
• Natalie J. Trott - 382
• Deb L. Durham - 340
• Susie E. MacLeod - 340
• Joan E. Whitaker - 303
• Dorothy M. Barry - 298

For more results see:

• By Participant
• By Error Type
• By Participant and Error Type
• By Error Type and Day
• By Participant and Day
• By Hour

Comments

Challenge is opened.

---

The very first profile I opened from the suggestion list isn't properly orphaned. It has an unlisted profile manager. Johnson-53222

---

I've run across a few with managers.  I just fix them like all of the others

---

That particular one is private (red-locked).

---

I'll join in.

Answer 1

I'll certainly adopt any that I think I can resource. I've been doing this all along...

Comments

OK, I think I misunderstood this one. I'll be pulling out, as I've  just adopted about 40 orphans that are "related" to me - I figure those are the ones I have the best chance to improve.

Cheers!

---

I'm talking to myself... and wound up getting sucked into the vortex. I worked on some orphans, adopted others, and found some new (to me!) online sources!

Answer 2

I will be working on 721s for 1800-1899

Comments

Go Roses !

Answer 3

This is a great opportunity to fix a few last names at birth.I'll have a look at the 770s.

Comments

C'est vrai!  I have already correct several LNABs.  It is a very nice feeling :-)

---

Go Roses!

Answer 4

I'll do a few this week.

Answer 5

I'm in. I'll be working on 802s.

Comments

I'll do some 803s, then. :)

Answer 6

Working on 408 Multiple marriages on same day in the 1800s. A lot of these are going to end up as proposed merges.

Answer 7

Working on 862's in the 1500-1699's group.Those are done, I also fixed the 861's for the same time period.

Moved on to Multiple Profiles with the same FAG link.

Answer 8

I'll work on 571 - Virginia.  Is is ok to replace the ancestry citation for findagrave the direct citation from FAG?  Especially on orphaned profiles?

Comments

Definitely yes!  The Ancestry citation does not give a memorial number or a URL.

---

I've finished 1900's - Virginia - 571's; I'm making a change to 1800's - all locations- 103's. Those 571's about burned me out!

Answer 9

I'll try to work on some when we get power back from Irma. Missing my genealogy but hard to work on with only phone access

Answer 10

I'll look through the 104's or Too Olds for a bit. Maybe I can find a couple centenarians and supercenterians.

Comments

Nice idea Amanda :-)

Answer 11

I'll have a go as time permits. :)

Answer 12

I'll do the 603s, and will just work through all the states starting with Alabama, regardless if they are orphaned or not.

Comments

Go Susie!

Answer 13

Deal me in.  Orphans need love, too.

Answer 14

I'll do a few

Answer 15

I'll do what I can to help out - starting with suspect names.

Answer 16

I'm working on wrong character errors.

Answer 17

I'm in. I'll be working on Location Errors.

Answer 18

I am in try to love the orphans.

Answer 19

Worked on several lowercase locations needing captalization this weekend.