The 5 James other words, a giant mess.

+3 votes

Here's a fun project for our valiant arborists.  I was researching a possible ancestor, based on a DNA connection and much to my surprise, I found no less than FIVE different profiles for him. 

His name is James Archer and he appears to have been born about 1747.  Birthplace is uncertain.

James Archer #!

James Archer #2

James Archer #3

James Archer #4

James Archer #5

That's got to be some kind of record, not to mention a giant mess.

James appears to have been married twice and most of the profiles have only one of the two wives.

I started the clean up by proposing a merge between #3 and #4, and their wives.  But if anyone else wants to help out this particular mess.  Please do. Some source research appears to be needed.




in The Tree House by Craig Albrechtson G2G6 Mach 8 (87.9k points)

4 Answers

+5 votes
assuming they are all the same (I haven't looked)... don't do intermediate merges (#3 and #4)... instead, merge them all into #1
by Dennis Wheeler G2G6 Pilot (539k points)
I thought I could only merge two of them at a time.  So I picked the two that looked pretty simple and started there.
Its true that the actual process can only be two at a time, but ultimately, they all need to go into the lowest numbered profile. The problem is that intermediate merges creates multiple redirects which in turn causes more strain on the server.

#3 -> #4 -> #1 ( 3 will always have to "travel" through 4 to get to 1 )


#3 -> #1 ( single direct route)
#4 -> #1

In the long run, it really doesn't matter, but its a best practice to reduce the load on the server.
I didn't realize that.  If no one else proposes any merges for them, I'll do my best to go in proper order.

But you have to admit, 5 profiles for the same person is a lot.
+3 votes
I agree with Dennis. WikiTree's preferred method of merging is to merge into the earliest created profile (assuming it was correctly created). In the case of multiple matches, each should be separately merged into the earliest profile. This eliminates the confusion of needing to follow multiple merges to get to the final one. I would personally reject your proposed match and re-propose them into Archer-1821.
by Jim Parish G2G6 Pilot (159k points)
+1 vote
Nice find I would say - they are clearly all the same person, so once you have formally made them one, the collected information will be quite substantial!

Good luck with your task

by Steve Archer G2G Rookie (230 points)
+2 votes

It is not that difficult. I have made a few changes and several proposals to merge appropriately.

Patrick (1710) may have had a father also called Patrick. I have assumed not, on the basis of “His Father's name was Patrick Archer but we at the time this book was written have nothing authentic except James Archer 1st claimed his father name was Patrick Archer. In the book: The Tenmile Country And Its Pioneer Families A Genealogical History Of The Upper Monogahela Valley”.

Patrick had a son James (c.1746). 

Now all we need is a few acceptances of the proposals, failing which wait 39 days.

by William Arbuthnot of Kittybrewster G2G6 Pilot (173k points)
Thank you for the help.   The man is a possible ancestor and I wanted to fill out his part of the tree a bit to see if I can get lucky and connect with mine.

Even if the person turns out not to be an ancestor, I've helped someone else out.
Always helpful to sort out issues like this. This James Archer is a key figure. I may possibly be a distant relative too, still having the name and all :)

Related questions

0 votes
0 answers
+5 votes
1 answer
+5 votes
6 answers
123 views asked Apr 28, 2016 in Genealogy Help by Jesse Archer G2G Rookie (280 points)
+2 votes
1 answer
+3 votes
1 answer
57 views asked Jun 22, 2021 in Genealogy Help by Christopher Archer G2G Rookie (250 points)
+3 votes
2 answers
53 views asked Dec 12, 2020 in Genealogy Help by anonymous G2G1 (1.4k points)

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright