I often end up in something like the situation:
I'm working on a profile for John Smith. There was a William Smith who had a son John. There was a John Smith who married Sarah. And there was a daughter Mary born to a John and Sarah Smith.
Each of these links from his profile -- to a parent, to a spouse, and to a child -- are genealogically sourced. The problem is, there's not enough information in the sources to know that the John son of William is the same as the one who married Sarah, nor that that John/Sarah were the parents of Mary. Dates/Places/Names fit, but there still need to be uncertain flags, especially with such common names.
I find the need to adopt a perspective when writing the bio: THIS profile's John is Mary's father. If I make such a decision, then I'd mark the marriage to Sarah and relationship to father William uncertain, but leave the relationship as father of Mary certain.
But it would seem equally valid to say, no, THIS John Smith is the one who is the son of William. Then mark the marriage to Sarah and relationship to Mary as uncertain.
Or maybe the precedence is given to the marriage.
Every time this happens, it adds work to my thinking trying to decide which perspective to adopt, and I don't like added work. But sometimes, one perspective ends up being more natural than another, for various reasons.
Is there a Wikitree policy saying to prioritize one "facet of an identity" over others when writing a bio? If not, does anyone explicitly write in the bio, "This profile is for the John Smith who was the father of Abigail". That would seem to disrupt the narrative to me -- I'd rather find some other place to put such language.
Basically, my question comes down to, does anyone else obsess about this little issue? Does anyone have clever ways to deal with it?