Is it okay to delete the source "Repository Ancestry.com"

+6 votes
129 views
Mary Bass (Adams-48) was created with the merging of three .ged imports.

Repository; #R1

* Repository R1 : Name : www.ancestry.com.

is not a viable source.

There are entries: Source: #S3 Record for Samuel Webb that I don't understand the purpose.

Any suggestions. I do not want to delete information that is helpful, but to me it is just clogging up the profile.
WikiTree profile: Mary Bass
in The Tree House by Nancy Taylor G2G3 (3.2k points)
My suggestion would be to find some really good sources for Mary and eliminate all that coding that leads to nowhere. I may be speaking too fast here, so hang on just in case someone else has a more thorough answer.
If a source doesn't give you clear direction to the information suggested or provided, I would say not to use it. For example, that R1 source in the profile is pretty much useless. There's so much information on Ancestry, that's like someone saying "well I know where it is but you go look it up I'm sure you'll find it" and then you'll never know if it's actually there or not because it could be deleted or... whatever. The clearest direction possible would be best (it's this source on Ancestry, here's the link for it, here's an alternate link for it) would be best.

I'd personally make a new sources section that looks neat and tidy and delete the stuff below as I gathered more sources that are clear and clean.

2 Answers

+8 votes
 
Best answer

We often preserve those cryptic citations to unidentifiable sources until we have found identifiable good-quality sources to support the information that is attributed to the source(s). (Better to show that the information came from an unfindable file named something like "Bob.ged" than to delete the citation and leave no clue on the source.) Until we have a good source, the information in the cryptic citation does give the reader an indication of the quality of the information, and sometimes the cryptic citation may help us figure out what the original contributor was thinking.

So, as others have said, the most important thing is to find solid sources. On that subject, the Sprague work (a well-regarded secondary source) that's cited in the profile says of Mary (in excerpts from more extensive notes):

[17] Children of Joseph & Abigail born at Braintree:

ix. Mary, Feb. 25, 1667/8; m. Samuel Bass as 3rd wife.

Also:

[352] Dea. SAMUEL3 BASS, (John2, Samuel1), born Mar. 25 1660; died Feb. 20 1751 in 91st year, (GS) East Bridgewater....

Married 3rd, about 1693, Mary Adams, born Feb. 25 1667/8; died Mar. 9 1706, dau. of Joseph & Abigail (Baxter) Adams. She was not the Mary Adams who had married Samuel Webb as stated in many books....

Samuel & Mary Bass were admitted to full communion at Braintree Sept. 12 1697.

[353] Children of Samuel & Mary born at Braintree:

+ i. Jonathan, bapt. Oct. 3 1697.

ii. Abigail, bapt. Oct. 3 1697; m. about 1715, John Wild Jr.

iii. Mary, bapt. Aug. 14 1698; m. Apr. 2 1720, William Bowditch.

+ iv. Samuel, July 26 1700, bapt. June30 1700 (sic).

v. Bethiah, Feb. 2 1704; m. Dec. 7 1727 at Boston, William Torrey.

I note that Sprague expressly states that she didn't marry Samuel Webb.

by Ellen Smith G2G6 Pilot (963k points)
selected by Susan Laursen
I would agree replacing the source would be the best, but in some cases the source material can only be found online at Ancestry as they are the sole owner of certain collateral. If you have an Ancestry account, you could always re-point to the correct location if this is the case. I wouldn't just delete it if it can't be replaced, but at least modify it if all the information is redundant to something like "Information obtained from Ancestry.com" and clean up all the references to point to the same comment.
+5 votes
Yes, it is redundant and unnecessary.

Ancestry.com when it auto generates a source reference creates both a source and a second repository.  Since ancestry.com is by definition the repository, there is no point to the second repository note. The ancestry.com source itself can usually be substantially shortened and cleaned for readability. Please don’t delete it as a source though unless you have a better one.
by Joe Cochoit G2G6 Pilot (176k points)
And Joe... I think I just repeated what you said. Never wake up at 5 AM and start typing...

Related questions

+10 votes
3 answers
172 views asked Oct 5, 2017 in Genealogy Help by Mindy Silva G2G6 Pilot (272k points)
+8 votes
2 answers
+4 votes
3 answers

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...