Challenge of the Week: Clean-up as many merged profiles as possible [closed]

Question

Hi WikiTreers,

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

This one is a reprise of one of the most popular and valuable challenges we've done so far: cleaning up messy merged-together profiles.

Aleš has prepared a report of profiles from around the tree that were merged but never had their biographies and sources consolidated. Click here for the list.

Click here for tips on how the biographies and sources section should look. Most importantly, all profiles should have one and only one == Biography == headline and one == Sources == section with one <references /> tag directly beneath it.

After you delete the junk and consolidate any useful biographical text and sources, set the status as corrected. That will earn you a point.

The member with the most points at 11:59pm EDT on Sunday night will get the badge 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.

Top 10

• Esmé G. van der Westhuizen - 699
• Carolyn S. Martin - 593
• Paul F. Shepard - 258
• Ann M. Lansing - 163
• Cindy L. Cooper - 128
• Gwendolyn H. Madewell - 118
• Linda J. Peterson - 85
• Hilary V. Gadsby - 66
• Shirley M. Gilbert - 60
• Sherry M. Wells - 42

Comments

Well https://wikitree.sdms.si/Challenges/DataDoctorsChallenge/20181021/User.htm is updating. you have now 593 corrections.

https://wikitree.sdms.si/Challenges/DataDoctorsChallenge/20181021/UserByDay.htm

Maybe the page didn't refresh for you. Check 

Created: 28.10.2018 21:02:13 - Slovenian time

in the report. It is now 21:09 in Slovenia,

---

It is still showing 585.  I did 66 more today, so should have 651!

I am looking at User for the week:

https://wikitree.sdms.si/Challenges/DataDoctorsWeek/User.htm

---

Could someone look at this one for me it comes up with unmatched ref tag error and I cannot see it.....

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Bastard-8

Thanks

---

If you read advanced sourcing HERE. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Sources  you will notice the very first reference use has a problem. It uses a named reference tag. The problem is, it isn't defined until the second ref usage. This could be the cause of your error?

(left it so you can see, understand, and correct)

---

The week report is done on all suggestions and the cutoff is at the time of the dump. The next week will start reporting when the reports are finished.

---

I have 'used' the 'advanced ref name' in an earlier part of a biography than where it was created with no problem.  I just verified that is not the cause of the problem.

I don't see the problem, either. I copied that code into my own profile and played around with it and I can't figure it out.  I put the 'ref name' earlier than where it was used, added spaces before and after the reference, removed quotes, but nothing worked and I get the same error.  Searching for 'ref' only shows it in those areas, and the 'references' line.

Hopefully someone will post the answer to this.

---

It is pretty simple, when you know what to look for.

Correct usage is <ref name="christening" without the space after equal sign.

---

I have a space before and after equal sign in my profile, using quotes or not with the ref name, and it doesn't seem to matter.

---

So we could say, spaces must be symmetrical. Before and after equal sign or none.

---

Thanks to everyone for their comments and especially to Aleš for fixing it for me

Always something new to learn

 

Answer 1

Oh count me in. I probably won't be able to resist doing at least some. This is not an edit type where I'll feel competitive though ... 

Answer 2

I'll do some as well, the dates challenge was driving me nuts!

Comments

Ha! Quite understandable. Thanks for reminding me why my subconscious must have told me to skip that week ... 

Answer 3

Are there guidelines on how we data doctors should proceed in merging pre-1700 profiles?  As you know, as soon as we click on the 'edit' button, we see "If you are not already coordinating with a pre-1700 project, click here before proceeding (required). Thank you!"  Then we are asked to "Click this button to ask if there is a project that covers the location and time period for the people you're adding or editing."  I'm pre-1700 certified and have not seen a need to follow this procedure before doing data entry tasks like adding a missing 'references' tag or deleting 'USA' from pre-1776 locations.  Are we OK to proceed without posting to the community as long as we are just cleaning up the profile, and not adding or deleting information?  Thanks!  ~Karen

Comments

Data Doctoring isn't quite on the level of severity as rewriting the profile, merging, or linking to relatives. I'm sure as long as you "explain your changes" everything will be fine in 99.4% of the cases. That remaining 0.6% wouldn't matter if you had a hand written permission slip from the deceased person themselves.

The current challenge isn't to merge profiles, it is to clean up the mess when profiles got merged in the past, the data was slammed together, and then left without combining it. So if you see 3 profiles in 1 and all 3 have the same link to a marriage license, feel free to delete 2 duplicate links. The goal is to arrange the data and clean up the duplicates, not to get rid of data. So bio to bio, sources to sources, etc.

I often add ==Acknowlegments== at the bottom for things like "this profile was created by xxxxxxxx on dddddd by **********.

Now if the profile is part of a PROJECT and has their tag on it, that might be a different story.

---

Thank you, Steven.  I appreciate the reassurance, and it's good to know I won't be inadvertently heading into forbidden territory.

I've run into some profiles this evening where the GEDCOM downloads were listed as sources (which equals "the family tree I created is my source").  How would you deal with those when cleaning up a profile?

Thank you.  ~Karen

---

That would be more an acknowledgement of where it came from. If a gedcom insert or a bland statement of "from personal knowledge" are the only sources, then I'd add an unsourced category to it. A family tree is not a source. It may however contain sources if you are really lucky.

"name", firsthand knowledge. See the Changes page for the details of edits by "name" and others.

That was a standard entry for "no sources" at the time the profile was created.

---

Several profiles I adopted were taken into a project afterwards.  I don't know if it's a compliment or a criticism.

---

I figure for the most part that even if a project has the profile, if they haven't done anything to it in a long time, I can make simple edits.  Or I send them a message.  Usually I get a response . . . NEVER.

"That remaining 0.6% wouldn't matter if you had a hand written permission slip from the deceased person themselves."  hahaha

---

Someone actually reads what I type? I might die of shock.

(And if you don't get what I said, you sorta prove my point)

Answer 4

This is a new one for me. I should learn something here ! I’ll look for UK errors first.

Answer 5

I'd like to give this a shot - learning by doing

Answer 6

I'd be glad to participate.

Answer 7

I'm absolutely participating! Biography work is my favourite! My time has come. Mwa-ha-ha-ha!

Answer 8

Count me in

Comments

I have just cleaned an orphaned profile. His mother who is deceased is private but his father is also Open. What is the best way to get profiles of other family members who may be orphaned and are deceased Opened. This is an English profile and I am part of the England project. Should the England project deal with these?

---

The easiest way to get an orphaned profile open is to adopt it, open it, then you can orphan it again if you wish.

---

After seeing these comments  I"m tempted to try to re- orphan more profiles which have ended unconnected or demanding too much research

---

Because the mother is private I cannot adopt her orphaned profile.

The mother has no parents attached so I have sent a message to see if the profile can be opened.

Now I am able to add parents to the mother.

Answer 9

I'm in this week. I'll work on England profiles pre-1500.

Answer 10

I love this challenge - how did I miss this post?  I'm in 

Answer 11

I'll work on some of these

Answer 12

I did one today and everything worked fine and now I can't get the status page to load. Is it down?

Answer 13

I am in on this one! 

Answer 14

i'm still picking out UK merge problems, quite addicted too!

Answer 15

I will do some

Answer 16

Late getting in, but this is what I fee like doing today.

Judy

Answer 17

In late again but one almost completed

Answer 18

OK I need some help. I have Gailbraith-655 and Gailbraith-38 both husbands of Bertram-622 and/or Bertram-162 There is another Gailbraith husband, but we can ignore him for now because he has a different first name. And another wife on the Gailbraith, but it is a different name.

The Gailbraith parents are different, but the marriage was the same day.

One Bertram has parents, the other doesn''t.

How to separate them?

Comments

12 guage shotgun and loud menacing threats???

---

That sounds as realistic as anything I can think of. Should I raise this to a Question of its own? I think I will, it's sort of lost under here. Glad you saw it. I like the humor.

Judy

---

good plan. Use good tags and link the profile.

---

I used the two family names and added Ireland and Pennsylvania. What else? Mess?

Judy