I agree that some note is required - but not all the information and links that have been added. For example for the son of Theunis Philippus Rudolphus Botha and his siblings the Curator note is probably sufficient - the information from the project added to the "About" is not needed - just a link to the project and the old and new numbers at the top of the "About" would be the most useful.
No suffix in the first two generations but the info in the aka field makes it possible to see the numbering in tree view ONLY by opening the edit window (aka and curator notes are not visible in the flip nodes option which is how I view more information on the tree view); the Botha (DVN), Appel (DVN) at the TOP of the "about" notes is the only place (other than the suffix field) where this information can be viewed in tree view without opening the edit window or going to the profile page.
Are these comments really necessary? A lot of work went into creating a hyperlinked chain and the reason is so that people can track and correct the surrounding profiles if the two trees get merged into each other, as is likely to happen once we have a duplicate Theunis line in both the Appel and Botha tree. Most of these profiles had nothing in their About and it was quicker last night not to edit out the other generations. Please feel free to do so.
As I have answered to both of you already in the DVN discussion -the DVN suffixes were removed on the parents and children of Theunis while they were located in the Appel tree with contradictory suffixes lest someone try to fix them by merging the two trees.
I'm not sure what is unsatisfactory about that answer, but as Theunis' curator it seemed the best way to avoid having the lines smerged while we were voting on whether we changed the suffixes or Theunis location.
If I had changed them to the Appel DVN before the vote was finished -today! You would have been very upset.
I want to point out something useful which may help with this exercise - specifically about the flip nodes option where aka and curator notes are not visible - which I use to view more information than is visible on the tree view. The Botha (DVN), Appel (DVN) at the TOP of the "about" notes (other than the suffix field) can be seen using this tool without opening the edit window or going to the profile page.
As i explained before a special chimera profile ,which if you search for Theunis under his legal name or adopted name or his biological name, gets you to Theunis Botha b1 the historically known profile.
As science and knowledge progresses such a chimera will become increasingly necessary.
Programatically it not be a nor or or search but an and and or search as all his possible entities would be entered on the one profile which would link to each of his families.
Ahh - I loved the idea - and took it to the Curator Discussion on the problem of Adoptive vs Biological parents. I will try and summarise their replies for you Peter on the Theunis Botha Discussion: http://www.geni.com/discussions/127041?msg=955521 as you'll find them interesting.
GENI has told us that they are not looking at an 'adoption' feature anytime soon, though - so we are left deciding where to show Theunis' descendants until then: In the Appel line; In the Botha line; In both lines?
I have also stated my preference before involving:
Put Theunis Appel under his biological parents including correct DVN but without wife or children and proper cross referencing in About ME and curator notes and appropriate locking. This reflects now the accurately disclosed facts and will not reflect "unwanted Appels as decendants.
Since the de facto situation defines him and all descendants as Botha and most probaly no one of them will change to Appel, I will reflect him as Theunis Botha under his historically assumed father Friedrich Both also with proper documentation and crossreferecing.
Similar situations like these and adoptions where fact were only disclosed much later and descendants accept their adoptive parents as their own, i will also treat similarly.
In cases where it was just poor/inaccurate research or where the facts were known by all involved in adoption/"adoption"/fostering etc I will also treat similarly, but in this case put the profile under the biological parents.
And these are not clear cut, but other scenarios will be treated on a case by case where the preference of the descendants would heavily influence the decision.
Finally Casparus Bester/ Casper Bester situation is almost similar to this but has not caught much less attention, probably because it is not that well researched and "saucy" in nature.
=will you reconsider this approach?=
Eeek. This is not an 'approach' at all, as I have said repeatedly. Removing the contradictory numbers is simply an interim measure awaiting the results of the vote about correcting DVnumbers in the suffixes, to avoid an accidental mash up.
This is not paranoia - I have good reason to be concerned about the Appel Botha tree being accidentally merged into each other. I have been working to maintain ghost profiles on the Charlemagne tree for a couple of years now. Once any spotlight is shone on them, people try to merge the Smart Matches in and the trees smerge.
[Coincidentally people have been calling me to come and fix the latest mash up the whole time during our own SA debate on using ghost profiles: http://www.geni.com/discussions/125741?msg=956009. ]
Once we decide whether his descendants should be biologically accurate, or represented in the Botha tree - we'll know which of the two options for numbers you want added to suffixes.
I am fond of Theunis - having worked so hard for him and created a project for him too now- so I do not want to give up Curatorship of him.
But whichever is the 'ghost' profile that you create for him will definitely need constant maintenance this far back into the historical tree, and you will have to be the one to curate that. I have just had to admit defeat on my ghost profiles on the Charlemagne line, so don't have the heart to try it again on the SA tree
- but I will certainly hold thumbs that it will work for us.
Now all we have to decide is where to put his main profile? Should his descendants be biologically accurate or surname accurate?
Christina Glouwdina Susanna Maritz
Jordaan/Fouche _ living profile
Will look for the others
you don't post the studies that raise the question of Casper Bester's legitimacy; or are they just DVNumber's mistakes?
They would be interesting.
The others are modern adoption questions, involving 2 or 3 managers - so I think they're a different issue; and well-solved the way you have.
Theunis and sons have 58 managers and will keep getting more.
I found the discussion where it was suggested he must be shown in his biological tree: http://www.geni.com/discussions/133491?msg=956042 -and re-opened it. Let's continue this there
Fasten your seatbelts :-)
=using of duplicate profiles.=
Oh, that makes more sense. I'm not unhappy with the ghost profile approach at all - I was the one who pushed Justin et al to let me try it on Chuckie's tree - I'm just saying that Theunis is a high traffic area and someone will have to do weekly maintenance deleting kids off one of them, before they get merged into the other's tree
[you don't post the studies that raise the question of Casper Bester's legitimacy;}
Read the curator notes in
Casparus Bester, b1
as well as the cross referenced profile plus the "Inventaris van alle zod….." portion in ABOUT ME.
Basically the assets she left to the children of her deceased illegitimate son who ties up exactly with the particulars of the documented first son of Andreas Bester SV/Prog
Wrong documentation? Adopted by Andreas Bester? Who knows? This was discovered by Jansi Syfert only last year!
Would be interested to see how the DNA instrument would be set up in this case since Jacob Pester might be a SV/Prog in his own right or just a relative of Andreas Bester.
In Overberg families by HJ Engela distributed by eGGSA and GGSA it says just as Daan says.
b1 Casparus Johannes BESTER (2910/x), * ±1724,
† <1774 »» Kinders (7): 2912, 2929, 2938, 3011,
3012, 3013, 3071 x 14.03.1756, Maria Elizabeth
SWART (d.v. Pieter SWART & Sara (du Buis) BUYS),
» 07.07.1731, † 1775