Hi Fiona, You could look at the issue as a Need to know, does anyone Need to Know! If I was in your position where I suspected that I may have the wrong wife's I guess I would have two options those being; 1.Make a note that the wife's may be linked to the wrong husbands however further research is required to either prove or disprove what I suspect. 2.Leave as it is, however do the research that is needed to prove or disprove what I suspect and then make the changes if they are needed. If the research does prove that you do have a mismatch then and only then will you need to unlink the wife's from the current husband and children, you will need to ensure that no children are still linked to each wife before you link the wife's to the correct husband, you can do this easy as in legacy family tree, another option is to first print out the family group sheet for each couple as you have them and then edit the wife's details, meaning swap the wife's via editing, this will take a little longer than the other option of un-linking and relinking them. I tend to favor the second option of doing the research to either prove of disprove what I suspect then and only then correct my file if needed. If I have given descendants of that line information I then let them know that due to resent research their Branch of the family pedigree has changed and I then also send them an up dated version. Regard, David J Grimshaw (or is it Grimason?) Genealogical Researcher of the "Grimason" surname and variations of the "Grimason" surname World Wide. A One Name study registered with the Guild of One Name Studies (GOONS): 6138 formally 2962 The "Sherlock Holmes" of this family according to some. On 7/01/2015 11:07 p.m., Fíona Tipple via wrote: > Rennison, > > On 6 Jan 2015, at 18:59, RENNISON john.vayro@sky.com via <goons@rootsweb.com> wrote: > >> I have a quandary at the moment which is a good example. Doing some research for two long distant cousins I have found that I have two different John Vayros born in 1862-3 in Wensleydale / Leeds areas and both marrying in 1884 in Wensleydale. The facts show that there are two wives obviously, two sets of children, but new evidence also suggests that my present published website has these two individuals attached to the opposite i.e. wrong parents. But until I am completely sure, having analysed and considered the new set of facts that they are the wrong way round the website on public display will stay as it is. If and when it is modified it will be stored and uploaded as a new gedcom database. >> > When you find a suspected mismatch like this, do you put a note on your website about it, pending a solution? Or do you just leave everything as it is, without comment, until you sort the problem out? > > Fiona > — > 5538 - Duignan & variants > > > > > >> Rennison's List on http://www.upperdalesfhg.org.uk/rennisons.htm >> The Vayro Ancestry on http://www.vayro.name >> Vayro Database on http://vayro.tribalpages.com >> Vayro Guild of One-Name Studies Profile >> http://one-name.org/name_profile/vayro/ >> http://www.rennisonprimarydesigntechnology.info >> Searching for VAYRO, VARO, VARAH and variations worldwide >> >> >> >>> On Tuesday, 6 January 2015, 17:55, Christopher Gray via <goons@rootsweb.com> wrote: >>>> Colin - while I agree with your view that early publication is beneficial - >>> I suggest that, in doing so, one accepts that many viewers will treat it as >>> "rock solid" no matter how many caveats one places around it. >>> >>> Personally I place my trees online as soon as I have them. Many, many of >>> the assumptions I make - for example that if a person is named as a son in a >>> census that he is a son - are not validated. I leave it to the viewer to >>> decide on the validity based on seeing the sources and drawing their own >>> conclusions. I have seen too many on-line trees with errors that are >>> obvious when one looks at the sources. While I would hope that most of mine >>> pass that initial scrutiny, I am sure that many of the assumptions would be >>> disproved if only there were a few more documents out there giving >>> independent views of what reality actually was. >>> >>> One benefit of publishing is to enable people to challenge one's findings. >>> Mind you, no one has challenged anything I've put on line over the last >>> twenty years - which is very disappointing. >>> >>> Chris >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: goons-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:goons-bounces@rootsweb.com] On >>> Behalf Of Colin Stevenson via >>> Sent: 03 January 2015 16:34 >>> To: goons@rootsweb.com >>> Subject: Re: [G] when is a tree good enough to publish? >>> >>> It depends on why you want to publish the tree. If you claim it is the >>> definitive family history you need to be very certain of your facts. At the >>> other end of the spectrum if it is published as a work in progress with >>> appropriate caveats then it is a useful research tool for you and others. >>> Personally I think there is more to gain from 'early ' >>> publication rather than striving for accuracy. I can see no harm from >>> publishing a speculative tree provided it is described as such. >>> >>> Colin Stevenson (Cavie & Monnington) >>> >>