On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 23:25:57 +0800, "billeah" <billeah@iinet.net.au> wrote: >If there are no known children I record it as such in notes. Where I don't >know the maiden name I use the married name in brackets. >So my entry for your example below would be Jane (BROWN). If I know there >are children and don't know her first name or maiden >I would enter her as UnknownF (BROWN). > >Fid it handy to locate them this way for when I'm doing some trawling >through place such as cncestry.com > This is code in connection to Gedcom 5.5 The three last mention is not yet implemented in BL """ AGE_AT_EVENT: = {Size=1:12} [ < | > | <NULL>] [ YYy MMm DDDd | YYy | MMm | DDDd | YYy MMm | YYy DDDd | MMm DDDd | CHILD | INFANT | STILLBORN ] ] Where : > = greater than indicated age < = less than indicated age y = a label indicating years m = a label indicating months d = a label indicating days YY = number of full years MM = number of months DDD = number of days CHILD = age < 8 years INFANT = age < 1 year STILLBORN = died just prior, at, or near birth, 0 years A number that indicates the age in years, months, and days that the principal was at the time of the associated event. Any labels must come after their corresponding number, for example; 4y 8m 10d. """""" -- Otto Jørgensen http://www.bkwin.info/ All email is checked by NORTON

Hello; Can someone assist with instructions on how to burn a backup of BK to a CD using Windows 7. An answer off list is appreciated. Bill C.

In message <CDFE313B9C2C45E09E65E7140E775E54@Dell4600>, John Steed <brothers_keeper@msn.com> writes: >To J. P. Gilliver > >Yes, it is possible to have the first spouse be "not entered" and then >have the second spouse be a person. > >If there are children, I can give you one way to do it. > >If there are no children to attach to the first spouse, then you can >add a spouse called UNKNOWN. >After you attach the spouse, then show UNKNOWN at the top and click >Delete, Person. That will delete UNKNOWN and leave the person with a >spouse of (Not Entered) with no number. Then click Add Spouse to add >the second spouse. It will ask if you want to enter the not entered >spouse, so answer no and add the second spouse instead. [] Excellent! That's just what I wanted. (Ideally, the number becomes free again too.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf I am the person for whom 'one size fits all' never fits. - Chris McMillan in UMRA, 2011-11-12

In message <A4EB42E100A842728873E547C8846785@Dell4600>, John Steed <brothers_keeper@msn.com> writes: >To J. P. Gilliver > >It may be nice, but it is not possible currently. I might be able to >do it in the future, but it would not show the name of the spouse. It >could say >111 and 22 and 33333 for the number of the spouse but I would have to >change the current system where it shows the order number of the child. Understood. I don't expect you to implement all my suggestions! I just throw them in occasionally, in part to see what other users think. > >You can click the Spouse line now to see each set of children with the >spouse name showing. Yes, I'm aware of that. I would just find it useful to be able to see a list of all of someone's children. Maybe for BK7 (-:. > >I do not have a way to have names in the grid greyed out. That was just a suggestion, if you wanted to have the ones for the currently-shown spouse (or not the currently-shown spouse) shown as different in some way. It could use bold/not bold, italic, a different background colour, whatever. [] Related to this: at present there is, I think, no way of recording that a child is child of a person but I do not know by which spouse. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Being punctual makes people think you have nothing to do.

I have been using Win 7-64 Home for a while. Just let BK install itself. Works fine. Jack in Ohio On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Jim Dell <dellji@yahoo.com> wrote: > Michael, > Use the defaults. > > I am running on Windows 7 64bit > > Jim > > -----Original Message----- > From: bk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:bk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf > Of > Palekaiko > Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 8:54 PM > To: bk@rootsweb.com > Subject: [BK] Bk 6.5.11 install using Windows 7 > > I remember this topic, but I can't find it in my archives, so please excuse > the redundancy. After over 7 years, I've made the leap to Windows 7, > leaving behind my very stable Windows XP Pro. So now the question is "Are > there any special items I need to pay attention to, when installing BK > 6.5.11 in my new computer, running Windows 7, 64 bit, Home edition? Or do > I > simply follow the install instructions? I have two program folders, > Programs (x86) and Programs? To which folder do I install BK6? If any of > you out there are willing to give me step by step instructions (should that > be necessary), please be specific. > > Thanks, > > Michael Diamant > Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message >

In message <B856A481E6504509B5A0DF3D85377712@Dell4600>, John Steed <brothers_keeper@msn.com> writes: >To J. P. Gilliver > >If you are on Edit and you are showing at the top a child, and if the >father and mother are showing, >and if you click on Father, you want it to show the spouse who is the >mother. > >I understand what you want. Perhaps someday I can give that option. I'm glad I explained it well enough. > >However, not all people want it to work that way. Understood. > >If you click on Father, you are asking to see the information about the >father. So it shows the first spouse of the father. It is consistant. >If you are using Find and you type in the name of the father it finds >the father and shows the first spouse of the father. It is consistant. >You can then pick which spouse you want to show. Yes, I can see that it requires some history to be both recorded and processed (the route by which you got to a person), which you are not doing at present. [] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Being punctual makes people think you have nothing to do.

In message <9293706050AB4AD483A8D3C172A23E57@nednulb6bx16vi>, N & K Chestnut <nkopportunity@gorge.net> writes: >Yes, UNKNOWN can be used.  However, don't forget to add another UNKNOWN >when that kind of situation comes up, again.  It may be strange to have >20 different UNKNOWNs, but it is necessary.  Don't use an UNKNOWN a >second time, unless you are certain that it is the exact same person in >both cases. In that case, UNKNOWN wasn't what I was thinking of; that's just treating it as another name. I had the feeling that, at some point in the past, there was something you could enter that did _not_ become a "name". >  >Also UNKNOWN can be used when the lady's first name is known (and you >use the name), but the maiden surname is not known.  Thus, you could >have a Jane UNKNOWN, or an Unknown (Mr.) BROWN, or an UNKNOWN.  Don't I use Jane ? and ? Smith ; I seem to remember that "?" has some generic use in this way. [] >I like to make surnames in all capitals.  It makes scanning easier and >faster. [] You are not alone, though I am not with you. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Veni, Vidi, Vomit (I came, I saw, I was ill) - mik@saslimited.demon.co.uk, 1998

In message <dp0kv7tsh9ssqispv0t41fkt2km4n45bu8@4ax.com>, Otto Jørgensen <otjoerge@online.no> writes: [] >Preview of reports do heltp a lot Yes, but that's a bit tedious to have to do from the edit screen. > >And you can for all persons and families adjust the order of all >events But I can't see all the events for a person at once, if s/he has more than one spouse. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Veni, Vidi, Vomit (I came, I saw, I was ill) - mik@saslimited.demon.co.uk, 1998

I may have 100 Unknowns in my database but each one has a specific number which denotes their specific place in the database. When a name becomes available the Unknown is simply replaced with the name and the number is not changed. Joseph ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Dell" <dellji@yahoo.com> To: bk@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, July 8, 2012 5:26:38 PM Subject: Re: [BK] can I enter second spouse without first? Just leave the unknown as not entered by clicking on cancel when after entering the known parent, that way you don't have 100 UNKNOWNs. Jim -----Original Message----- From: bk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:bk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of N & K Chestnut Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 6:11 PM To: G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk; bk@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [BK] can I enter second spouse without first? Yes, UNKNOWN can be used.  However, don't forget to add another UNKNOWN when that kind of situation comes up, again.  It may be strange to have 20 different UNKNOWNs, but it is necessary.  Don't use an UNKNOWN a second time, unless you are certain that it is the exact same person in both cases. Also UNKNOWN can be used when the lady's first name is known (and you use the name), but the maiden surname is not known.  Thus, you could have a Jane UNKNOWN, or an Unknown (Mr.) BROWN, or an UNKNOWN.  Don't forget the gender; only in this day and age could it be confusing, like Mr. Mom.  I have made errors on gender, male & female, I mean.  The correction can be made, although it takes several steps. I like to make surnames in all capitals.  It makes scanning easier and faster. Kay C.   ----- Original Message -----   From: J. P. Gilliver (John)   To: bk@rootsweb.com   Sent: 2012-07-08 02:39   Subject: [BK] can I enter second spouse without first?   If I know someone was married before, but have no details of their first   spouse, is there any way of indicating that the spouse I am entering is   the second one, without having to make up a dummy person?   (I seem to remember *UNKNOWN*, or something like that, being valid as a   placeholder of this sort, but can't now find it in the help.)   --   J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf   782.55 - The Number of The Beast (including VAT)    Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search   -------------------------------   To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message  Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message  Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I like to enter descriptive names rather than just "unknown" e.g. "2nd wife of John Smith". I also use the following like Elizabeth "Lizzie" (Jones) Smith means she was born Elizabeth Smith. she was called "Lizzie", and she changed her name to Jones (usually because of marriage) Sometimes when I have lots of John Smiths I call them e.g. John 1912 Smith John 1944 Smith giving their birthyear. I also use <1912> to denote an approximate date. Sometimes I write <1912>+-2 to mean within 2 years of 1912 i.e. between 1910 and 1914. I find these shorthands useful - what do others use? JOHN BIBBY On 8 July 2012 23:26, Jim Dell <dellji@yahoo.com> wrote: > Just leave the unknown as not entered by clicking on cancel when after > entering the known parent, that way you don't have 100 UNKNOWNs. > > Jim > > -----Original Message----- > From: bk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:bk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf > Of > N & K Chestnut > Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 6:11 PM > To: G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk; bk@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [BK] can I enter second spouse without first? > > Yes, UNKNOWN can be used. However, don't forget to add another UNKNOWN > when > that kind of situation comes up, again. It may be strange to have 20 > different UNKNOWNs, but it is necessary. Don't use an UNKNOWN a second > time, unless you are certain that it is the exact same person in both > cases. > > Also UNKNOWN can be used when the lady's first name is known (and you use > the name), but the maiden surname is not known. Thus, you could have a > Jane > UNKNOWN, or an Unknown (Mr.) BROWN, or an UNKNOWN. Don't forget the > gender; > only in this day and age could it be confusing, like Mr. Mom. I have made > errors on gender, male & female, I mean. The correction can be made, > although it takes several steps. > > I like to make surnames in all capitals. It makes scanning easier and > faster. > > Kay C. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: J. P. Gilliver (John) > To: bk@rootsweb.com > Sent: 2012-07-08 02:39 > Subject: [BK] can I enter second spouse without first? > > > If I know someone was married before, but have no details of their first > spouse, is there any way of indicating that the spouse I am entering is > the second one, without having to make up a dummy person? > > (I seem to remember *UNKNOWN*, or something like that, being valid as a > placeholder of this sort, but can't now find it in the help.) > -- > J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H > +Sh0!:`)DNAf > > 782.55 - The Number of The Beast (including VAT) > Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message >

On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 17:55:38 -0400, "Greg Martin" <greg@bryan-martin.net> wrote: >BK has the option to add "secondary" names - aka, nicknames, etc. - in the >"names" tab. It doesn't appear as though that information exports in a >gedcom, and I also can't find a way to create a report showing who has other >names attached. Can anyone tell me how to do so, please? Even better, is >there a way to include that information in a gedcom when exporting? I believe a report to onlys list person who has only alternatives names are not present yet -- Otto Jørgensen http://www.bkwin.info/ All email is checked by NORTON

On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 17:55:38 -0400, "Greg Martin" <greg@bryan-martin.net> wrote: >BK has the option to add "secondary" names - aka, nicknames, etc. - in the >"names" tab. It doesn't appear as though that information exports in a >gedcom, and I also can't find a way to create a report showing who has other >names attached. Can anyone tell me how to do so, please? Even better, is >there a way to include that information in a gedcom when exporting? > as far as I can see, all alternatives names are exported. Using last version? -- Otto Jørgensen http://www.bkwin.info/ All email is checked by NORTON

On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 22:50:27 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <9i$$lox70f+PFwCb@soft255.demon.co.uk>, "J. P. Gilliver >(John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> writes: >>When I'm looking at the "Children" page for a person, it'd be nice to >>see all that person's children - perhaps greyed or something for the >>ones that aren't the children of the currently-shown spouse. > >Similarly, when looking at the list of events for a person, it'd be >really nice (with greying or whatever again, if necessary) to have at >least the option of seeing all the events related to that person. (And >perhaps the option to put them into date order, but that's a separate >matter: it's been implemented for children though.) > >For example: I've frequently nearly (and probably actually) added an >extra "Resided (Family)" event to someone, because I'm looking at a >census return for them, and their edit screen - only to realise I >already had that event, but it wasn't showing because I didn't have the >relevant spouse selected. Preview of reports do heltp a lot And you can for all persons and families adjust the order of all events -- Otto Jørgensen http://www.bkwin.info/ All email is checked by NORTON

On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 22:35:55 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: >When I'm looking at the "Children" page for a person, it'd be nice to >see all that person's children - perhaps greyed or something for the >ones that aren't the children of the currently-shown spouse. Are talking about to mark the other children to tell that they are adopted, step or forsterchild `? -- Otto Jørgensen http://www.bkwin.info/ All email is checked by NORTON

To J. P. Gilliver Yes, it is possible to have the first spouse be "not entered" and then have the second spouse be a person. If there are children, I can give you one way to do it. If there are no children to attach to the first spouse, then you can add a spouse called UNKNOWN. After you attach the spouse, then show UNKNOWN at the top and click Delete, Person. That will delete UNKNOWN and leave the person with a spouse of (Not Entered) with no number. Then click Add Spouse to add the second spouse. It will ask if you want to enter the not entered spouse, so answer no and add the second spouse instead. John Steed ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> To: <bk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 5:39 PM Subject: [BK] can I enter second spouse without first? > If I know someone was married before, but have no details of their first > spouse, is there any way of indicating that the spouse I am entering is > the second one, without having to make up a dummy person? > > (I seem to remember *UNKNOWN*, or something like that, being valid as a > placeholder of this sort, but can't now find it in the help.) > -- > J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf > > 782.55 - The Number of The Beast (including VAT) > Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message >

Yes I agree this would be good: each child could maybe have a superscript 1, 2, 3 to denote which spouse is the parent. JOHN BIBBY On 8 July 2012 22:35, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk>wrote: > When I'm looking at the "Children" page for a person, it'd be nice to > see all that person's children - perhaps greyed or something for the > ones that aren't the children of the currently-shown spouse. > -- > J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf > > 782.55 - The Number of The Beast (including VAT) > Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message >

To J. P. Gilliver It may be nice, but it is not possible currently. I might be able to do it in the future, but it would not show the name of the spouse. It could say 111 and 22 and 33333 for the number of the spouse but I would have to change the current system where it shows the order number of the child. You can click the Spouse line now to see each set of children with the spouse name showing. I do not have a way to have names in the grid greyed out. John Steed ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> To: <bk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 5:35 PM Subject: [BK] see children of multiple spouses? > When I'm looking at the "Children" page for a person, it'd be nice to > see all that person's children - perhaps greyed or something for the > ones that aren't the children of the currently-shown spouse. > -- > J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf > > 782.55 - The Number of The Beast (including VAT) > Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message >

To J. P. Gilliver If you are on Edit and you are showing at the top a child, and if the father and mother are showing, and if you click on Father, you want it to show the spouse who is the mother. I understand what you want. Perhaps someday I can give that option. However, not all people want it to work that way. If you click on Father, you are asking to see the information about the father. So it shows the first spouse of the father. It is consistant. If you are using Find and you type in the name of the father it finds the father and shows the first spouse of the father. It is consistant. You can then pick which spouse you want to show. John Steed ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> To: <bk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 5:34 PM Subject: [BK] minor request: stay with second wife >I am looking at (i. e. in edit window) a child of the second wife; the > correct father and mother are shown. > > I click on Father. > > Father is brought up - with Spouse 1 shown. > > (I presume the same would apply for second husband, too.) > -- > J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf > > 782.55 - The Number of The Beast (including VAT) > Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message >

To Greg Martin All the alternate names are exported to the gedcom file. However, other programs might not be able to read the other names. All of the names except Nickname are given a special tag starting with _ "NICK" ' Nickname" "_SHON" ' Short name (for reports)" "_ADPN" ' Adopted name" "_HEBN" ' Hebrew name" "_CENN" ' Census name" "_MARN" ' Married name" "_RUFNAME" ' German name" "_FARN" ' Farm name" "_BIRN" ' Birth name" "_INDN" ' Indian name" "_FKAN" ' Formal name "_CURN" ' Current name" "_SLDN" ' Soldier name "_FRKA" ' formerly known as "_RELN" ' religious name "_CALL" ' called "_INDG" ' indigenous "_OTHN" ' Other name" You can start WordPad and open the gedcom file to verify the names are in the gedcom file As for reports, the Group sheet will print one alternate name and the Book reports can print All alternate names (turn on the option to print alternate names on Register Book, Indented Book, or Ahnentafel Book) John Steed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Martin" <greg@bryan-martin.net> To: <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk>; <bk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 5:55 PM Subject: [BK] Secondary names > BK has the option to add "secondary" names - aka, nicknames, etc. - in the > "names" tab. It doesn't appear as though that information exports in a > gedcom, and I also can't find a way to create a report showing who has > other > names attached. Can anyone tell me how to do so, please? Even better, is > there a way to include that information in a gedcom when exporting? > > Thank you, > Greg Martin > greg@bryan-martin.net > > Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message >

In message <9i$$lox70f+PFwCb@soft255.demon.co.uk>, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> writes: >When I'm looking at the "Children" page for a person, it'd be nice to >see all that person's children - perhaps greyed or something for the >ones that aren't the children of the currently-shown spouse. Similarly, when looking at the list of events for a person, it'd be really nice (with greying or whatever again, if necessary) to have at least the option of seeing all the events related to that person. (And perhaps the option to put them into date order, but that's a separate matter: it's been implemented for children though.) For example: I've frequently nearly (and probably actually) added an extra "Resided (Family)" event to someone, because I'm looking at a census return for them, and their edit screen - only to realise I already had that event, but it wasn't showing because I didn't have the relevant spouse selected. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." - Arthur C. Clarke