To Lyn Wilkinson Click the N letter in the event grid (note column) When the note comes up, is the Print Where blank for all notes? Close that and click the N letter in the other side event grid. Are all event notes blank for the Print Where? If they are blank, it might be a bug in the program. In that case, could you send me private email with a compressed copy of the two databases? John Steed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wilkinson Family" <gerryandlyn@dodo.com.au> To: <bk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 10:44 PM Subject: [BK] Comparing databases > Loving this new utility. I am finally going to be able to get the 2 > different databases on my laptop and main computer merging into one using > this. Just one niggling problem that I can't work out. so far. > > I keep getting an "Event Notes are different for: Born (insert any number > of > events here) Note number 1 Print where is different." I don't have > anything > set for "print where" in either database so I am a little lost as to how > to > stop this from coming up. Any ideas? > > Lyn > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 dhyouse@comcast.net BK allows you to search with ? for any letter or * for any number of letters after that. But if the last name you are having trouble with is spelled so many different ways that none of that helps, here is another idea. Go to the Names tab and click Add Name at the bottom and pick Also Known as. Then in the name column type the first name of the person and for the last name type XXXX Then in the Print Where column pick Never Print (That way it will never print the XXXX name on any reports) Then anytime you are searching for one of those people type the first name and type XXXX for the last name. Be sure the option is checked to also search Alternate names. It will show everyone with that first name and XXXX as the last name (as the alternate name) The area at the bottom will show the actual last name. If you search for ? XXXX It will show everyone that you have set up that way. John Steed ----- Original Message ----- From: <dhyouse@comcast.net> To: <bk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 5:03 PM Subject: [BK] Name searching >I have a problem with names which might be a shortcoming of the Names Tab >entries or, more certainly, the search function. > > There are two families in my database which never decided on how to spell > their names. These families have used spelling variations in different > branches, among siblings and even within the same household. > > The first family uses various combinations of ele/elle/ela/ella/ellen + > ba/be + rger. > > The second family uses combinations of sad/sadd/sar/sat/sart + or + > ous/ious/us/is. > > I’d like a way to be able to search for all of the combinations of each > family by entering any one of the varieties. The closest I can come is > using Soundex but even that misses some of the combinations. > > Or am I missing something that is already available? > > ------------------------------- > 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

Hi Otto - I did try this but it seemed to save items 200-330 rather than exclude them. Did yo find that it works OK? JOHN On 17 October 2011 10:12, Otto Jørgensen <otjoerge@online.no> wrote: > On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:00:47 +0100, John Bibby > <johnbibbyjohnbibby@gmail.com> wrote: > >>Sorry this sounds simple - I want to delete records 200-300 in my database. >> >>The only way I can find is to do it manually, or to split the database >>twice, thus getting >>1-199 >>200-300 >>301-nnn >> >>and then to merge the first and third files. >> >>But there must be an easier way! > > Why not make a copy of the while database exceot the range you do not > want to include in your new database. > > Se File / Split database > all data base except 200-300 > -- > Otto Jørgensen > http://www.bkwin.info/ > All email is checked by NORTON > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Sorry this sounds simple - I want to delete records 200-300 in my database. The only way I can find is to do it manually, or to split the database twice, thus getting 1-199 200-300 301-nnn and then to merge the first and third files. But there must be an easier way! JOHN

One more suggestion: Use the "calling name" first, and put the other in parenthesis, as Elisabeth (Margaretha E.) Wolle. Because I know her as Elisabeth, that's the name I would use to search for her, but I can easily see that her baptismal name was, in fact, Margartha Elisabeth. Mona -- Mona Houser Mona@Sandyviewinfo.net Our Family -- http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~monajo/ Nahausen Families – http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~monajo/nah/ My Database – http://wc.rootsweb.com/~monahouser

I may be missing the point of the original question, but before BK had the "Names" tab (and actually, before "Windows"), I used quotation marks for the commonly-used name... Robert David "Bert" Smith ...all in the one field. I must admit I have not gone through my database to move these nicknames to the "Names" tab to see how they would print in reports. Regards, Roy On 10/16/2011 6:32 PM, Otto Jørgensen wrote: > On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 23:12:29 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" > <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> In message<u2ul97hilrpv4vfqv5h33aok1tshpt35dt@4ax.com>, Otto Jørgensen >> <otjoerge@online.no> writes: >> [] >>> All name given when a child is born is in the Church book. >> Yes, but in some cases the child - and his parents - do not use the >> first forename. For example, I am John Paul, and both names appear on my >> baptism certificate; as it happens, I use John anyway, but I (and >> family) might have had a reason to use the Paul instead. Another >> example: some families give _all_ boys (or girls) a common forename, but >> the child is known by one of the other forenames; usually, the common >> one is not the first forename, but sometimes it is. > JS har added som alternatives to use In the name and we can use some > of them but in bookreports they are not good. They becom additional > names on a long list. > > From Scandinavian we have asked to amrk the names used. The most easy > is (in my opinion) to underline the name normaly use. > That can be on the Name card and is more relevant for us reagarding > name of kings etc :) > Believe this is on the long list of John > The next is that when we write historybooks we have the full name and > also a "normalized" name. That is not on the list of Names in BK > And we have situation when a person change last names, e.g.. have > changed from Seterlund Jørgensen to Jørgensen Seterlund. And that is > official.. What to use for all that does that. > If a person is know by an onther name and in the Churchbook we can > enter that, but the problem is all around what to print in reports and > what to use for search in database of BK regarding to official sources > as MMarriage records

After some experimentation, thesolution I have found is not perfect, but will do until something else comes along. Using the F3 search function I enter (for the first example) ? el?* or (for the second example) ? sa?* This finds all the names I'm interested in, but also everything else starting with El or Sa, which is more than I need. -----Original Message----- From: dhyouse@comcast.net Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 5:03 PM To: bk@rootsweb.com Subject: [BK] Name searching I have a problem with names which might be a shortcoming of the Names Tab entries or, more certainly, the search function. There are two families in my database which never decided on how to spell their names. These families have used spelling variations in different branches, among siblings and even within the same household. The first family uses various combinations of ele/elle/ela/ella/ellen + ba/be + rger. The second family uses combinations of sad/sadd/sar/sat/sart + or + ous/ious/us/is. I’d like a way to be able to search for all of the combinations of each family by entering any one of the varieties. The closest I can come is using Soundex but even that misses some of the combinations. Or am I missing something that is already available? ------------------------------- 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, 16 Oct 2011 23:17:34 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: >I can't remember whether BK allows wildcards (* and ?) or not. > >I do remember that it only looks at the first five characters of >forename and surname. Or did, not sure if that's still the case. (I can >certainly search by entering just those, without any trailing >wildcards.) you can use bothe * and ? for search I believe you can find about that in the manual or the help file -- Otto Jørgensen http://www.bkwin.info/ All email is checked by NORTON

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 23:12:29 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <u2ul97hilrpv4vfqv5h33aok1tshpt35dt@4ax.com>, Otto Jørgensen ><otjoerge@online.no> writes: >[] >>All name given when a child is born is in the Church book. > >Yes, but in some cases the child - and his parents - do not use the >first forename. For example, I am John Paul, and both names appear on my >baptism certificate; as it happens, I use John anyway, but I (and >family) might have had a reason to use the Paul instead. Another >example: some families give _all_ boys (or girls) a common forename, but >the child is known by one of the other forenames; usually, the common >one is not the first forename, but sometimes it is. JS har added som alternatives to use In the name and we can use some of them but in bookreports they are not good. They becom additional names on a long list. >From Scandinavian we have asked to amrk the names used. The most easy is (in my opinion) to underline the name normaly use. That can be on the Name card and is more relevant for us reagarding name of kings etc :) Believe this is on the long list of John The next is that when we write historybooks we have the full name and also a "normalized" name. That is not on the list of Names in BK And we have situation when a person change last names, e.g.. have changed from Seterlund Jørgensen to Jørgensen Seterlund. And that is official.. What to use for all that does that. If a person is know by an onther name and in the Churchbook we can enter that, but the problem is all around what to print in reports and what to use for search in database of BK regarding to official sources as MMarriage records -- Otto Jørgensen http://www.bkwin.info/ All email is checked by NORTON

In message <6E02D08153654FCFAA2FED80B2D5D988@DavidHP>, dhyouse@comcast.net writes: >I have a problem with names which might be a shortcoming of the Names >Tab entries or, more certainly, the search function. >There are two families in my database which never decided on how to >spell their names. These families have used spelling variations in >different branches, among siblings and even within the same household. >The first family uses various combinations of ele/elle/ela/ella/ellen + >ba/be + rger. >The second family uses combinations of sad/sadd/sar/sat/sart + or + >ous/ious/us/is. >I’d like a way to be able to search for all of the combinations of >each family by entering any one of the varieties. The closest I can >come is using Soundex but even that misses some of the combinations. >Or am I missing something that is already available? [] I can't remember whether BK allows wildcards (* and ?) or not. I do remember that it only looks at the first five characters of forename and surname. Or did, not sure if that's still the case. (I can certainly search by entering just those, without any trailing wildcards.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Bother," said Pooh, as Eeyore sneezed the crack all over Owl.

In message <u2ul97hilrpv4vfqv5h33aok1tshpt35dt@4ax.com>, Otto Jørgensen <otjoerge@online.no> writes: [] >All name given when a child is born is in the Church book. Yes, but in some cases the child - and his parents - do not use the first forename. For example, I am John Paul, and both names appear on my baptism certificate; as it happens, I use John anyway, but I (and family) might have had a reason to use the Paul instead. Another example: some families give _all_ boys (or girls) a common forename, but the child is known by one of the other forenames; usually, the common one is not the first forename, but sometimes it is. [] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Bother," said Pooh, as Eeyore sneezed the crack all over Owl.

In message <1592596DF53C4DF0AE6335965EB0027E@Dell4600>, John Steed <brothers_keeper@msn.com> writes: >To J P Gilliver > >You say it is clear that forename and surname are stored separately. >However, that is not true. The Name field is stored as one field and >it is not separated into parts. > >I intentionally designed the program to have one name field because I >used the original version of PAF which required separate fields and I >did not like having to press Tab or Enter between every part of every name. My error! I wonder what other BK users would think about having to do that (press tab as opposed to space to get from forename(s) to surname(s) when entering), if it meant they could have an immediately-obvious indication which parts were which. > >I have added separate fields for Last Name or Sort Name or other >parts, because for certain names that is needed. Those extra fields are not >needed for most names, so it saves time for most people to just enter a >one part name field. > >If you like using [ ] around the last name like BK5 did it, then you can >just keep doing it that way. It should still work fine. I added the new Thanks; I thought you'd removed it. >Names tab in BK6 because some users in some situations needed more >than [ ] could accomplish. In some countries, the Last name is different >from the Sort name. So using [ ] did not handle that situation. Also >some people >wanted to add more than one alternate name, so that is also done on >the names tab. Understood. > >John Steed [] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Bother," said Pooh, as Eeyore sneezed the crack all over Owl.

I have French names which are Hunault dit Deschamps [meaning either, or both, name might be on a document] with multiple spellings for each: Hunault; Huneault; Huneau; Hainault; Haineault, huno, etc etc etc - Deschamps/Dishaw/Dechant/Deshan etc, etc, etc. I use the "sort name" Deschamps to keep me for entering duplicate persons. I've been told the "sort" name function is not for this purpose but I use it anyway and it works fine. Certainly helps with over a 75,000 person database, the majority of which is Hunault dit Deschamps or a variation of either. Fran On 16/10/2011 5:03 PM, dhyouse@comcast.net wrote: > I have a problem with names which might be a shortcoming of the Names Tab entries or, more certainly, the search function. > > There are two families in my database which never decided on how to spell their names. These families have used spelling variations in different branches, among siblings and even within the same household. > > The first family uses various combinations of ele/elle/ela/ella/ellen + ba/be + rger. > > The second family uses combinations of sad/sadd/sar/sat/sart + or + ous/ious/us/is. > > I’d like a way to be able to search for all of the combinations of each family by entering any one of the varieties. The closest I can come is using Soundex but even that misses some of the combinations. > > Or am I missing something that is already available? >

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 16:16:18 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: >(This came to me as an email only, I'm not sure why. I hope this reply >is going to the list.) > >In message <BLU0-SMTP770B559AAD643EBEC3818AE0E70@phx.gbl>, Harry C >Jacobs <hcj0@sympatico.ca> writes: >>Undoubtedly, there will be many views on this subject >>but it seems to me that the name entered in the 'name >>field' should be the one by which the child was first >>known, i.e., since 1837 the one found on the >>certificate of birth. In the case of adopted children >>this may be difficult. > >Indeed, but there are cases where a child is given more than one >forename, but is known by one other than the first one more or less from >naming. Granted, not common (I think). All name given when a child is born is in the Church book. What BK does not cover is when a Child do change name (normaly when grown up or Adopted) are missin g. We have the change of female when married, but not if change of name for other purppose. >>The use of honorifics (Dr., Sir, etc., or academic >>qualifications) in this field is surely inappropriate >>since very few persons are likely to be born with titles. > >I think some lordships are, but I take your point. >> >>A certain well known entertainer who changed his name >>by 'deed poll' is still recorded in the birth index >>under his birth name. If he belonged in my family >>tree, his new name would be entered as "current name" >>under the name tab. > >Fairy Nuff. (I know not of whom you speak, BTW. Unless it's Nosmo >King - don't know if he did it by deed poll though.) > >My point(s) was/were: (a) it'd be easier, IMO, if the name field had two >parts (one for all the forenames and one for the surnames); (a1) given >(a), it'd be nice to be able to indicate the preferred forename if not >the first; and (b) it'd be nice to be able to add prefixes (such as Dr. >or Lord) and suffixes (qualifications, callsigns, etc.) in a way that >kept them visible, though not part of the name. I suppose (a2) nicknames >too, such as "John Fitzgerald (Jack) Kennedy". Basically, I find the >"Names" tab not at all intuitive. >[] -- Otto Jørgensen http://www.bkwin.info/ All email is checked by NORTON

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 08:39:54 -0600, Bill MacDonald <macd@shaw.ca> wrote: >I have BK 6.5.1 (Registered) > >Is there a method that I can determine from the source list, which >individual that particular source is attached to? > >In my early days I entered too much in the master list. > >For example 1901 Census for Ontario, Canada I have 28 different listings. >I would like to consolidate them to a single listing and show the detail >information in the yellow box "Comments for this citation" > go to File / Sources / Change Source globaly -- Otto Jørgensen http://www.bkwin.info/ All email is checked by NORTON

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 10:39:36 -0400, Harry C Jacobs <hcj0@sympatico.ca> wrote: >Undoubtedly, there will be many views on this subject >but it seems to me that the name entered in the 'name >field' should be the one by which the child was first >known, i.e., since 1837 the one found on the >certificate of birth. In the case of adopted children >this may be difficult. > >The use of honorifics (Dr., Sir, etc., or academic >qualifications) in this field is surely inappropriate >since very few persons are likely to be born with titles. > >A certain well known entertainer who changed his name >by 'deed poll' is still recorded in the birth index >under his birth name. If he belonged in my family >tree, his new name would be entered as "current name" >under the name tab. Mainly none is born as Doctor, king, general or whate ever. So the basic information is the name of the child. Our King Haakon of Norway, was borm as a Pnce of Denmark and the with a complete other name. What to enter here? :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haakon_VII_of_Norway So here John has a challenge to make The Name Card in Edit suitable for use -- Otto Jørgensen http://www.bkwin.info/ All email is checked by NORTON

I have a problem with names which might be a shortcoming of the Names Tab entries or, more certainly, the search function. There are two families in my database which never decided on how to spell their names. These families have used spelling variations in different branches, among siblings and even within the same household. The first family uses various combinations of ele/elle/ela/ella/ellen + ba/be + rger. The second family uses combinations of sad/sadd/sar/sat/sart + or + ous/ious/us/is. I’d like a way to be able to search for all of the combinations of each family by entering any one of the varieties. The closest I can come is using Soundex but even that misses some of the combinations. Or am I missing something that is already available?

(This came to me as an email only, I'm not sure why. I hope this reply is going to the list.) In message <BLU0-SMTP770B559AAD643EBEC3818AE0E70@phx.gbl>, Harry C Jacobs <hcj0@sympatico.ca> writes: >Undoubtedly, there will be many views on this subject >but it seems to me that the name entered in the 'name >field' should be the one by which the child was first >known, i.e., since 1837 the one found on the >certificate of birth. In the case of adopted children >this may be difficult. Indeed, but there are cases where a child is given more than one forename, but is known by one other than the first one more or less from naming. Granted, not common (I think). > >The use of honorifics (Dr., Sir, etc., or academic >qualifications) in this field is surely inappropriate >since very few persons are likely to be born with titles. I think some lordships are, but I take your point. > >A certain well known entertainer who changed his name >by 'deed poll' is still recorded in the birth index >under his birth name. If he belonged in my family >tree, his new name would be entered as "current name" >under the name tab. Fairy Nuff. (I know not of whom you speak, BTW. Unless it's Nosmo King - don't know if he did it by deed poll though.) My point(s) was/were: (a) it'd be easier, IMO, if the name field had two parts (one for all the forenames and one for the surnames); (a1) given (a), it'd be nice to be able to indicate the preferred forename if not the first; and (b) it'd be nice to be able to add prefixes (such as Dr. or Lord) and suffixes (qualifications, callsigns, etc.) in a way that kept them visible, though not part of the name. I suppose (a2) nicknames too, such as "John Fitzgerald (Jack) Kennedy". Basically, I find the "Names" tab not at all intuitive. [] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Bother," said Pooh, as Eeyore sneezed the crack all over Owl.

In message <4E9AECBA.4050202@shaw.ca>, Bill MacDonald <macd@shaw.ca> writes: >I have BK 6.5.1 (Registered) > >Is there a method that I can determine from the source list, which >individual that particular source is attached to? Lists | Sources: there's a button "Show everyone that this source is attached to". Will that do what you want? > >In my early days I entered too much in the master list. > >For example 1901 Census for Ontario, Canada I have 28 different listings. >I would like to consolidate them to a single listing and show the detail >information in the yellow box "Comments for this citation" [] Depending what "detail information" you mean, the "Page / Reel number" box may be more appropriate? I think of that as being to subdivide a source (if the source is a person, I may put "email 2011-10-16" in the page/reel box). I think of the "comment" field as for things like "name is unclear". However, everyone has their own way of using BK (-:! Regardless, once you've consolidated your sources, File | Sources | Delete unused sources (backup first!) may be useful. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Bother," said Pooh, as Eeyore sneezed the crack all over Owl.

In message <DC58DD172D4E424D89C7CF110A7917F9@JimWin7PC>, Jim Dell <dellji@yahoo.com> writes: [] >For entering special characters, especially on something without a numpad, I >recommend Diacrit - http://www.sandrila.co.uk/diacrit/; this is designed to >help people who want to use specific languages (without reconfiguring their >keyboard), but also has "languages" like maths, arrows, and so on. [] >Why not just windows built-in Character Map? You can find it under >Accessories --> System Tools [] Indeed - or Start | Run | charmap. Diacrit allows you to only show the characters you use a lot, rather than seeing the whole character set (including the ones you can get from the keyboard anyway), that's all. Charmap does also have the advantage that it (sometimes) shows the numeric code, too. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Bother," said Pooh, as Eeyore sneezed the crack all over Owl.