To J P Gilliver I used to use the words "Individual / Marriage" instead of "Individual / Family" But since a lot of couples are not married, I changed it to Family. That is shorter than "spouse or partner", but as you say it might be confusing. Currently on the Pictures and Media it must have all Family lines below all Individual lines. I am sorry that messes up your ordering. Currently the only way to get perfect ordering is to make all of those lines Individual and then add them again for the spouse or partner as Individual for them also. Also, if you move to a person, it normally shows spouse number 1 even if you were looking at spouse number 2 earlier. And I have seen the problem when you rearrange order of children of spouse 2 that when you are done, it changes back to show spouse number 1. When I get some time to work on that, I will try to find a way to have it not do that. John Steed ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. P. Gilliver (John) via" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 6:42 PM Subject: [BK] unwanted reorderings etc. > (Using BK7. Can't say which 7.x, because I'm in the edit screen, some > way down a sequence of people which I don't want to lose.) > > This first one has already come up with "media" files - it applies to > "picture" files too: > > If I have an image of the 1891 census as a wife, I classify it as a > "family" image, because it shows hubby too; in 1901 she's a widow, so I > have to make it an "individual" image (otherwise the dead husband's > image list would include it even though he isn't on it). But I can't > order the images 1891 before 1901. (I've asked if the word "family" in > this context could be replaced by "couple", because to me "family" > usually includes children, but I think there must be some reason this > can't happen.) > > These latter examples are a different one: I'm looking at a man who had > two wives (not both at once!). At first, BK shows wife #1, as one might > expect. I select wife #2 from the drop-down list, so now I'm looking at > husband, with wife #2 showing. I move to any other person - father, > mother, or in particular, one of the children. I now click "<" to go > back to the previous view. I sort of expect to see man with wife#2, > which I don't. > > A particularly startling version of this I've just discovered: I'm > looking at list of children of husband and wife#2, all with birth dates > showing, and I see the child born first is listed last (since I've just > added her). So I click Rearrange order, then Sort by birthdate. Poof - > all gone! They haven't really, but I thought they had until I realised > what had happened! > -- > J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf > > What is the world to a man when his wife is a widow? (think about it ...) > Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message >

In message <[email protected]>, John Steed <[email protected]> writes: >To J P Gilliver > >I used to use the words "Individual / Marriage" instead of "Individual >/ Family" > >But since a lot of couples are not married, I changed it to Family. >That is shorter than "spouse or partner", but as you say it might be >confusing. I suggested "couple" could be used where "Family" currently is: "couple" makes it quite clear that we are talking of just two people who are together. > >Currently on the Pictures and Media it must have all Family lines below >all Individual lines. > >I am sorry that messes up your ordering. Currently the only way to get It isn't really important to me; I was used to it in BK6. I just thought, like the ability to list marriage before death in the events list, it might have changed in 7, but no problem. >perfect ordering is to make all of those lines Individual and then add >them again for the spouse or partner as Individual for them also. No, I'll stick with it as it is - I like the fact that it appears in both when I add it to either as "Family". But the suggestion may help others who are more concerned. > >Also, if you move to a person, it normally shows spouse number 1 even >if you were looking at spouse number 2 earlier. > >And I have seen the problem when you rearrange order of children of >spouse 2 that when you are done, it changes back to show spouse number >1. When I get some time to work on that, I will try to find a way to >have it not do that. Thanks. Again, now that I know what is going on, it's not urgent - it was just a bit startling the first time they all disappeared (-:! [] Actually, if you were going to give this sort of thing any time, I'd rather have the option of having _all_ the children of the person at the top of the screen shown, perhaps with those not with the currently-shown spouse greyed-out and not clickable or something (or perhaps with the spouse number on the line somewhere - but I think I'd prefer the greying option); I'm sure I can't be the only one to have added what I thought was a missing child, only to find s/he was already there (but under a different spouse) - especially when one spouse didn't have any. But I expect that's a lot more effort for you! -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Bother,"saidPoohwhenhisspacebarrefusedtowork.