Hi I have version 2.3.5. and wondered what is the best way to upgrade to an up to date version. I've had FH for a while but only recently had the opportunity to start working on my tree again and noticed other versions were available. Thank you Sue

hi i have managed to change the font size but i cant seem to change the tiny icons on the focus window and property box. is it pssible to do this. (family historian 4.1) thank you -- john

Well. There are clearly two opposing camps in all this, depending on how you interpret the terms "source" and "citation". I come from the academic world where a "source" is a book or a journal article, and a "citation" is where someone mentions a book or article as a source (it's in the name) of their information. So for me a Birth Certificate is a source of information, and when I enter someone's date of birth in FH I cite my source - I create a ciattion which references the source. But we can, of course, agree to differ. Ian On 18/02/2012 16:38, D C Banks wrote: Hi Michael The Source is the source of your information, i.e. where you get it from. Each Source has it's Repository. Each Individual who has a piece of information can 'cite' a Source, giving it's reference etc. So a GRO Birth reference may 'cite' the reference 'Eastbourne 2b 123 Sep Qtr 1865'. Its Source would be, say, FreeBMD or Blagshire Record Office. Its simple really, if the information you want to store is about an Individual then store it in the Citation record which is unique to the individual, if it is about the Source then store it in the Source record, a source can have many citations. I agree that it is so confusing to have too many Source records and why duplicate the information. Yes, like you, I believe the Tutorial is wrong but that is just an opinion. On one of my families my Source records stand at 70 with 4000 individuals. I have approx 8000 Citations. David -----Original Message----- From: [1]family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [[2]mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Michael Jackson Sent: 18 February 2012 12:58 To: [3]FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com Subject: [FHU] Sources and Citations Hello I am new to Family Historian and this list and wonder if anyone can suggest if it is better to create a separate Source Record of each Birth Certificate or whether it is sufficient to have one Source Record which supplies general information for all Birth Certificates with the individuals information stored in the citation. I should say I am talking about post 1837 GRO certificates. It seems rather cumbersome and possibly confusing to have many Source Records, often recording the same information. The tutorials seem to suggest that a new Source Record should be created for each individual Birth Certificate. But I may be wrong. Michael from Bracknell ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [4]FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - [5]www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4816 - Release Date: 02/17/12 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - [6]www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4816 - Release Date: 02/17/12 ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [7]FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS -request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the sub ject and the body of the message References 1. mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com 2. mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com 3. mailto:FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com 4. mailto:FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com 5. http://www.avg.com/ 6. http://www.avg.com/ 7. mailto:FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com

Michael, Do have a look at Ancestral Sources which provides a convenient way of entering Census and Baptism, and shortly Marriage data into FH. (Later it will add Death, Burial, and Probate). Consider a Census for a household. Create a Source for that Census return and link an image of the Census page. In the Source property box add a transcript of the Census for all the people present that day, with their ages, birth place, occupation, etc. That could lead to many, many Citations each linked to a Census, Birth and Occupation Fact for each person. All the information related to that Census Return is in one place, in the Source Record, and if it needs updating, only one set of data needs changing. If on the other hand you have one Source say for the entire 1911 UK Census, then if you want to record a transcript for one household where do you put it? If you put the transcript in the Citation Text From Source, then you will have to replicate it in each of the many Citations identified above. Then if it needs to change, all the replicas will need to be found and changed. Note that Ancestral Source will support either approach, but recommends the former. It gives a fuller explanation in its Help. If you have not done so, then I recommend joining the FHUG at http://www.fhug.org.uk/cgi-bin/index.cgi where there have several discussions on this topic. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Michael Jackson Sent: 18 February 2012 12:58 To: FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com Subject: [FHU] Sources and Citations Hello I am new to Family Historian and this list and wonder if anyone can suggest if it is better to create a separate Source Record of each Birth Certificate or whether it is sufficient to have one Source Record which supplies general information for all Birth Certificates with the individuals information stored in the citation. I should say I am talking about post 1837 GRO certificates. It seems rather cumbersome and possibly confusing to have many Source Records, often recording the same information. The tutorials seem to suggest that a new Source Record should be created for each individual Birth Certificate. But I may be wrong. Michael from Bracknell ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I also favour the source per certificate route, it makes it easy to find any related citations and this can be very important when you discover one certificate was the wrong one, to undo related information. You can easily use a query to filter information by the source Type to find people who don't have a Birth Certificate as a source. The fact you can easily attach a media record to a source and report on it, is another reason I prefer this method.

Hi Michael The Source is the source of your information, i.e. where you get it from. Each Source has it's Repository. Each Individual who has a piece of information can 'cite' a Source, giving it's reference etc. So a GRO Birth reference may 'cite' the reference 'Eastbourne 2b 123 Sep Qtr 1865'. Its Source would be, say, FreeBMD or Blagshire Record Office. Its simple really, if the information you want to store is about an Individual then store it in the Citation record which is unique to the individual, if it is about the Source then store it in the Source record, a source can have many citations. I agree that it is so confusing to have too many Source records and why duplicate the information. Yes, like you, I believe the Tutorial is wrong but that is just an opinion. On one of my families my Source records stand at 70 with 4000 individuals. I have approx 8000 Citations. David -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Michael Jackson Sent: 18 February 2012 12:58 To: FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com Subject: [FHU] Sources and Citations Hello I am new to Family Historian and this list and wonder if anyone can suggest if it is better to create a separate Source Record of each Birth Certificate or whether it is sufficient to have one Source Record which supplies general information for all Birth Certificates with the individuals information stored in the citation. I should say I am talking about post 1837 GRO certificates. It seems rather cumbersome and possibly confusing to have many Source Records, often recording the same information. The tutorials seem to suggest that a new Source Record should be created for each individual Birth Certificate. But I may be wrong. Michael from Bracknell ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4816 - Release Date: 02/17/12 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4816 - Release Date: 02/17/12

Hi Michael Over the years I have developed various methods of recording these BMD certificates and records. In the end I have opted to list them thus Birth Certificate any town, any county, any country AN Other any year. This is in the 'sources tab' I then copy the certificate into this source. It is similar to a marriage certificate. Here I edit the source and write , name of church, town, county, country and parish register. As a key word I put marriage certificate The same goes for death certificate and baptism details. I do the same for pre 1837 details and under the 'key word' I put Marriage Record (rather than certificate. This is the way things are set up for baptisms using Ancestral Sources. I believe a later version of AS will include Marriage details. In reality it is up to each individual how they want to process these details. Remember using a Project window for your tree all these are copied onto your back ups. Victor On 18/02/2012 12:58 PM, Michael Jackson wrote: > Hello > I am new to Family Historian and this list and wonder if anyone can suggest if it is better to create a separate Source Record of each Birth Certificate or whether it is sufficient to have one Source Record which supplies general information for all Birth Certificates with the individuals information stored in the citation. I should say I am talking about post 1837 GRO certificates. > > It seems rather cumbersome and possibly confusing to have many Source Records, often recording the same information. The tutorials seem to suggest that a new Source Record should be created for each individual Birth Certificate. But I may be wrong. > > Michael from Bracknell > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Your wrote... >> I am continuing with my research into the people who lived in my small town, using the 1841 - 1911 Censuses as my starting point. >> I have a similar database for the town I am interested in!. I started over 10 years ago with an ACCESS database of census transcriptions and BMD info and I gave every family a unique number and every person a unique reference number. From the database I have generated web pages for each census and also an Index of persons with links back into the census pages. WHen I had the ‘bright’ idea of doing family trees for everyone I carried over the refno and familyno into the GENERATIONs software I used at the time. I have carried on with this in FH because I found that the POOL seemed to keep changing and I need to tie in Family 57 (say) with family 57 in the database. I did this using a custom attribute for REF and FAMILY (my names) Fiona

Michael /Ian I agree 100%. You might end up with 2000 sources, but labelled systematically they are very easy to find in the list. If you use Ancestral Sources for censuses, these also will be filed as one source per family. Easy peasy. I never did discover how to use the "within source" method. Happy filing. Kath __________________ >I have (only) 180+ certificates but counting, to say nothing of all the parish register scans, etc. That would make for one very cumbersome source document. I find one document = one source =two or three citations much easier to cope with mentally.

.... Oh, and of course one source = one multimedia (image) makes for increased sanity too ! Ian (Any errors in the above message are due entirely to the use of fat fingers on this Blackberry mini "keyboard") -----Original Message----- From: "Michael Jackson" <mjackson@ntlworld.com> Sender: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 12:58:16 To: <FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com> Reply-To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: [FHU] Sources and Citations Hello I am new to Family Historian and this list and wonder if anyone can suggest if it is better to create a separate Source Record of each Birth Certificate or whether it is sufficient to have one Source Record which supplies general information for all Birth Certificates with the individuals information stored in the citation. I should say I am talking about post 1837 GRO certificates. It seems rather cumbersome and possibly confusing to have many Source Records, often recording the same information. The tutorials seem to suggest that a new Source Record should be created for each individual Birth Certificate. But I may be wrong. Michael from Bracknell ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Michael I have (only) 180+ certificates but counting, to say nothing of all the parish register scans, etc. That would make for one very cumbersome source document. I find one document = one source =two or three citations much easier to cope with mentally. And computer memory is cheap. Ian (Any errors in the above message are due entirely to the use of fat fingers on this Blackberry mini "keyboard") -----Original Message----- From: "Michael Jackson" <mjackson@ntlworld.com> Sender: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 12:58:16 To: <FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com> Reply-To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: [FHU] Sources and Citations Hello I am new to Family Historian and this list and wonder if anyone can suggest if it is better to create a separate Source Record of each Birth Certificate or whether it is sufficient to have one Source Record which supplies general information for all Birth Certificates with the individuals information stored in the citation. I should say I am talking about post 1837 GRO certificates. It seems rather cumbersome and possibly confusing to have many Source Records, often recording the same information. The tutorials seem to suggest that a new Source Record should be created for each individual Birth Certificate. But I may be wrong. Michael from Bracknell ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello I am new to Family Historian and this list and wonder if anyone can suggest if it is better to create a separate Source Record of each Birth Certificate or whether it is sufficient to have one Source Record which supplies general information for all Birth Certificates with the individuals information stored in the citation. I should say I am talking about post 1837 GRO certificates. It seems rather cumbersome and possibly confusing to have many Source Records, often recording the same information. The tutorials seem to suggest that a new Source Record should be created for each individual Birth Certificate. But I may be wrong. Michael from Bracknell

Just to add to what colevalleygirl said: the Orphan query works by assigning a Pool number to each group of individuals who are directly or indirectly related to each other. (So if you don't have any unrelated individuals they will all be in Pool number 1). You might find it useful to display a column for the Pool number in the Records window. To do this, right-click on any heading in the Individuals tab of the Record window. Select 'Configure Columns'. Scroll down to the bottom of the left hand side in the Configure Columns dialog and select <other>. Click on the right-pointing arrow in the middle of the dialog. Enter a Heading name, e.g. 'Pool number', and in the Expression field enter =RelationPool() . Click Add. You can now use the up/down arrows on the right hand side of the dialog to change the position of the new column if you want to. Click OK. You can now click on the Pool column heading to sort individuals by Pool number. Lorna On 17/02/2012 14:15, colevalleygirl wrote: > The Orphan query actually shows you everybody, in linked groups (pools) so > might be exactly what you need. >

The Orphan query actually shows you everybody, in linked groups (pools) so might be exactly what you need. -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Steve Symes Sent: 17 February 2012 14:01 To: FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com Subject: [FHU] Extended families I am continuing with my research into the people who lived in my small town, using the 1841 - 1911 Censuses as my starting point. I see that FH gives a total number of Individuals & total number of "Families" (i.e. Mum, Dad & kids) - is there any query that would tell me the number of extended families I have (of however many generations) and then the people within these groups? - i.e. the people I have managed to tie up! I know I can do an "Orphan" query for people who are not attached to any family.   Regards Steve Symes ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I am continuing with my research into the people who lived in my small town, using the 1841 - 1911 Censuses as my starting point. I see that FH gives a total number of Individuals & total number of "Families" (i.e. Mum, Dad & kids) - is there any query that would tell me the number of extended families I have (of however many generations) and then the people within these groups? - i.e. the people I have managed to tie up! I know I can do an "Orphan" query for people who are not attached to any family.   Regards Steve Symes

Hi Mike, Many thanks for your further guidance and advice. I shall certainly make time to read further about creating fact queries. Regards, Bernard -----Original Message----- Message: 3 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:33:29 -0000 From: "Beryl & Mike Tate" <post@tatewise.co.uk> Subject: Re: [FHU] Ancestors' Report Query To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <001601ccea7d$fbc49dc0$f34dd940$@co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hi Bernard, You should be able to simply replace the %INDI.FAMS>MARR.OBJE>% data reference with the matching TextIf(Exists()) function. Remember to leave off the '=' prefix from the TextIf function. The '=' prefix must only exist on the first function in the nested set of functions. So you should get: =Text( TextIf( IsAncestorOf( %INDI.~SPOU>%, FileRoot() ), TextIf(Exists(%INDI.FAMS>MARR.OBJE>%),"Yes",""),) . TextIf( IsAncestorOf( %INDI.~SPOU[2]>%, FileRoot() ), TextIf(Exists(%INDI.FAMS[2]>MARR.OBJE>%),"Yes",""),) . TextIf( IsAncestorOf( %INDI.~SPOU[3]>%, FileRoot() ), TextIf(Exists(%INDI.FAMS[3]>MARR.OBJE>%),"Yes",""),)) If an Individual marries two genuine Ancestors of your FieRoot() then yes the function will yield two dates. For this reason, where multiple Facts of the same type are likely to arise, it is often better to use a Fact Query instead of an Individual Query. Then all the complications we have been discussing often resolve to a single expression applied to each Fact, without having to worry about multiple instances. Also when two instances satisfy your criteria (like your AN16 & 17 and AN18 & 19) then they appear on two separate rows in the Result Set, with the Owner Individual listed twice. It is quite easy in a Fact Query to reference the Owner Individual and filter them accordingly. See the FHUG Knowledge Base on Creating a Query at http://www.fhug.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=how_to:creating_a_query Regards, Mike Tate

My father's ancestry is Scottish, where the naming of a first-born son went with the paternal grandfather and the first-born daughter with the maternal mother. It becomes frustrating and recording difficult in the event the baptised first-born dies early and the succeeding son is named as if he were the first-born and is easily repeated. There was very little precedent in agricultural families for second names to differentiate. In those two centuries, there was no compulsion to include much additional information, let alone pass the records on to the Ecclesiastical Centre - i.e. The Bishop. In my paternal line, there are so many named James, it is a task-and-a-half to differentiate.  Fortunately, I know their trades! Jacobite support was rife in  N.E.Aberdeenshire! If it were not for the fortunate accident of the survival of two A5-sized notebooks, kept by a parish clerk to record burials and computerised by a willing volunteer, I wouldn't have discovered that my 4xGtGrandparents had at least eight children and that only the three I  already knew about, survived long enough to move with their mother and stepfather, in infancy, to Edinburgh. Gaps were closed and sense was made of some serious speculation! My point is, if you have such a problem in differentiating, add a birthyear in brackets (b1673), with the forename. If unsure, put a "?" in, (b1673?). Think six levels of displacement!   My best results have come by visiting the local FH Centre and asking the locals, then scrolling through reels of PR's. Something an on-line search can't do is pick out misspellings or misplacements or pick up on cross-parish boundaries. The IGI is only a tool with too many shortcomings, in my view.  Until  more detailed censuses were recorded, boarded out children or older siblings can easily be missed, so names of witnesses to weddings and baptisms are worth following up, if located in adjacent streets. They could even be related!   I know I'm virtually writing a suck-eggs guide-book here but my drift is - if you think you've looked everywhere - you really haven't!  And query any paid-for research. I didn't at first and it took several years to get that spine-chilling breakthrough, by thinking of the blindingly obvious - TWO people are involved in out-of -wedlock births. TWO surnames!!! Put the mystery people on index cards with the scarce details on and shuffle them around in rows to fit the data logically. No luck first time? Put them aside, work on something else and re-try.  I'm going back to Scotland this Spring, for the 4th time in ten years - I joined a new FHS, posed my problem and they found me a lead  late last year and another set of ancestors- a married third sister to my 4xG/G.father! Agricultural, of course! Good luck to the Sugg Family! Nigel Paterson  ________________________________ From: "family-historian-users-request@rootsweb.com" <family-historian-users-request@rootsweb.com> To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2012, 16:03 Subject: FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS Digest, Vol 7, Issue 41 Today's Topics:   1. Multiple identity possibilities (Chris & Jennie Sugg)   2. Individual Summary Report - Sibling List (Dave Simpson)   3. Problem with flags (Robert)   4. Re: Individual Summary Report - Sibling List (Beryl & Mike Tate)   5. Re: Problem with flags (Beryl & Mike Tate)   6. Re: Multiple identity possibilities (Clive Spratt)   7. Re: Multiple identity possibilities (John James)   8. Re: Release date of version 5 (BwUK) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 10:00:52 -0000 From: "Chris & Jennie Sugg" <c.andj.sugg@ntlworld.com> Subject: [FHU] Multiple identity possibilities To: <FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <002801cce57f$6161fa00$2425ee00$@andj.sugg@ntlworld.com> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii" Can anybody suggest how I should deal with seventeenth and eighteenth century parish record entries (mainly burials but with some marriages) when I discover the burials or marriages of 4 or 5 Johns, Marys or Thomas' within a limited time period?  Additional information is very limited and  I am often unable to identify which family each belongs  to.  Is it the father or son who has died - or was it a different family altogether? Suggestions would be appreciated.  Thanks. Chris ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 12:00:11 -0000 From: "Dave Simpson" <dave@quarlton.co.uk> Subject: [FHU] Individual Summary Report - Sibling List To: <FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <000f01cce590$0ce04f20$26a0ed60$@co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii" Individual Summary Report - Sibling List Does anyone know of a simple way of reporting a list of a person's siblings in this report? I have used a somewhat clumsy method so far that lists all children of the family: %INDI.FAMC[1]>CHIL[1]>%  %INDI.FAMC[1]>CHIL[2]>%  .... %INDI.FAMC[1]>CHIL[19]>%  I have to have 19 entries to make sure that all siblings are listed (max is 18 to date), albeit that they are hidden when they don't exist. Unfortunately this duplicates the individual themselves which is what I would like to avoid (i.e. if the individual is child 4 the I don't want child 4 to appear in the Sibling list Any suggestions gratefully received Dave ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 12:00:34 -0000 From: "Robert" <robacis@btinternet.com> Subject: [FHU] Problem with flags To: <FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <9BEEF7E17FF74509A552300B159F6F4C@BRENDA> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="iso-8859-1" Some weeks ago I raised the issue of Ancestral Sources apparently corrupting the FH gedcom file and doing some nasty things such a losing some multimedia from FH. Some kind contributors mentioned various ways to solve the problem and I grateful for the suggestions, but to no avail. I now seem to have solved the problem so this message for the benefit of those who find themselves in the same position. It stems from the fact that the original gedcom file was created in Family Tree Maker and the Census dates were shown as the year of the census not the actual date. Ancestral Sources seemed not to like this and hence corrupted the file. The solution is to run "Census date check" in Ancestral Sources before trying to update the flags. by saving the Census data. Having run this check and reallocated the censuses by the actual date, once this had been done Ancestral Sources happily updated the gedcom file correctly and all the correct flags were shown in FH. So for anyone importing a file to FH or anyone using AS for the first time it seems essential to run this check before trying to input data Robacis ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:44:16 -0000 From: "Beryl & Mike Tate" <post@tatewise.co.uk> Subject: Re: [FHU] Individual Summary Report - Sibling List To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <000e01cce5a6$f82aad20$e8800760$@co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii" Dave, I do not have a shortcut to listing Siblings, but the following technique will automatically omit the Individual themselves. Use the function expression below for each entry, and replace [1] with [2] et seq in two places in each one. =TextIf(IsSameItem(%INDI%,%INDI.FAMC[1]>CHIL[1]>%),"",%INDI.FAMC[1]>CHIL[1]>%) =TextIf(IsSameItem(%INDI%,%INDI.FAMC[1]>CHIL[2]>%),"",%INDI.FAMC[1]>CHIL[2]>%) ... =TextIf(IsSameItem(%INDI%,%INDI.FAMC[1]>CHIL[19]>%),"",%INDI.FAMC[1]>CHIL[19]>%) It works by testing if %INDI% is the same as the Sibling, and if so produces "" empty string, otherwise the Sibling. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Dave Simpson Sent: 07 February 2012 12:00 To: FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [FHU] Individual Summary Report - Sibling List Individual Summary Report - Sibling List Does anyone know of a simple way of reporting a list of a person's siblings in this report? I have used a somewhat clumsy method so far that lists all children of the family: %INDI.FAMC[1]>CHIL[1]>%  %INDI.FAMC[1]>CHIL[2]>%  .... %INDI.FAMC[1]>CHIL[19]>%  I have to have 19 entries to make sure that all siblings are listed (max is 18 to date), albeit that they are hidden when they don't exist. Unfortunately this duplicates the individual themselves which is what I would like to avoid (i.e. if the individual is child 4 the I don't want child 4 to appear in the Sibling list Any suggestions gratefully received Dave ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:44:16 -0000 From: "Beryl & Mike Tate" <post@tatewise.co.uk> Subject: Re: [FHU] Problem with flags To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <000f01cce5a6$f8a92bf0$e9fb83d0$@co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii" Robacis, Thank you for that feedback - very useful. I will add your advice to the FHUG Knowledge Base tutorials for AS. AS does mention the importance of running the Census Date Check in the Help, but you have to follow the links from Census Flag Settings via Census Flag Check to Census Date Check to read:- "Census facts in the GEDCOM family history file that have been created prior to using Ancestral Sources (or predecessor Gedcom Census) may not have accurate dates for censuses recorded. For example, a UK 1901 census fact might have the date 1901 rather than the more accurate 31 Mar 1901. If you wish to make use of the Census Flag Check feature of Ancestral Sources it is recommended that you first try to ensure that existing census facts have dates that match those in Ancestral Sources." Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Robert Sent: 07 February 2012 12:01 To: FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com Subject: [FHU] Problem with flags Some weeks ago I raised the issue of Ancestral Sources apparently corrupting the FH gedcom file and doing some nasty things such a losing some multimedia from FH. Some kind contributors mentioned various ways to solve the problem and I grateful for the suggestions, but to no avail. I now seem to have solved the problem so this message for the benefit of those who find themselves in the same position. It stems from the fact that the original gedcom file was created in Family Tree Maker and the Census dates were shown as the year of the census not the actual date. Ancestral Sources seemed not to like this and hence corrupted the file. The solution is to run "Census date check" in Ancestral Sources before trying to update the flags. by saving the Census data. Having run this check and reallocated the censuses by the actual date, once this had been done Ancestral Sources happily updated the gedcom file correctly and all the correct flags were shown in FH. So for anyone importing a file to FH or anyone using AS for the first time it seems essential to run this check before trying to input data Robacis ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:48:45 -0000 From: "Clive Spratt" <clivespratt@btinternet.com> Subject: Re: [FHU] Multiple identity possibilities To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <8BE9A56636A947DE8119CE993DAA7956@ClivesLaptop> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii" Chris, I have a separate database within FH called 'Other People' so that every family or individual that 'may' become a family member can be recorded, complete with the parish and census details, etc.  Provided you add as 'unrelated individual' and then add to that individual any family members you can keep a ready check on all records of interest. Clive Spratt -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Chris & Jennie Sugg Sent: 07 February 2012 10:01 To: FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com Subject: [FHU] Multiple identity possibilities Can anybody suggest how I should deal with seventeenth and eighteenth century parish record entries (mainly burials but with some marriages) when I discover the burials or marriages of 4 or 5 Johns, Marys or Thomas' within a limited time period?  Additional information is very limited and  I am often unable to identify which family each belongs  to.  Is it the father or son who has died - or was it a different family altogether? Suggestions would be appreciated.  Thanks. Chris ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:03:31 -0000 From: "John James" <john.wjames@which.net> Subject: Re: [FHU] Multiple identity possibilities To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <B94A0D439824497DBEC35AAFFD15CAA9@STUDY> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii" Alternatively, you can keep all your 'possible' in your main database, still entering them as an 'unrelated individual', or in 'orphan' family groups where you can identify them as such. You can report on them using the 'Search for Orphans' standard query, or perhaps using the =RelationPool function.  I have also defined and set a 'Tentative' flag against any such dubious/uncertain individuals, and use this to condition how they are displayed in diagrams.  I also add a record level note describing why they are dubious/uncertain and what needs to be done to confirm/reject them. HTH John ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:03:47 +0000 From: BwUK <martin@biblewitness.org.uk> Subject: Re: [FHU] Release date of version 5 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <4F314B63.6070002@biblewitness.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Simon, I don't know whether it got through to you but I had a problem with BC dates (FH4): ages came out negative. Jane had a look and agreed it was a bug. Also, I have switched from a PC (running latest version of FH4) to a MAC but can only run FH 3.1.2 using the CrossOver/Wine emulator. I cannot upgrade to FH4 on the MAC because it freezes after I've entered the upgrade Key. I suspect it it trying to access the internet and not finding it. The CrossOver forum does suggest a work around but it's a bit messy (the trial version installs but doesn't run). Can you suggest a fix? I'm concerned that if I buy FH5 it may not work or, if it does, future upgrades may not work. Thanks, Best wishes (I like your program!) Martin Cragg Cheshire On 12-02-06 12:28 PM, Simon Orde wrote: > There have been some posts asking when version 5 will be released.  We had > said February, but at this point it's looking like March.  I'm sorry about > that.  We will of course release it as soon as it's ready - but no sooner. > Thank you all for your patience. > > Simon Orde > Calico Pie > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > ------------------------------ To contact the FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS list administrator, send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-admin@rootsweb.com. To post a message to the FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS mailing list, send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com. __________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the email with no additional text. End of FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS Digest, Vol 7, Issue 41 *****************************************************

Hi Bernard, You should be able to simply replace the %INDI.FAMS>MARR.OBJE>% data reference with the matching TextIf(Exists()) function. Remember to leave off the '=' prefix from the TextIf function. The '=' prefix must only exist on the first function in the nested set of functions. So you should get: =Text( TextIf( IsAncestorOf( %INDI.~SPOU>%, FileRoot() ), TextIf(Exists(%INDI.FAMS>MARR.OBJE>%),"Yes",""),) . TextIf( IsAncestorOf( %INDI.~SPOU[2]>%, FileRoot() ), TextIf(Exists(%INDI.FAMS[2]>MARR.OBJE>%),"Yes",""),) . TextIf( IsAncestorOf( %INDI.~SPOU[3]>%, FileRoot() ), TextIf(Exists(%INDI.FAMS[3]>MARR.OBJE>%),"Yes",""),)) If an Individual marries two genuine Ancestors of your FieRoot() then yes the function will yield two dates. For this reason, where multiple Facts of the same type are likely to arise, it is often better to use a Fact Query instead of an Individual Query. Then all the complications we have been discussing often resolve to a single expression applied to each Fact, without having to worry about multiple instances. Also when two instances satisfy your criteria (like your AN16 & 17 and AN18 & 19) then they appear on two separate rows in the Result Set, with the Owner Individual listed twice. It is quite easy in a Fact Query to reference the Owner Individual and filter them accordingly. See the FHUG Knowledge Base on Creating a Query at http://www.fhug.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=how_to:creating_a_query Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Bernard Sharp Sent: 13 February 2012 17:04 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Ancestors' Report Query Hi Mike, Many thanks for your detailed solution to my question. I copied your expression into my ‘custom query’ (yes, you read my mind about terminology correctly) and got the desired result. This has, however, triggered two further questions: Firstly, the expression I had originally utilised to determine whether my database held a multimedia item for each event date will now require modification to accommodate multiple marriages. This is the expression I used: =TextIf(Exists(%INDI.FAMS>MARR.OBJE>%),"Yes","") where ‘yes’ is returned where a multimedia item is present; blank if not. To this end, I have modified your expression, substituting ‘date’ by ‘obje, but my numerous attempts to incorporate the ‘if text exists’ conditional function to return ‘yes’ or ’blank’ have been unsuccessful. This is the extent to which I have succeeded, which returns the text of the label I have applied to multimedia objects: =Text(TextIf(IsAncestorOf(%INDI.~SPOU>%,FileRoot()),%INDI.FAMS>MARR.OBJE>%,) . TextIf(IsAncestorOf(%INDI.~SPOU[2]>%,FileRoot()),%INDI.FAMS[2]>MARR.OBJE>%,) . TextIf(IsAncestorOf(%INDI.~SPOU[3]>%,FileRoot()),%INDI.FAMS[3]>MARR.OBJE>%,)) Secondly, your expression returned two marriage dates in the same cell for two ancestors. Upon investigation, I find that it relates to married couples with the following Ahnentafel Numbers: AN16 & 17 and AN18 & 19. AN16 and AN19 were both widowed and subsequently married each other. The dates returned equate to their original and second marriages respectively. This is probably quite a rare event, but every possible type of relationship is bound to arise at some time or other. Best regards, Bernard -----Original Message----- Message: 3 Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 16:28:34 -0000 From: "Beryl & Mike Tate" <post@tatewise.co.uk> Subject: Re: [FHU] Ancestors' Report Query To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <000001cce9a3$5e2054e0$1a60fea0$@co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Bernard, Reading between the lines I believe you are talking about a Query and its Result Set rather than a Report. The tactic to adopt involves the function =IsAncestorOf() to determine which Spouse is the Ancestor of your starting person. Then the function =TextIf() to only show the Marriage Date of the matching Family Event. Then the function =Text() to join these alternatives together. This 1st expression will only show the 1st Marriage Date if the 1st Spouse is an Ancestor of FileRoot(). =TextIf( IsAncestorOf( %INDI.~SPOU[1]>%, FileRoot() ), %INDI.FAMS[1]>MARR[1].DATE:COMPACT%, ) This 2nd expression will only show the 2nd Marriage Date if the 2nd Spouse is an Ancestor of FileRoot(). =TextIf( IsAncestorOf( %INDI.~SPOU[2]>%, FileRoot() ), %INDI.FAMS[2]>MARR[1].DATE:COMPACT%, ) This 3rd expression will only show the 3rd Marriage Date if the 3rd Spouse is an Ancestor of FileRoot(). =TextIf( IsAncestorOf( %INDI.~SPOU[3]>%, FileRoot() ), %INDI.FAMS[3]>MARR[1].DATE:COMPACT%, ) Only one of the above will yield a Marriage Date and the others empty strings. =Text( TextIf( IsAncestorOf( %INDI.~SPOU[1]>%, FileRoot() ), %INDI.FAMS[1]>MARR[1].DATE:COMPACT%, ) . TextIf( IsAncestorOf( %INDI.~SPOU[2]>%, FileRoot() ), %INDI.FAMS[2]>MARR[1].DATE:COMPACT%, ) . TextIf( IsAncestorOf( %INDI.~SPOU[3]>%, FileRoot() ), %INDI.FAMS[3]>MARR[1].DATE:COMPACT%, ) ) Extend as necessary if more than 3 marriages involved. Regards, Mike Tate ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Mike, Many thanks for your detailed solution to my question. I copied your expression into my ‘custom query’ (yes, you read my mind about terminology correctly) and got the desired result. This has, however, triggered two further questions: Firstly, the expression I had originally utilised to determine whether my database held a multimedia item for each event date will now require modification to accommodate multiple marriages. This is the expression I used: =TextIf(Exists(%INDI.FAMS>MARR.OBJE>%),"Yes","") where ‘yes’ is returned where a multimedia item is present; blank if not. To this end, I have modified your expression, substituting ‘date’ by ‘obje, but my numerous attempts to incorporate the ‘if text exists’ conditional function to return ‘yes’ or ’blank’ have been unsuccessful. This is the extent to which I have succeeded, which returns the text of the label I have applied to multimedia objects: =Text(TextIf(IsAncestorOf(%INDI.~SPOU>%,FileRoot()),%INDI.FAMS>MARR.OBJE>%,) . TextIf(IsAncestorOf(%INDI.~SPOU[2]>%,FileRoot()),%INDI.FAMS[2]>MARR.OBJE>%,) . TextIf(IsAncestorOf(%INDI.~SPOU[3]>%,FileRoot()),%INDI.FAMS[3]>MARR.OBJE>%,)) Secondly, your expression returned two marriage dates in the same cell for two ancestors. Upon investigation, I find that it relates to married couples with the following Ahnentafel Numbers: AN16 & 17 and AN18 & 19. AN16 and AN19 were both widowed and subsequently married each other. The dates returned equate to their original and second marriages respectively. This is probably quite a rare event, but every possible type of relationship is bound to arise at some time or other. Best regards, Bernard -----Original Message----- Message: 3 Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 16:28:34 -0000 From: "Beryl & Mike Tate" <post@tatewise.co.uk> Subject: Re: [FHU] Ancestors' Report Query To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <000001cce9a3$5e2054e0$1a60fea0$@co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Bernard, Reading between the lines I believe you are talking about a Query and its Result Set rather than a Report. The tactic to adopt involves the function =IsAncestorOf() to determine which Spouse is the Ancestor of your starting person. Then the function =TextIf() to only show the Marriage Date of the matching Family Event. Then the function =Text() to join these alternatives together. This 1st expression will only show the 1st Marriage Date if the 1st Spouse is an Ancestor of FileRoot(). =TextIf( IsAncestorOf( %INDI.~SPOU[1]>%, FileRoot() ), %INDI.FAMS[1]>MARR[1].DATE:COMPACT%, ) This 2nd expression will only show the 2nd Marriage Date if the 2nd Spouse is an Ancestor of FileRoot(). =TextIf( IsAncestorOf( %INDI.~SPOU[2]>%, FileRoot() ), %INDI.FAMS[2]>MARR[1].DATE:COMPACT%, ) This 3rd expression will only show the 3rd Marriage Date if the 3rd Spouse is an Ancestor of FileRoot(). =TextIf( IsAncestorOf( %INDI.~SPOU[3]>%, FileRoot() ), %INDI.FAMS[3]>MARR[1].DATE:COMPACT%, ) Only one of the above will yield a Marriage Date and the others empty strings. =Text( TextIf( IsAncestorOf( %INDI.~SPOU[1]>%, FileRoot() ), %INDI.FAMS[1]>MARR[1].DATE:COMPACT%, ) . TextIf( IsAncestorOf( %INDI.~SPOU[2]>%, FileRoot() ), %INDI.FAMS[2]>MARR[1].DATE:COMPACT%, ) . TextIf( IsAncestorOf( %INDI.~SPOU[3]>%, FileRoot() ), %INDI.FAMS[3]>MARR[1].DATE:COMPACT%, ) ) Extend as necessary if more than 3 marriages involved. Regards, Mike Tate

Hi Jayne, One facility of FAMILY historian that I found very useful in dealing with a Census is the ability to select which year irrespective of it being the first or eighth a person was recorded on. In this way, the parameters of the query would be - Birth Date: %INDI.BIRT[1].DATE% Census Date: %INDI.CENS[year=1891].DATE% I've actually built myself a set of queries where this facility is used - as you can guess its one per Census year. I started with one set showing who had been recorded and then added another set where people should have been recorded but whose details I have not found or entered. Hope this helps. Best Regards Graham ----Original Message----- To: FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com Subject: [FHU] Individuals missing from custom query result Hi Everyone,I made custom queries for each census year to help clear old flags and set new ones. When I run each query the results look good. For example, running the 1891 query gives me a list of individuals with birth dates before 1891 and the census date column shows the 1891 date for all individuals. I used the "clear flag on result set" but noticed that the flags set on an individual were still showing in the property box against his name. When I checked the results list from the query, he is not on it (and there are a couple of others who aren't , but should be.)I checked to make sure they had the census details in the "fact" box and this is ok. They have birth dates in the right place (he was born in 1859) I can't work out why he isn't showing in the query results. These are my parameters in the query" Birth Date: %INDI.BIRT[1].DATE% Census Date: %INDI.CENS[1].DATE% Add if %INDI.BIRT[1].DATE:YEAR% was earlier than 1891 Exclude unless %INDI.CENS[1].DATE:YEAR% was on 1891 He doesn't show in any of my custom census queries, but I ran the standard query "Census Record Checklist" and he showed up ok in that for 1861, 1871, 1881, 1891, 1901.Obviously I have overlooked something, can anyone help please? Best Regards, Jayne Vancouver Island, Canada GFHS Member 8271