On 06/01/2016 20:47, Lesley Baxendale via wrote: > In any event, not everyone likes using Forums, they prefer e-mail lists. > In the case of Family Historian, we are lucky enough to have both. My personal preference is for Forums: - an RSS feed can tell you when there are new entries - It is easier to "read a thread" - you can use images and more text formatting. I am a little surprised that there is not a utility which could synchronise a mailing list and a forum! Then we could all have what we prefer. David

I am inclined to agree with Barry. To date there have been 76 mails on this subject alone... Now I subscribe to both the mailing list and the forum and I was always under the impression that the mailing list was for a question and a couple of quick answers (and I value those snippets of knowledge that come by from time to time). The Forum is designed for protracted discussions about specific subjects and to allow a lively debate. Again it is a valuable source of information which can be searched to whittle the wheat from the chaff. I do however tire from my Inbox being clogged by repetitive meanderings over some semantic minutae. I don't wish to unsubscribe or to delete mails. I just plead that people use the right tool for the job and move these discussions to the forum where they belong. I would counter Leslie's statement that forums are not preferable with the fact that all of us are using a complex program on a computer (Mac or PC - let's not go there), using mail and the Internet. Surely a forum is a lot more secure than the Net or even this mailing list. If the mailing list stopped then everyone, I'm sure, would go t the forum for answers. And in some cases, Mike or Jane are posting plugins or screenshots which shows the added value that a forum offers. Just my two-pennyworth. {Stands back to await the blast} -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Lesley Baxendale via Sent: 06 January 2016 20:47 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] References, citations, sources et al I'm sure Mike would have directed the 'conversation' there if he thought it was necessary. In any event, not everyone likes using Forums, they prefer e-mail lists. In the case of Family Historian, we are lucky enough to have both. You can always hit the delete key. Lesley On 05/01/2016 22:39, Barry Hepburn via wrote: > I am beginning to lose the will to live!!!!!!!!!! > > Isn’t this what the FHUG is for? > > Barry > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 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

Many of us will have used the attribute "Cause" for Death events. Has anyone, I wonder, used it for a marriage (e.g. "after his money", "legitimising our child") or anything else? Paul

Never too old to learn! Family Historian has a lovely diagrams feature to put an "underline" below the text box of an individual who had no children. This will appear if you add the attribute "Child Count" to an individual's record (e.g. through the "All" tab). FH diagrams are intelligent enough to ignore/override that if you subsequently add a child, whether to that individual or to their marriage. And to restore the "underline" if you then remove the added child. In fact it gets better. If she has two marriages and you add a child to one of them, the underline disappears only from the correct one. Now the NCHI attribute has wider use than just this, but that's all I use it for (mostly). But. I just discovered that GEDCOM's 5.5.1 spec allows NCHI as an attribute of FAMily records too! Now, if you think about it, that's the kind of thing we're talking about *most* of the time. How many children (e.g. 0) did a particular couple have? Guess what? I can't find a way to add this attribute to a FH marriage record, even in the "All" tab. Quite possibly Jane (as usual) will show me the error of my ways, but just *maybe* Simon left this out. After all, it doesn't show as a Family as well as Individual attribute in Fact Types. Oddly enough, if I create the attribute manually in a text editor, diagrams seem to take notice of it. Though I'm not certain if it behaves quite the way I'd like it to. Any ideas? Paul

It has been very useful to get an insight (and in some cases step by step details) of how experienced users of FH record their sources and also the different ways (method 1, 2 and so on). You can read the online help but that only goes so far - it is so much better hearing about real examples and the pros and cons. I go on the forum too, though I have welcomed this email exchange. Sometimes wonder what’s coming next! Nickie >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 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'm sure Mike would have directed the 'conversation' there if he thought it was necessary. In any event, not everyone likes using Forums, they prefer e-mail lists. In the case of Family Historian, we are lucky enough to have both. You can always hit the delete key. Lesley On 05/01/2016 22:39, Barry Hepburn via wrote: > I am beginning to lose the will to live!!!!!!!!!! > > Isn’t this what the FHUG is for? > > Barry > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 do not always bother to record the repository because I think it is mostly obvious (TNA hold Census records)" David Did non of your relatives venture out of the UK prior to 1940 ? Mine did and they appears in Census Records that TNA do not hold. Mike Fisher

Dave That is exactly what I do so you are not alone in this. Victor On 06/01/2016 1:08 PM, David via wrote: > 1. Re: References > > My two-pennorth! > > I find FH's provision of the Repository, Source, Citation structure > sufficient for my recording. > I use Ancestral Sources for my recording from most formal documents. > I do not always bother to record the repository because I think it is mostly > obvious (TNA hold Census records) > > With Censuses I have one Source for each Census and record the TNA reference > in the citation. I make a copy of the image and also make a Word document > copy of any transcript available on line. I have a Word Macros that do most > of the work of formatting them to my way and invariably find errors in the > provided transcript which I correct (and tell the supplier about, > sometimes). > > With BMD records if I am using an index record than I record the reference > in the citation and use simple sources called FreeBMD, FindMyPast etc. If I > have an original or official copy I record that as a Source and use > Ancestral Sources to ensure I get all the available detail and put myself as > the repository. I treat Baptism, Marriage and Burial images (which I keep > copies of) much like official copies. The online transcriptions of these I > find a complete waste of time and I rarely bother to make my own > transcription. I find the records I make in FH meet my needs. I usually > record the source of Baptisms and Burials (and Marriages where there is no > image of the entry) as being such-and-such Parish Register with a note to > say on-line, microfilm, original or Bishop's Transcript. > > I always record the source of my information and I have many records with 2 > or more sources. I find it is a rare source that has only one citation. > > I do have some partial trees on a couple of websites. I do not maintain > them there. When, very rarely, I feel the need to update them, I delete > them and upload a new version. I hate copying stuff from other people's > on-line trees because they never seem to have any sources or support for > their records. I have not seen an on-line tree that positively encourages > the quotation of sources. > > > > DaveT > In Sunny South Yorkshire > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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

1. Re: References My two-pennorth! I find FH's provision of the Repository, Source, Citation structure sufficient for my recording. I use Ancestral Sources for my recording from most formal documents. I do not always bother to record the repository because I think it is mostly obvious (TNA hold Census records) With Censuses I have one Source for each Census and record the TNA reference in the citation. I make a copy of the image and also make a Word document copy of any transcript available on line. I have a Word Macros that do most of the work of formatting them to my way and invariably find errors in the provided transcript which I correct (and tell the supplier about, sometimes). With BMD records if I am using an index record than I record the reference in the citation and use simple sources called FreeBMD, FindMyPast etc. If I have an original or official copy I record that as a Source and use Ancestral Sources to ensure I get all the available detail and put myself as the repository. I treat Baptism, Marriage and Burial images (which I keep copies of) much like official copies. The online transcriptions of these I find a complete waste of time and I rarely bother to make my own transcription. I find the records I make in FH meet my needs. I usually record the source of Baptisms and Burials (and Marriages where there is no image of the entry) as being such-and-such Parish Register with a note to say on-line, microfilm, original or Bishop's Transcript. I always record the source of my information and I have many records with 2 or more sources. I find it is a rare source that has only one citation. I do have some partial trees on a couple of websites. I do not maintain them there. When, very rarely, I feel the need to update them, I delete them and upload a new version. I hate copying stuff from other people's on-line trees because they never seem to have any sources or support for their records. I have not seen an on-line tree that positively encourages the quotation of sources. DaveT In Sunny South Yorkshire

David, The first part of your explanation seems to me to be another complication/restriction of Method 2 that does not apply with Method 1, which avoids all those limitations, cross-references, replicated entries, etc, etc. My personal impression is that you are jumping through hoops to persevere with Method 2 where it is not appropriate, and Method 1 would solve those issues and still allow you to monitor "Method 2 Source Collections". You right-click on the blue 'Source' item on the left (not the expanded Source record) and choose "Add Multimedia Object > Add Link to New/Existing Multimedia Object Record". This adds the Media to the Citation not the Source record and is standard GEDCOM. BTW: Ancestral Sources will do that for you with new data entry. If you want screen-shots then continue this discussion in the FHUG Forums. Regards, Mike Tate _____ Subject: Re: [FHU] References You have to right-click on the Source Citation and choose "Add Multimedia Object > Add Link to New/Existing Multimedia Object Record". As per your post of 22:51 05/01/2016 in this thread, this to me (a "Method 2 user") looks like attaching to a Source. So you would for instance end up adding multiple images to the "1881 Census" source (and losing the association with the fact! The mirror image of the problem that I have quoted you pointing out at the start of this post!) Are you writing this from a Method 1 perspective where Citation and Source are equivalent - or have I missed a subtlety? (It would be useful if I had!) Wish mailing lists could handle screen shots! David --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

-----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Beryl & Mike Tate via Sent: Wednesday, 6 January 2016 9:52 AM To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] References <<BTW: Unlike the Media tab, you CANNOT create a "Face/Detail Frame" nor use the options to "Exclude from Diagrams/Reports" or "Use Note as Caption" but they are not GEDCOM features. ------------------------------------------------ Actually in V6 you can do all of these things. 1. Create the link via the ALL TAB as described by Mike 2. Open the Media Window and locate your image 3. Select the relevant link in the LINKS TAB of the images property box 4. Add any caption, frame etc. required for that particular link. I have been following this discussion with interest and have learnt a great deal about referencing from the various posts although for me a combination of methods 1 and 2 work and I probably will not change that. Gillian

On 06 Jan 2016 12:44 AM, Ian Thirlwell via wrote: > The full size of a message includes all the header stuff you don't normally > see, as well as the text you've typed. Very often, there are two variations of the message: plain text and HTML. -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg

On 05/01/2016 23:51, Beryl & Mike Tate via wrote: > When a Fact has more than one Citation, adding a Media image to a Fact loses its association with the Citation, and has consequences in Reports. Agreed - the reports implication is not yet something with which I am familiar since I work with the data (or when "publishing" with diagrams or word-processed reports). Under such a working regime the association with the citation (for human researchers, if not the processing by FH) is maintained by: * Associating the media with "the fact that it is". So I would only associate an image of a census return with a census fact. I would not for instance associate it with an occupation fact. (For the occupation fact I merely cite "Census Cross-reference" as the source). This means that in most cases you have "one fact : one image" * Where "one fact : one image" breaks down - for instance multiple newspaper reports of an event, or a birth certificate and a birth index page, I make clear what the "image" is (in Source terms) in the Media "Keyword" field ("Census", "Birth Certificate" etc.) - and if necessary the first line of the Picture Note (both of which are specific to the image) or in the "Link to ...." field in the bottom left of the "Edit Media Item" Dialogue which I believe is specific to the image-fact relationship (i.e. the - Method 2 - citation)? > Why not add the Media image to the Citation itself, similar to Text From Source for the transcript? Then you can Copy & Paste the Citation to each Fact. I'm not entirely clear what you mean by "adding to the Citation". If you mean: > You have to right-click on the Source Citation and choose "Add Multimedia Object > Add Link to New/Existing Multimedia Object Record". As per your post of 22:51 05/01/2016 in this thread, this to me (a "Method 2 user") looks like attaching to a Source. So you would for instance end up adding multiple images to the "1881 Census" source (and losing the association with the fact! The mirror image of the problem that I have quoted you pointing out at the start of this post!) Are you writing this from a Method 1 perspective where Citation and Source are equivalent - or have I missed a subtlety? (It would be useful if I had!) Wish mailing lists could handle screen shots! David

Sorry Bob, but I do not recognize much of the terminology you are using: e.g. 'media source', 'attributes', 'Do not display box' Usually an imported Media document file is linked to a Media record, and that is linked to a Source record via its Media tab, which is where options such as 'Exclude from Diagrams' or 'Exclude from Reports' can be set. That Source record can then be cited by as many Records or Facts as you like and those Media options will apply throughout. However, I am guessing that your Media is directly linked to an Individual record Property Box Media tab, where similar options can bet set. I still have FH V5.0.11 on one PC, and copy & paste a 'Multimedia Object' via the "All" tab does NOT preserve any options such as 'Exclude from Diagrams/Reports'. So it is not clear what you think has changed in FH V6.0. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: [FHU] Media Record Attributes When importing a media source into a project I will usually set some of the attributes, in particular I usually check the Do not display box. I often copy this source to associate with other records in my project and find cut and paste the fastest option via the "All" tab. Unfortunately and most annoyingly FH 6.0 seems to drop all the attribute settings when I copy. This was not the case in 5.x and seems a backward step. This is becoming a very labour intensive task for me. Are there any global settings I can set to avoid this issue. Bob Oliver --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

I forgot to add that nothing actually prevents you using Media records as a Media Manager. You can use the Note field to hold a transcript. FH doe NOT demand that you have a linked File, and it is a strange anomaly but GEDCOM does not define a File Link for Media records. So you do NOT need a 1-pixel blank image. Even the FH Tools > External File Links does not complain about the missing File Links. FYI: FH uses legal GEDCOM 'user-defined' _FILE & _FORM extension tags to hold the File Link & Format. Other products often use an illegal FILE tag that has become a de facto standard, and is also accepted by FH on import. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] References 5) Unfortunately, in FH the Media Note field rarely makes an appearance in Reports. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] References 5) In following this thread I am now wondering whether a full transcript best lives in the Media Manager with the image of which it is a transcript. Each image has a Note field that seems to be suitable. Unfortunately in FH you need to have a bit of media for each transcription - and adding a 1pixel "blank image" just seems "wrong". --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

When importing a media source into a project I will usually set some of the attributes, in particular I usually check the Do not display box. I often copy this source to associate with other records in my project and find cut and paste the fastest option via the "All" tab. Unfortunately and most annoyingly FH 6.0 seems to drop all the attribute settings when I copy. This was not the case in 5.x and seems a backward step. This is becoming a very labour intensive task for me. Are there any global settings I can set to avoid this issue. Regards Bob Oliver Ottershaw, Surrey, UK

Hi Mike Oooops, I'm nearly agreeing with Mike - Yes, you do lose the association between the Media and the Citation if you attach the Media to the Fact. As far as I am concerned the Fact is an immovable feast - the individual was, say, born. But there could be many census entries, verbal history, IGI, GRO, parish transcripts that 'dispute' the date of birth. So I never attach Media to a Fact, if I got that information I always Cite it and add the Media to the Citation. I only Cite the whole fact once, when I originally create it. That Citation could be widely inaccurate but it was the original and will always stay as such. If I later find 20 different birth dates and 20 different birth places they will get a Citation with the necessary Media attached if possible. The main problem if two-fold - there is no easy way to add Media to a Citation, I think it would be so easy to add that little camera next to the 'Show Multimedia' on the Citation pane. Secondly, whilst AS is a good tool for manipulating the data it still can't get round the GEDCOM problem that doesn't recognise separate Occupations, Birthdates, Birthplace etc. for a Census. I would love to add all my Census images directly to a Census tag and do away with the intermediary Citation tag. But there, I have contradicted myself by wanting to attach Media to a Fact - but I look at our cat who has decided not to go out even though she was screaming at the door - we can all be contrary, it's only animal! David (again) -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Beryl & Mike Tate via Sent: 05 January 2016 23:52 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] References When a Fact has more than one Citation, adding a Media image to a Fact loses its association with the Citation, and has consequences in Reports. Why not add the Media image to the Citation itself, similar to Text From Source for the transcript? Then you can Copy & Paste the Citation to each Fact. 1) You cannot text search an image, but can search a textual transcript. 2) 3) & 4) These illustrate the drawbacks of Method 2 when you want transcripts (or Media). An alternative is a Note record linked to each Citation, similar to linking the Media image to each Citation (or Fact). That is one technique offered by Ancestral Sources, and it allows Copy & Paste of Citations to each Fact. 5) Unfortunately, in FH the Media Note field rarely makes an appearance in Reports. Method 1 Source records solve the problem by using their own Text From Source field, and solve the drawbacks of 2) 3) & 4), and solves where to attach the Media image, so effectively solves the Media Manager problem. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] References On 05/01/2016 17:53, Beryl & Mike Tate via wrote: > I would add that Media images play just as important a role as transcripts. > > It is not clear in your Method 2 case where the image & transcript are > attached, but in GEDCOM they can be added to a Citation, although if there are multiple Citations of the same "Quote" there will be multiple copies of them. I attach an image "reference" to the fact - if I have understood how it works. The image is only held once (in the media tab/manager) - but there are multiple links (for instance a single image of a census page is linked to the relevant census fact for each individual). The transcript placement is something I still ponder. 1) If you have the image - do you need a full transcript? (If someone has done a decent transcript of a hard to read image, Yes) 2) The part of the transcript relevant to the supported fact can be held in the "Text From Source" for the "source" citation for the fact. [Individual>Census>Source>Data>Text From Source] 3) For census records I might put a full transcript on the "Text From Source" for the "source" citation for the census fact for the Head of Household. (And on all individual census facts, I record who is the head of household in the note [Individual>Census>Note]) 4) For Occupations etc. derived from Censuses I reference the occupation fact to a source "Census Cross-reference" - prompting you to look on the corresponding census fact for the source, the image and the transcript. 5) In following this thread I am now wondering whether a full transcript best lives in the Media Manager with the image of which it is a transcript. Each image has a Note field that seems to be suitable. Unfortunately in FH you need to have a bit of media for each transcription - and adding a 1pixel "blank image" just seems "wrong". ------------------------------- 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

When a Fact has more than one Citation, adding a Media image to a Fact loses its association with the Citation, and has consequences in Reports. Why not add the Media image to the Citation itself, similar to Text From Source for the transcript? Then you can Copy & Paste the Citation to each Fact. 1) You cannot text search an image, but can search a textual transcript. 2) 3) & 4) These illustrate the drawbacks of Method 2 when you want transcripts (or Media). An alternative is a Note record linked to each Citation, similar to linking the Media image to each Citation (or Fact). That is one technique offered by Ancestral Sources, and it allows Copy & Paste of Citations to each Fact. 5) Unfortunately, in FH the Media Note field rarely makes an appearance in Reports. Method 1 Source records solve the problem by using their own Text From Source field, and solve the drawbacks of 2) 3) & 4), and solves where to attach the Media image, so effectively solves the Media Manager problem. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] References On 05/01/2016 17:53, Beryl & Mike Tate via wrote: > I would add that Media images play just as important a role as transcripts. > > It is not clear in your Method 2 case where the image & transcript are attached, but in GEDCOM they can be added to a Citation, although if there are multiple Citations of the same "Quote" there will be multiple copies of them. I attach an image "reference" to the fact - if I have understood how it works. The image is only held once (in the media tab/manager) - but there are multiple links (for instance a single image of a census page is linked to the relevant census fact for each individual). The transcript placement is something I still ponder. 1) If you have the image - do you need a full transcript? (If someone has done a decent transcript of a hard to read image, Yes) 2) The part of the transcript relevant to the supported fact can be held in the "Text From Source" for the "source" citation for the fact. [Individual>Census>Source>Data>Text From Source] 3) For census records I might put a full transcript on the "Text From Source" for the "source" citation for the census fact for the Head of Household. (And on all individual census facts, I record who is the head of household in the note [Individual>Census>Note]) 4) For Occupations etc. derived from Censuses I reference the occupation fact to a source "Census Cross-reference" - prompting you to look on the corresponding census fact for the source, the image and the transcript. 5) In following this thread I am now wondering whether a full transcript best lives in the Media Manager with the image of which it is a transcript. Each image has a Note field that seems to be suitable. Unfortunately in FH you need to have a bit of media for each transcription - and adding a 1pixel "blank image" just seems "wrong".

Well said, Barry. Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Barry Hepburn via Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2016 10:39 PM To: family-historian-users Subject: Re: [FHU] References, citations, sources et al I am beginning to lose the will to live!!!!!!!!!! Isn’t this what the FHUG is for? Barry ------------------------------- 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: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4489/11332 - Release Date: 01/05/16

The key words are "represented in GEDCOM" and "easily supported in FH". Yes, FH does 'support' every GEDCOM structure, but it is not always 'easy' to use some of them. Some are hidden away on confusing right-click sub-menus in the All tab or Records Window. (I think that is because the developers thought them un-popular features of GEDCOM.) Media attached to Citations are a relevant example. You have to right-click on the Source Citation and choose "Add Multimedia Object > Add Link to New/Existing Multimedia Object Record". If you are unaware of that 'magic' then it looks like FH cannot do it, and be forgiven for assuming GEDCOM cannot do it. Conversely, if you import a GEDCOM with such Citation Media, they appear to disappear in FH until you apply that 'magic' touch, except that they do suddenly appear in Reports with Source Citations enabled! Those Citation Media cannot even be easily customised into a Property Box custom tab, because every single Fact and each Citation & Media needs a different Data Reference. There would be dozens of them, even if you only included the popular Facts with up to two Citations and up to two Media each. 'Ancestral Sources' in Method 2 mode helps when capturing popular Facts, and a Plugin might help with other cases, but still not 'easy'. BTW: Unlike the Media tab, you CANNOT create a "Face/Detail Frame" nor use the options to "Exclude from Diagrams/Reports" or "Use Note as Caption" but they are not GEDCOM features. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: ancestry@faulder.org.uk [mailto:ancestry@faulder.org.uk] Sent: 05 January 2016 21:10 To: post@tatewise.co.uk; family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] References On 05/01/2016 17:53, Beryl & Mike Tate via wrote: > As far as I can tell, everything you described can be represented in GEDCOM structures. > (That is not quite the same as saying they can be easily supported in > Family Historian V6.) So could you please justify the statement: > 'Now all the above is "theoretical" because "it's not supported by GEDCOM".' I was under the impression that FH was a faithful implementation of GEDCOM and therefore if not supported in FH it was not supported by GEDCOM!