Can someone tell me if the computer generated Ref. No. changes? I use the Ref No. in Add Facts, to correspond with the computer Ref. #, plus I add a 3 letter code at the beginning to show what family they descend from: ex., John Smith-274 - my ref. SMI274, I was correcting some and noticed that all are different from what I had originally entered. Some are off by 2 or 3 numbers, while some are off by as much as 20, from the computer generated #'s. Am I going to have to change all my Ref # ? (I have not deleted any names that I can remember) Linda
The field known as Reference Number does change. It is an internal database record number. Each time a record added or database is Imported, the number increment by 1. If you want a stable reference number, you must add your own. Use the Reference Number Fact. Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: "L & J Veenstra" <ljveen@sympatico.ca> To: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 3:42 PM Subject: [FO] Ref. No.'s > Can someone tell me if the computer generated Ref. No. changes? > I use the Ref No. in Add Facts, to correspond with the computer Ref. #, > plus I add a 3 letter code at the beginning to show what family they > descend from: ex., John Smith-274 - my ref. SMI274, > I was correcting some and noticed that all are different from what I had > originally entered. Some are off by 2 or 3 numbers, while some are off > by as much as 20, from the computer generated #'s. > Am I going to have to change all my Ref # ? > (I have not deleted any names that I can remember) > Linda > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > PLEASE send personal replies and "THANK YOU" message privately. All messages on this list are archived and archiving takes up valuable space. > > ============================== > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp
Thank you Patricia! Now I can stop trying. The only thing left I can think of might be a global replace of the source for each of the 65 invidual facts connected to it. I may have one too many characters for the line and it pushes the period to the next line. I have tried everything I can think of to fix it. And checked everything attached to it. It only happens in the Family Group Chart. The source cannot be edited and show up in the Family Group Sheet - I suppose because it has individual facts connected. I deleted most of the material in the source, but it still reflects the same information I began with. Everything works correctly in the "Book" mode for sources. Betty ----- Original Message ----- From: "P. SummersSmith" <summerspa@home.com> To: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 12:41 PM Subject: Re: [FO] Sources - spacing and punctuation problem > It is a program flaw which has existed since at least 7.0 -- perhaps > earlier. I have brought it up several times on this list, but no one else > commented on it and it has never been fixed. > > Patricia > > > At 12:03 PM 7/31/01 -0500, Betty Stokes wrote: > >I have a source which is number 47 on the Family Group Chart I am working > >on. It works the same on all other Sources although another number. > > > >I have one line that has all the information contained in the source and > >then on the next line there is a period. A single period. Nothing else > > > >The line begins with 47. Then it doesn't matter what I put in the author, > >name, publisher, etc for the book. I have abbreviated the state and > >spelled it out. I have abbreviated the compiler's middle name. I have > >highlighted to make sure there are no extra spaces. Nothing makes any > >difference. > > > >Has anyone had this problem? > > > >I am getting ready to delete the whole Source and enter it again to see if > >that helps. > > > >Betty > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > FAMILY ORIGINS - Ordering, UPDATES, books, FAQ, FREE DEMO, Newsletter, etc. http://formalsoft.com For the 8.03 and 9.02 PATCHES and what they fix, go to: http://formalsoft.com/files.htm > > ============================== > Shop Ancestry - Everything you need to Discover, Preserve & Celebrate > your heritage! > http://shop.myfamily.com/ancestrycatalog > >
"Betty Stokes" <jstokes@houston.rr.com> wrote: >I have a source . . . . . . . . . . >I have one line that has all the information contained in the source >and then on the next line there is a period. A single period. Nothing >else > >I am getting ready to delete the whole Source and enter it again to see if that helps. I can create the same condition you describe (the next line blank except for a period) by putting at least one character in the citation detail and then hitting <enter> to start a new line and put only a period on the next line. (A blank line at the beginning of the citation detail with only a period on the second line does not make the extra line in the report source list. You need at least one printable character on the first line to cause the condition) Deleting and reentering the source would probably get rid of the problem but you'd probably lose any various citation details you might have. There may be other ways to cause this. I did not do an exhaustive study. Wayne League
I think I may have figured it out. One way to get a number and a period is if you have a completely blank source in your source list. Go to the Lists menu, select Source manager and see what the top source is, the one that is highlighted as soon as you get there. Click on the edit source button and see if it isnt completely empty, maybe just a space character. Cancel the editing and get back to the source listing and hit the delete button, you will get a caution that it is referenced by someone somewhere, but get rid of it anyway, as long as it doesnt say anything. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Betty Stokes" <jstokes@houston.rr.com> > Continued Saga of the Sources with one line blank except for one period. > > I could not delete the source because it had 65 sources connected to it. > > The source is a book containing the 1920 census so has been used many times. > > I tired deleting fields, but the report always looks the same regardless of what I delete. I suppose it is because it has been connected to so many times. > > The only other thing I can think of is to do something globally, but I haven't figured out anything to try yet. > > It is of no importance to the information, but it irritates me to have one line in the sources with just one period and rest of the line blank. > > Of course I can print it to file and edit it, but then I lose the graphics of the Family Group Sheet. > > Betty >
I cannot figure out what is going on with that source. I cannot figure out how a period in the second line would stop everything else from printing. Have you tried deleting the period? I created a test source, so that I could figure out what was printed and where. I named it ~Name so it would be first in the source list, the filled in each of the remaining blanks with the title of that blank, and did the same with the citation. Then when I print a report for the individual who cites that source, I can see exactly what prints and where. In your case, I would try an extra character on the next line of any entry that would support it and see what happens. You can edit the source by adding anything anywhere and see the effect. Good Luck, Alfred ============ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Betty Stokes" <jstokes@houston.rr.com> > Continued Saga of the Sources with one line blank except for one period. > > I could not delete the source because it had 65 sources connected to it. > > The source is a book containing the 1920 census so has been used many times. > > I tired deleting fields, but the report always looks the same regardless of what I delete. I suppose it is because it has been connected to so many times. > > The only other thing I can think of is to do something globally, but I haven't figured out anything to try yet. > > It is of no importance to the information, but it irritates me to have one line in the sources with just one period and rest of the line blank. > > Of course I can print it to file and edit it, but then I lose the graphics of the Family Group Sheet. > > Betty
Continued Saga of the Sources with one line blank except for one period. I could not delete the source because it had 65 sources connected to it. The source is a book containing the 1920 census so has been used many times. I tired deleting fields, but the report always looks the same regardless of what I delete. I suppose it is because it has been connected to so many times. The only other thing I can think of is to do something globally, but I haven't figured out anything to try yet. It is of no importance to the information, but it irritates me to have one line in the sources with just one period and rest of the line blank. Of course I can print it to file and edit it, but then I lose the graphics of the Family Group Sheet. Betty
I have a source which is number 47 on the Family Group Chart I am working on. It works the same on all other Sources although another number. I have one line that has all the information contained in the source and then on the next line there is a period. A single period. Nothing else The line begins with 47. Then it doesn't matter what I put in the author, name, publisher, etc for the book. I have abbreviated the state and spelled it out. I have abbreviated the compiler's middle name. I have highlighted to make sure there are no extra spaces. Nothing makes any difference. Has anyone had this problem? I am getting ready to delete the whole Source and enter it again to see if that helps. Betty
As much as I really love FO, that one little thing has been irritating to me for a long while now. You can twiddle-tweak a source spacing to get it to print without an orphaned period on one report, but later, on some other occasion when you may print another report or change the font or margins of the report, it shows up again. So far, I haven't found any way to completely eliminate the problem from reoccurring. Patricia At 01:46 PM 7/31/01 -0500, Betty Stokes wrote: >Thank you Patricia! > >Now I can stop trying. The only thing left I can think of might be a global >replace of the source for each of the 65 invidual facts connected to it. I >may have one too many characters for the line and it pushes the period to >the next line. > >I have tried everything I can think of to fix it. And checked everything >attached to it. It only happens in the Family Group Chart. The source cannot >be edited and show up in the Family Group Sheet - I suppose because it has >individual facts connected. I deleted most of the material in the source, >but it still reflects the same information I began with. > >Everything works correctly in the "Book" mode for sources. > >Betty > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "P. SummersSmith" <summerspa@home.com> >To: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 12:41 PM >Subject: Re: [FO] Sources - spacing and punctuation problem > > > > It is a program flaw which has existed since at least 7.0 -- perhaps > > earlier. I have brought it up several times on this list, but no one else > > commented on it and it has never been fixed. > > > > Patricia > > > > > > At 12:03 PM 7/31/01 -0500, Betty Stokes wrote: > > >I have a source which is number 47 on the Family Group Chart I am working > > >on. It works the same on all other Sources although another number. > > > > > >I have one line that has all the information contained in the source and > > >then on the next line there is a period. A single period. Nothing else > > > > > >The line begins with 47. Then it doesn't matter what I put in the author, > > >name, publisher, etc for the book. I have abbreviated the state and > > >spelled it out. I have abbreviated the compiler's middle name. I have > > >highlighted to make sure there are no extra spaces. Nothing makes any > > >difference. > > > > > >Has anyone had this problem? > > > > > >I am getting ready to delete the whole Source and enter it again to see >if > > >that helps. > > > > > >Betty > > > > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > > FAMILY ORIGINS - Ordering, UPDATES, books, FAQ, FREE DEMO, Newsletter, >etc. http://formalsoft.com For the 8.03 and 9.02 PATCHES and what they fix, >go to: http://formalsoft.com/files.htm > > > > ============================== > > Shop Ancestry - Everything you need to Discover, Preserve & Celebrate > > your heritage! > > http://shop.myfamily.com/ancestrycatalog > > > >
Hi Everyone For anyone that is interested I have been running Windows XP professional version RC1 now for 4 days and have had no problems at all with running Family Origins version 9.2 which I have running for about 15 hours a day. Regards to all Ray Long See part of the Cosford Database at http://www.cosford-database.co.uk/ MSN messenger account name raylong6@hotmail.com --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.265 / Virus Database: 137 - Release Date: 18/07/2001
It is a program flaw which has existed since at least 7.0 -- perhaps earlier. I have brought it up several times on this list, but no one else commented on it and it has never been fixed. Patricia At 12:03 PM 7/31/01 -0500, Betty Stokes wrote: >I have a source which is number 47 on the Family Group Chart I am working >on. It works the same on all other Sources although another number. > >I have one line that has all the information contained in the source and >then on the next line there is a period. A single period. Nothing else > >The line begins with 47. Then it doesn't matter what I put in the author, >name, publisher, etc for the book. I have abbreviated the state and >spelled it out. I have abbreviated the compiler's middle name. I have >highlighted to make sure there are no extra spaces. Nothing makes any >difference. > >Has anyone had this problem? > >I am getting ready to delete the whole Source and enter it again to see if >that helps. > >Betty
Thank you to Dick Wells, Linda Scheimann, Earnie Breeding and Alfred for your suggestions for importing a prose family history onto my computer from a early Word and computer. It worked!!!!... and without any problems at all. Thank you again for your help. Joann __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
>A cousin sent me a a bigger branch to my tree than I had. After >fooling with it for a while, I decided to just drag the branch over. I >expected to have to do some merges. >The useful thing I found was, where merging of parents caused >duplicate children (with no other links), I could just delete the >extra ones from the family view. VERY simple. There's nothing wrong with what you did, but I would still recommend a much less simple approach. I would recommend merging the duplicate children instead of deleting them. Merge them one-at-a-time (not automatically). I would also recommend carefully editing each child immediately after the merge. I tend to do merges with the keyboard rather than the mouse, and so my fingers sort of do an "M2" command automatically. The "M" is the keyboard way in the merge dialog to authorize the merge to proceed. The "2" command is the keyboard way to edit the "TO" person, who after the merge is the merged person. But if you prefer the mouse, you can click on Merge and then click on Edit To Person. Then, look for duplicate or redundant data and clean up. For example, you might have somebody born twice, once in 1950 in Oklahoma, and another time 3 June 1950 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. If you trust it, keep the more specific information and delete the less specific. To me, the problem (if there is one) of deleting the duplicate children is that you might accidentally delete some very useful information from one of the instances that would be retained by the merging technique. Also, if you have John W. Smith being merged with John William Smith, be sure that John William Smith is the TO person before the merge so that his middle name is retained. Finally (and this is much easier to do than to describe), the merge dialog has a very convenient way to pick other FROM/TO merge candidates from the same family. Look at the lower right quadrant of the screen and the GOTO mechanism. Jerry Bryan _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Yes, if you had merged them then all would have been fine, except that if the children were also duplicated, you would have had to merge each one of them. If they were the same individuals, listed as children of both families, merging the parent would have been all that was needed. There are at least two kinds of unknown spouses: One where you know there was a child, but you dont know, so therefore do not enter any data for a second parent or marriage. And Two, where you enter a spouse, but use Unknown as the name. The first one shows up as a blank space on the screen, there are only two indicators to bring attention to this truly unknown spouse. A single parent will have descendants, or a married person will have an Other spouses indicator in the Family View. When you select the Other spouses button and one of the spouses is indicated as (UNKNOWN SPOUSE), that indicates that this is one the program put there so that the child would have the required two parents. Now, If after some searching, you find the name and or the marriage information on this unknown spouse, you cannot edit the blank unknown spouse, but you can either enter him/her as an unlinked individual in the database or if someone that is already entered, then link, as a spouse, to the real parent, or just add a new spouse for the single parent. You are asked if he/she belongs in the one parent family, then you say yes. Or, you find that you just want to get rid of that (UNKNOWN SPOUSE). Highlight the unknown spouses real spouse and go to the Edit menu, select Unlink from Spouse and the spouse disappears, but, if there was a child, it is also unlinked from the real parent, so, you have to re-link to the real two parents, because if you re-link to only one parent, guess what, the (UNKNOWN SPOUSE) is back. Merge? If you find that you have two listings of the same individual and there is some unique information with each instance, then merge them into one and the resulting individual will have all the information. But, if one instance has him born in New York, New York, and the other has him born in New York, NY, you will find two birth facts. The Computer isnt smart enough yet to know that they are the same place. It could be a good thing to have two birth facts if they are different, that way you can notice the difference and go searching for the right one. (Well, its better than having only one, the wrong one, entered!) This got to be a rather long dissertation, sorry about that, but, maybe someone can find something of value in here somewhere. (Someone else will probably find some errors too! <};-) Alfred ----- Original Message ----- From: "MMW" <genbug@olypen.com> > Hello, > I am havig trouble getting rid of the "unknown spouse". It gave me > the same husband twice and when I tried to delete one of them I get the > unknown. > Too late now, but should I have used the 'merge' feature so as not to > lose all the data etc? > Thanks so much. > Maxine >
You didn't enter a marriage event for them. > Okay, now, how come I have a lot of situations where couples with no marriage > information don't get the sentence in the book that says they were married. Norma
Re: Patricia Proper, "Problem printing Book..." This may be a sign that the "pick-up" in your printer needs cleaning. Do you have similar trouble with other program prints? Tom Tuttle Highland, CA tttuttle@easyfeed.com ----- Original Message ----- From: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-D-request@rootsweb.com> To: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-D@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 3:30 PM Subject: FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-D Digest V01 #237
A cousin sent me a a bigger branch to my tree than I had. After fooling with it for a while, I decided to just drag the branch over. I expected to have to do some merges. The useful thing I found was, where merging of parents caused duplicate children (with no other links), I could just delete the extra ones from the family view. VERY simple. Betty
I have lost marriages several times in using GEDCOM to import information into Family Origins, so you are not completely wrong!! Nell
Ooops, it appears that I was wrong about the marriages which don't have any data. I just made a small experimental file and exported in both FO and Legacy just fine, and the book still says they are married. Good. Sometimes it is good to find you are wrong. Okay, now, how come I have a lot of situations where couples with no marriage information don't get the sentence in the book that says they were married. It will give the husband's information, then the wife's (or vise versa) and then it will say they had the following children, but no mention that they are married. I can't tell you for sure if these are imported GEDCOMs or if some of them are what I started with using PAF 2.31 and moved up the line as I've upgraded, but I have a bunch of them. When I asked this question before I was told that bit about not having any data made it get lost in the GEDCOM, which I believed. Now, anyone have any other ideas what has caused this problem and if I need to do anything to avoid in future? Or was this just a problem with earlier versions of FO or GEDCOM or what? I only have had this problem where there is not any date or place for the marriage.
I would like to thank everyone for their suggestions on getting my corrupt FO6 into FO9, especially Linda Scheimann, who went out of her way to help me. Thanks again Linda Veenstra Carleton Place, Ont. Can