If the name only shows up once in the Family Origins Explorer – Select Person list, then I suspect that the individual is only entered in the database once, but LINKED to his parents twice. Try highlighting one instance of this individual in the family or tree view, then in the “Edit” menu, select “Unlink” and choose parents. If my suspicions are correct, that is all there is to it. IF NOT, you can re-link to parents. The Merge function has three options, Smart Merge, Merge Individual records, and Find duplicates. The middle one, “Merge individual records allows you to find the individuals you want to merge, rather than letting the program do it for you. (If that is the problem) Good Luck, Alfred =========== ----- Original Message ----- From: "C. and/or W. Scouler" <wcscouler@rcn.com> > I am a new user of Family Origins and I have a problem. Somewhere along the way, I entered a child twice and he appears twice under the parents. I tried to merge duplicates but the program does not recognize them as duplicates. On the 'Select Person" list, he only appears once. When doing a report, "Books", he appears twice. My question is If I delete one will the other stay? Thanks in advance for your help. > > Carol

After carefully reviewing all the academic discussions emanating from our panel of learned colleagues over the past several days I have become convinced, in the interest of total accuracy, to change all the "Father" designations in my 164,372 individual database to "UNKNOWN". This had the immediate and unexpected effect of extending the lineage of over seven hundred ancestorial lines by one generation. I would urge the Family Origins creator to begin to investigate ways to accomodate multiple parents on the Family Group Sheet. To appease both the family historians and the chromosomal puriest, a suggested way would be to change the "parent" designations to "traditional father" and "traditional mother" and add the new catergories of "sperm donor", "egg donor", and "deoxyribonucleic acid contributor". Also, some thought should be given to a more flexible means to handle reincarnations. I currently have to resort to notes to dipict these occurances which are becoming more numerous. But, before any or all of these enhancements are undertaken, there is an immediate need to provide an option to spell out the months of the year to get rid of those %#?&¿§ abbreviations. Al

I am a new user of Family Origins and I have a problem. Somewhere along the way, I entered a child twice and he appears twice under the parents. I tried to merge duplicates but the program does not recognize them as duplicates. On the 'Select Person" list, he only appears once. When doing a report, "Books", he appears twice. My question is If I delete one will the other stay? Thanks in advance for your help. Carol

Carol, if you go to edit, then to delete and click on individual, that will delete the extra child, make sure the one you want deleted, is highlighted Mary ----- Original Message ----- From: "C. and/or W. Scouler" <wcscouler@rcn.com> To: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 12:31 PM Subject: [FO] Duplicate names > I am a new user of Family Origins and I have a problem. Somewhere along the way, I entered a child twice and he appears twice under the parents. I tried to merge duplicates but the program does not recognize them as duplicates. On the 'Select Person" list, he only appears once. When doing a report, "Books", he appears twice. My question is If I delete one will the other stay? Thanks in advance for your help. > > Carol > > > ==== 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 >

after watching a show on Human sexuality on Discovery Health Channel , you are about right. it is estimated that if you did actual DNA testing , that about 60-80 percent of all children do not know who there biological father is. Al Turner wrote: > After carefully reviewing all the academic discussions emanating from > our panel of learned colleagues over the past several days I have become > convinced, in the interest of total accuracy, to change all the "Father" > designations in my 164,372 individual database to "UNKNOWN". This had > the immediate and unexpected effect of extending the lineage of over > seven hundred ancestorial lines by one generation. > > I would urge the Family Origins creator to begin to investigate ways to > accomodate multiple parents on the Family Group Sheet. To appease both > the family historians and the chromosomal puriest, a suggested way would > be to change the "parent" designations to "traditional father" and > "traditional mother" and add the new catergories of "sperm donor", "egg > donor", and "deoxyribonucleic acid contributor". Also, some thought > should be given to a more flexible means to handle reincarnations. I > currently have to resort to notes to dipict these occurances which are > becoming more numerous. > > But, before any or all of these enhancements are undertaken, there is an > immediate need to provide an option to spell out the months of the year > to get rid of those %#?&¿§ abbreviations. > > Al >

If you don't like the way you were born, FO is not the place to change it. See a shrink, and lets get on with our Family Origin. Where are these people coming from? There had to be a male and female, for there to be on offspring. So you want to live together, no problem, have fun. But find another "list" to discuss your problems, we had enough of it.----------My personal feelings. Mary

MARY STICKNEY wrote: > The ability to change the sex is needed. ================ My personal feeling on this is that they should see a doctor and leave FO alone. Jim

I vowed to stay out of this discussion but.... At least one genealogy software does contain provision for managing family history (note I didn't say genealogy). Legacy 3.0 lets the user select, for each pair whether the relationship is "Male-Female", "Husband-Wife", "Father-Mother", "Partners" or "Unknown". These relationships are carried through to all reports. If it was important enough to us, Bruce might consider adding this capability in the future. For family history researchers, it allows all family data to be recorded in the way it ocurred and for pure genealogy advocates, it lists just the facts. Jim -------Original Message------- From: Donald R. Newcomb Date: Friday, May 11, 2001 08:24:31 AM To: FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FO] significant other ?? I disagree. I think this is one of the more interesting subjects to pop up on this group in a while. Various people have contributed suggestions for trying to model the relationship within FOW. I have discussed modifications/enhancements/etc that would permit the modeling of extended relationship classes. Other people piped up with various editoral comments, but that is no reason to supress and interesting thread of technical discussion. Surely this list is not strictly limited to discussion of only the features available in current versions of Family Origins. We should be allowed to discuss features we'd like to see and data types we'd like to model in future versions. (Or is is the subject matter that is causing you problems?) Perhaps we can change Subject: to "Modeling extended relationship classes."? Donald R. Newcomb DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net ----- Original Message ----- From: Alfred Eller <adeller@santel.net> | I think that some folks are playing a little fast and loose with this | subject. | | It is time to move on to something else. | | DO IT NOW. ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== PLEASE remove as much of the Original Message as possible when replying to a List Posting. Include only that part of the original message important to your reply. ============================== Visit Ancestry's Library - The best collection of family history learning and how-to articles on the Internet. http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library

The ability to change the sex is needed. I have done it be opening up the database in Fox pro and editing the sex in the *.p.dbf the program does not choke on this. Nothing like that should be defaulted. Donald R. Newcomb wrote: > I disagree. I think this is one of the more interesting subjects to pop up > on this group in a while. Various people have contributed suggestions for > trying to model the relationship within FOW. I have discussed > modifications/enhancements/etc that would permit the modeling of extended > relationship classes. Other people piped up with various editoral comments, > but that is no reason to supress and interesting thread of technical > discussion. Surely this list is not strictly limited to discussion of only > the features available in current versions of Family Origins. We should be > allowed to discuss features we'd like to see and data types we'd like to > model in future versions. (Or is is the subject matter that is causing you > problems?) Perhaps we can change Subject: to "Modeling extended relationship > classes."? > > Donald R. Newcomb

I disagree. I think this is one of the more interesting subjects to pop up on this group in a while. Various people have contributed suggestions for trying to model the relationship within FOW. I have discussed modifications/enhancements/etc that would permit the modeling of extended relationship classes. Other people piped up with various editoral comments, but that is no reason to supress and interesting thread of technical discussion. Surely this list is not strictly limited to discussion of only the features available in current versions of Family Origins. We should be allowed to discuss features we'd like to see and data types we'd like to model in future versions. (Or is is the subject matter that is causing you problems?) Perhaps we can change Subject: to "Modeling extended relationship classes."? Donald R. Newcomb DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net ----- Original Message ----- From: Alfred Eller <adeller@santel.net> | I think that some folks are playing a little fast and loose with this | subject. | | It is time to move on to something else. | | DO IT NOW.

It probably is time to move on to something else, Mr. Eller. But, DO IT NOW? A tad harsh when directed to a list with such helpful and loyal Family Origin subscriber/devotees. Family-Origins-Users-Mailing list subscriber Todd Petty ----- Original Message ----- From: Alfred Eller To: FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 18:40 Subject: [FO] significant other ?? I think that some folks are playing a little fast and loose with this subject. It is time to move on to something else. DO IT NOW. Family-Origins-Users-Mailing list administrator Alfred Eller

"Rick" <rick@rickster.org> wrote: >Hi Wayne, > >Yes ... that works ok for the simple case of merging just 2 records ... but >sometimes I might have 10 dups or more to merge if I'm cleaning up someone >elses gedcom for analysis. It's a pain to sit there and merge them 2 at a >time when I could identify all of them at once easily. Hmmm . . . . . I didn't realize you were thinking of bulk merging many individuals at once. I would not recommend doing that at all. If every one of the duplicate pairs were not exactly identical then you would have duplicated events where differences in dates, etc. exist, and after they are all merged it will be a pain to locate all of those and deal with them properly. Each merging pair needs to be studied individually first to determine if they are really duplicates and then to take care of duplicated but different events. And then there is the duplicated source and to do list problems that come with merging. But to offer another suggestion: The duplicate search and merge offers the option to merge on identical reference numbers and no other criteria. So, when you determine a pair to merge, if you give them both the same reference number, then later you can find and merge duplicates based on their reference numbers. Still only 2 at a time, but faster if you have pre-studied and edited them so that you don't need to think about each one as you go. I don't think this latter way would be as fast as the merge 2 at a time as you explore from the merge dialogs method, though. But I don't think you should look for a way to avoid the pains-taking analysis of each pair before you merge. You are asking for woe if you do. Wayne League

"Rick" <rick@rickster.org> wrote: >Wish List item : While browsing with the EXPLORER window in FO I'd like to >be able to directly merge obviously duplicates in my database by just >highlighting them in the scrolling list and selecting a new function button >on that window - MERGE. This is the place I ALWAYS find my dups ... seems >like the best place to take care of them. One suggestion would be: Instead of calling the explorer for normal use with the flashlight button, use the merge button, choose merge individual records and then call the explorer by clicking the select from or select to person. Here, you can do everything in explorer you could do the normal way and if you come across someone who needs merging you just double click on him, then choose his counterpart in the other pane and merge. If you never do find anyone to merge during that session, when you get through exploring and editing or whatever, just cancel and close out the merge dialog without merging anyone. The only thing you can't do with explorer using it this way is to jump to the highlighted person as you leave explorer. If you're going to be going in and out of explorer a lot then the normal way is best. Wayne League

I think that some folks are playing a little fast and loose with this subject. It is time to move on to something else. DO IT NOW. Family-Origins-Users-Mailing list administrator Alfred Eller

As far as I'm concerned, I would not like this to be easy to do. (Maybe, a window would come up with and require that you type in your name forwards and backwards before it would permit it.) I have seen too many wives named "Fred" married to husbands named "Jane" in Ancestral File. If it were easy to record same sex marriages that would just be one more common foul up in genealogical databases. Don Newcomb ----- Original Message ----- From: Clare <Clare@Sierratel.com> | I would also like to see alternative relationship possibilities in FO. I | assume the author is reading this list and making note of what the users | want :) The ability to change the sex would work just fine.

There are millions of children who really do not know who both of their parents are. In this case the child truly has 3 parents and will know who all three are I suppose. Difficult concept for those that see it as an attack on their value system. Value systems come and go. I doubt whether many of us today could comfortably live in late 1600 Salem, MA. knowing what we know today. I know, I know maybe 1 or 2 on the list. ;-) I'd like to go back just to straighten out a few items in my database. ;-) On another subject .... Wish List item : While browsing with the EXPLORER window in FO I'd like to be able to directly merge obviously duplicates in my database by just highlighting them in the scrolling list and selecting a new function button on that window - MERGE. This is the place I ALWAYS find my dups ... seems like the best place to take care of them. Rick Stirling From: "prsmith" > Think what this will do for the poor children who aren't going to know who > their parents are. Times change I guess. > > Paul

David, From your response I believe that I did not make clear enough the purpose of such a relationship tracking program. Genealogy is a very specific and limited branch of history. It deals with only certain specific, interpersonal relationships. FOW is designed to model only those specific relationships between people. It also allows you to record but not model other types of relationships. However, in the study of micro-history in general there are many reasons you might want to track other types of relationships. I have a cousin who spends a great deal of time trying to figure out which cousin got each and every item that came west from Connecticut. In this regard, he might indeed want a "genealogy" program that would let him "marry" a person to a piece of furniture (although it would not actually be "married" but rather "owning"). Another thing that anyone who has done any real original genealogical research has learned is that sometimes other there are stronger grouping factors than family. Religion is one. Have you ever tracked a single congregation as it split and migrated, split again and migrated again. This was a common occurrence. I found out about this when I noticed that property sales between some of my ancestors a other people often involved the same surnames in Connecticut, Ohio and Nebraska for over 100 years. They all belonged to the same congregation that had split, moved, split, moved, etc. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to track all the members of that congregation? It might change the way we tend to think of the westward migration. What about African Americans? Wouldn't it be interesting to be able track all the sales/transfers of slaves between plantations in Georgia? The idea is that micro-history (which includes family, church, company, town, etc. history) needs a tool that will allow the modeling of all sorts of relationships, not just genealogical relationships. Now, I know, this does not have much to do with Family Origins, but the subject began as how to model non-genealogical relationships. My response is that you have to write a new program to do it. Maybe Bruce will find it interesting and do it himself. Don Newcomb ----- Original Message ----- From: David E. Cann <decann@infi.net> | WHY in the world is this needed, or even desired in a GENEALOGY | application? Don't we already have enough to sort out without someone also | being married to "a piece of furniture?"

I think that a friend of mine that uses FO for her pedigree redpoint siamese (sp?) cats would like that one added but then they do always have only have 1 male and 1 female as parents at least so far <big grin!!!> Robin Forrest rforrest@robforrest.com Genealogy rforrest@xmission.com for other business URL for Robin's Genealogy Page is http://www.robforrest.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "MHKalman" <artists1@mdi.ca> To: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 10:54 AM Subject: Re: [FO] Significant other > Good idea, Clare ! > > Please count me in too, Bruce :). > Maybe include a proviso that those who don't approve can take that module > out of the program > I didn't see "breeding program" listed on the FO nameplate. > Ialways thought of it as family history in general. > > Marilyn > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Clare" <Clare@Sierratel.com> > To: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: May 9, 2001 6:59 PM > Subject: Re: [FO] Significant other > > > > > > I would also like to see alternative relationship possibilities in FO. I > > assume the author is reading this list and making note of what the users > > want :) The ability to change the sex would work just fine. > > > > Clare > > > > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > > GETTING THE MOST OUT OF FAMILY ORIGINS by Bruce Buzbee - FO DEMO > > http://formalsoft.com NO WEB ACCESS? Write to FormalSoft@aol.com for > ordering information. > > > > ============================== > > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp > > > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > Family Origins GenForum - http://genforum.genealogy.com/fo/ > Tech Support Knowledge Base http://www.familyorigins.com/support/ > > ============================== > Create a FREE family website at MyFamily.com! > http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST2 >

Think what this will do for the poor children who aren't going to know who their parents are. Times change I guess. Paul >===== Original Message From "Dick Wells" <dwells@chisp.net> ===== >Did anyone see the article over the weekend about the baby with 3 parents? > >The original couple had some type of problem with the fertilized egg and the doc's took genetic >material from another woman and inserted it into the egg. Now the egg had genetic material from 2 >women and 1 man, and produced a living child. > >Think what this will do for genealogy and the software. > >Dick > >PS - I planned to include the article, but misplaced it. > > >==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== >Family Origins GenForum - http://genforum.genealogy.com/fo/ >Tech Support Knowledge Base http://www.familyorigins.com/support/ > >============================== >Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp

Jane, If you are stuck with DOS on your notebook, then FO3 is the latest. FO4, 5 and 6 require Windows 3.1. I cut my eye teeth on DOS (started in 1985) and still use it for some old legacy programs, including FO3. I have my desktop set up so I can operate in DOS, W31 or W95. I have FO3, FO6 and FO8. I keep FO3 around for a custom report I designed way back when. I like the way the FO3 custom report handles long Surname,Given names. If there is not enough space for all the characters, FO3 will give you an initial for the given name whereas the later programs truncate the given names. I like the initial better. Also, it is more difficult (at least for me) to try to duplicate this custom report in the Windows versions of FO. For everthing else, the newer versions are better. Charles