Melissa, You also have to merge the parents and spouses. When you do the duplicate marriages will also be merged. Another way would be to leave the parents and spouses out of one of the databases you are merging. Walt ----- Original Message ----- From: "M. Clark" <manatlvr@hotmail.com> To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 7:10 PM Subject: [PAF-5] Merging and getting multiple parents and spouses >I have added a new data base to my excisting one and merged the common >people. I can not for the life of me figure out how to merge and not get >two sets of parents and spouses. Can someone please help. Thanks > > Melissa > > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > RootsWeb's WorldConnect Project: > Connecting the World One GEDCOM at a Time > http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/ >

I have added a new data base to my excisting one and merged the common people. I can not for the life of me figure out how to merge and not get two sets of parents and spouses. Can someone please help. Thanks Melissa

Sandy - Try this - it may help your problem, it may do nothing; but I've had it fix problems in other dbs I've had. Export the entire file to a GEDCOM. Make a new, clean, database (test.paf or some such obvious title). Import the GEDCOM and watch for any error messages (which may give you a clue) and check the log. It also may fix the problem and restore the sources. Also, from your damaged db; try under File, Reports, Source List (print it to a file to save paper). See whats' in there as far as the db is concerned. Regina Barry * rmbarry1066@earthlink.net * http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~rbarry4145/index.htm Affairs are easier of entrance than of exit; and it is but common prudence to see our way out before we venture in. Aesop

Sandy, An individual came to me with a similar source citation problem. When I ran Check/Repair a pointer problem in the database was found. Afterward I found it possible to enter sources. This individual had entered about 50 sources. The Repositories were there, but the Source Citations were missing. **************CAUTION************* When this individual wanted to add a source citation she was very careful to position that individual in the upper left corner of the Family screen. HOWEVER, she often did NOT highlight that Individual before she went to the Edit Individual screen. Consequently, many of the sources that she added were connected to the wrong individual. Richard (West Linn, Oregon) John Vilburn wrote: >Sandy, > >It sounds like some sort of database problem. Try running Check/Repair from >the file menu, or better, if you have PAF Insight use the Repair option >there. > >Aloha, >John > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sandy Rozhon [mailto:srozhon@comcast.net] >Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 1:58 AM >To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: [PAF-5] 'Source' disaster - bigger mystery > > >Here's a bigger mystery about this source problem. The sources don't >show up in the source list, but they DO when you look at an >individual record and click on the source icon. So the sources are >still in there, somewhere, but I can't access them. I can't delete, >edit, or use for another record. Now is that weird, or what? > >Sandy > > > > > > > >

Here's a bigger mystery about this source problem. The sources don't show up in the source list, but they DO when you look at an individual record and click on the source icon. So the sources are still in there, somewhere, but I can't access them. I can't delete, edit, or use for another record. Now is that weird, or what? Sandy > On 15 Jun 2005 at 12:42, Richard Rands wrote: > > > Hi Sandy, > > I entered a bunch of source list items following your format and ran the > > merge sources. The bracketed sources still remain in the list. I suspect > > that there is something else that caused the disappearance of those sources. > > I can't imagine what would have wiped out only those sources and > nothing else. The people the sources were attached to are still > there. The match/merge is the only thing I could think of that might > have done that. > > Sandy > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > PAF @ FamilySearch Internet Genealogy Service > http://www.familysearch.org/eng/paf/ >

Sandy, It sounds like some sort of database problem. Try running Check/Repair from the file menu, or better, if you have PAF Insight use the Repair option there. Aloha, John -----Original Message----- From: Sandy Rozhon [mailto:srozhon@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 1:58 AM To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [PAF-5] 'Source' disaster - bigger mystery Here's a bigger mystery about this source problem. The sources don't show up in the source list, but they DO when you look at an individual record and click on the source icon. So the sources are still in there, somewhere, but I can't access them. I can't delete, edit, or use for another record. Now is that weird, or what? Sandy > On 15 Jun 2005 at 12:42, Richard Rands wrote: > > > Hi Sandy, > > I entered a bunch of source list items following your format and ran the > > merge sources. The bracketed sources still remain in the list. I suspect > > that there is something else that caused the disappearance of those sources. > > I can't imagine what would have wiped out only those sources and > nothing else. The people the sources were attached to are still > there. The match/merge is the only thing I could think of that might > have done that. > > Sandy > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > PAF @ FamilySearch Internet Genealogy Service > http://www.familysearch.org/eng/paf/ > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List http://www.ausbdm.org/p5uindex.php

On 15 Jun 2005 at 12:42, Richard Rands wrote: > Hi Sandy, > I entered a bunch of source list items following your format and ran the > merge sources. The bracketed sources still remain in the list. I suspect > that there is something else that caused the disappearance of those sources. I can't imagine what would have wiped out only those sources and nothing else. The people the sources were attached to are still there. The match/merge is the only thing I could think of that might have done that. Sandy

The way I label my sources is by location: USA, Kentucky, Taylor, Saloma - CENSUS 1900 USA, Illinois, Bureau, Bureau - BOOK Abc England, Sussex, .... Ireland, ..... This way all the records for a given location are together. It makes it easier for me to mark information with a source. Alan > > From: "Sandy Rozhon" <srozhon@comcast.net> > Date: 2005/06/15 Wed PM 12:28:24 EDT > To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [PAF-5] 'Source' disaster > > Just a warning.... > > I wanted to tidy up my sources so I carefully arranged them so that > they looked something like this: > > [BOOK] History of Cuyahoga County > [DEATH] Necrology Index > [CENSUS] 1880 Federal Census > [CENSUS] 1890 Federal Census > > You get the picture. Generic headings where I could use more detail > in the citation to describe the item. > > Anyway, upon importing several gedcoms from people that didn't follow > any particular convention and finding that there were a lot of > duplicates, I chose to do a 'source merge'. This is where the > disaster occurred. ALL of the sources that had brackets have > disappeared! Gone! Poof! Not to be seen again. > > So take this as a warning that there must be something in the code of > the merge routine that chokes on brackets or other odd characters > that are the start of a source title and spits them out as unusable. > Then are no longer in your source list. > > And, in this case, I can't go back to a backup, because I had no idea > this occurred until recently. > > Sandy > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > PAF-5-USERS Mailing List Archives > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/PAF-5-USERS/ > >

Hi Sandy, I entered a bunch of source list items following your format and ran the merge sources. The bracketed sources still remain in the list. I suspect that there is something else that caused the disappearance of those sources. Richard Rands At 12:28 PM 6/15/2005 -0400, Sandy Rozhon wrote: >Just a warning.... > >I wanted to tidy up my sources so I carefully arranged them so that >they looked something like this: > >[BOOK] History of Cuyahoga County >[DEATH] Necrology Index >[CENSUS] 1880 Federal Census >[CENSUS] 1890 Federal Census > >You get the picture. Generic headings where I could use more detail >in the citation to describe the item. > >Anyway, upon importing several gedcoms from people that didn't follow >any particular convention and finding that there were a lot of >duplicates, I chose to do a 'source merge'. This is where the >disaster occurred. ALL of the sources that had brackets have >disappeared! Gone! Poof! Not to be seen again. > >So take this as a warning that there must be something in the code of >the merge routine that chokes on brackets or other odd characters >that are the start of a source title and spits them out as unusable. >Then are no longer in your source list. > >And, in this case, I can't go back to a backup, because I had no idea > this occurred until recently. > >Sandy > > >==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== >PAF-5-USERS Mailing List Archives >http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/PAF-5-USERS/

Just a warning.... I wanted to tidy up my sources so I carefully arranged them so that they looked something like this: [BOOK] History of Cuyahoga County [DEATH] Necrology Index [CENSUS] 1880 Federal Census [CENSUS] 1890 Federal Census You get the picture. Generic headings where I could use more detail in the citation to describe the item. Anyway, upon importing several gedcoms from people that didn't follow any particular convention and finding that there were a lot of duplicates, I chose to do a 'source merge'. This is where the disaster occurred. ALL of the sources that had brackets have disappeared! Gone! Poof! Not to be seen again. So take this as a warning that there must be something in the code of the merge routine that chokes on brackets or other odd characters that are the start of a source title and spits them out as unusable. Then are no longer in your source list. And, in this case, I can't go back to a backup, because I had no idea this occurred until recently. Sandy

Leonard, Never noticed this before - but you are absolutely right. Updating Notes from the main menu --- Edit > Notes ---- whilst properly updating the Notes does not update the Modified Date on the record. This seems to be also true when the Notes are accessed directly from the right-hand mouse button - whether on the family of pedigree view. The record Modified Date appears to be only updated when the Notes are accessed via the Individual Edit screen - whether accessed from the Family or Pedigree view. Another bug to be fixed in the future - or, provides a way of "correcting" errors/typos in the notes without updating the Modified Date --- could be an "advanced feature". Regards, Stewart -----Original Message----- From: Leonard J. McCown [mailto:genealogy@mccown.org] Sent: 11 June 2005 18:48 To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [PAF-5] Last change date Sorry if this has been covered already, as I have not been following the list lately. However, I just discovered something about PAF 5 that concerns me, and wanted to see if anyone else has run into it. I am using 5.2.18.0, the latest version. My son-in-law is updating my web page, and we were going to use the "last change date" to pick up changes. However, we discovered that the way that I have been updating notes...working in the "family" mode, and clicking on notes in the tool bar to update notes does not change the date in the record. IF you work in the "pedigree" mode, and double click to bring up the main screen, then click on the little icon for notes, it does update the change date. The bad thing about this, is I will have to change the whole way that I have worked in PAF for ages, as many times I just go into notes when I catch a typo or want to add a reference or something. I am still using notes the old way, and have not started to think about redoing all my sources. Anyone else notice this? Thanks. Leonard. Leonard J. McCown, Irving, Texas -- McCown Family History genealogy@mccown.org -- http://www.mccown.org People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors. -- Edmund Burke, 1790 ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== RootsWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/

Sorry if this has been covered already, as I have not been following the list lately. However, I just discovered something about PAF 5 that concerns me, and wanted to see if anyone else has run into it. I am using 5.2.18.0, the latest version. My son-in-law is updating my web page, and we were going to use the "last change date" to pick up changes. However, we discovered that the way that I have been updating notes...working in the "family" mode, and clicking on notes in the tool bar to update notes does not change the date in the record. IF you work in the "pedigree" mode, and double click to bring up the main screen, then click on the little icon for notes, it does update the change date. The bad thing about this, is I will have to change the whole way that I have worked in PAF for ages, as many times I just go into notes when I catch a typo or want to add a reference or something. I am still using notes the old way, and have not started to think about redoing all my sources. Anyone else notice this? Thanks. Leonard. Leonard J. McCown, Irving, Texas -- McCown Family History genealogy@mccown.org -- http://www.mccown.org People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors. -- Edmund Burke, 1790

The date modified changes for me in Family Mode. You actually have to make a change and save it, simply opening or viewing the notes does not do it. Gary Templeman ----- Original Message ----- From: "Leonard J. McCown" <genealogy@mccown.org> To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 10:47 AM Subject: [PAF-5] Last change date > Sorry if this has been covered already, as I have not been following the > list lately. However, I just discovered something about PAF 5 that concerns > me, and wanted to see if anyone else has run into it. > > I am using 5.2.18.0, the latest version. My son-in-law is updating my web > page, and we were going to use the "last change date" to pick up changes. > However, we discovered that the way that I have been updating > notes...working in the "family" mode, and clicking on notes in the tool bar > to update notes does not change the date in the record. IF you work in the > "pedigree" mode, and double click to bring up the main screen, then click > on the little icon for notes, it does update the change date. > > The bad thing about this, is I will have to change the whole way that I > have worked in PAF for ages, as many times I just go into notes when I > catch a typo or want to add a reference or something. I am still using > notes the old way, and have not started to think about redoing all my sources. > > Anyone else notice this? Thanks. Leonard. > > > > > Leonard J. McCown, Irving, Texas -- McCown Family History > genealogy@mccown.org -- http://www.mccown.org > People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to > their ancestors. -- Edmund Burke, 1790 > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > RootsWeb > http://www.rootsweb.com/ >

YYY wrote: > My problem (or wish) is to add multimedia to marriages. PAF 5 does not allow > this. Has there been a fix or update to correct this? It seems to be a > reasonable request, is there a technical reason for not providing this Anybody here remember my grump back when PAF 3 was in alpha and we were discussing the features we'd like to see? Cheryl

When I started putting multimedia in Paf, I too put pictures in very organized folders- Mistake- (at least for me) When you make a new paf, or move your paf to new computer, or share with others- if you have it all in one folder, In same level as you paf file, then one or two clicks and all your pictures are relinked. If you have it in more than one file all your other files pictures will have to be edited one by one not fun and especially bad for sharing - they may not know as much as you do about Paf. I do have a system in other parts of my computer to organize all documents, photos etc by families. It helps me to prepare and know what I have. Then I copy to my Paf picture photo folder. ( I also use files names in my paf folder like this: Schroeder, Peter - Baby , Schroeder, Peter - putting up hay , Stolley (Kahle),Margrethea 5 (they are easier to find and are group together.) BudL <BudL@msn.com> wrote: Hi Folks, I am using PAF 5.2.18.0 and am just starting to add multimedia to my records. I have created a separate folder just for multimedia with subfolders for each main family name group and a folder for other names or documents. My problem (or wish) is to add multimedia to marriages. PAF 5 does not allow this. Has there been a fix or update to correct this? It seems to be a reasonable request, is there a technical reason for not providing this feature? Has anyone found or developed a work around for this? Thanks for any replies, Bud L ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== FreeBMD - Free Access to England and Wales Civil Registration Index Volunteer as a Transcriber Today! http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Is there a way to display the ordinance data in the Individual Display. Input please

FYI: In case this ever happens to anyone else along the way, I found a solution that worked for me. I made a GEDCOM of the entire database and set up a new database. I imported the GEDCOM of the original into the new database and voila!, my entire alphabetical list was restored. I don't know if there was an easier solution, but this worked for me. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Donna Starring > To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com > Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 9:05 AM > Subject: [PAF-5] Alphabetical Listing > > > > Greetings, PAF 5 users: > > I seem to have lost all of my alphabetical listing except the ones with no surnames. > > I tried check/repair and it worked once, but when I came back in the next session, it was gone again and check/repair did not do the trick this time. I can search by RIN, but you have to know the number to search. > > Does anybody know how I can get my surnames back on the Alphabetical listing? > > Donna

*AM* I doing something wrong? I managed to d/l several .ged from the 1881 British census at Familysearch.org and then (duhhhh!) I tried to import them into a clean database. The GED says it's lineage linked, but it wasn't. Was it _supposed_ to be, or did the GED mean something completely different from/than what it said? Issue #2: when I eye-balled the GED, it had the enumeration included. It took me absolutely forever to find that after I imported it. And when I did, I copy'n'pasted into the NOTES where I could find it in only 4 clicks instead of 6. Was any of that supposed to be that way? (g) Cheryl

That's true of a lot of things we enter -- sources, source-notes, multi-media. And if you've done a custom template in PAF, you can kiss it all goodbye once you're past name, and dates. As I've been whining since I had to import a FTM 3.2 file into PAF 2.31 -- if MY program doesn't have a slot for eye-color it won't import it from YOUR program, and if YOUR program and MY Program both have a Fact_2 field which you use for eye-color and I use for education, some interesting bios get compiled. :) Cheryl E.Rodier wrote: > BUT the child-parent relationships entered the limited PAF way are > likely to be lost in a GEDCOM transfer to other programs. > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stewart Millar" > >> PAF does deal with the situation.

BUT . . . . BUT -- As are ANY gedcom tagged items that are not mutually recognised between any two genealogical software programs (i.e., not part of the gedcom standard). There continues to exist a range of "invented" gedcom tags in differing software programs that are only applicable to exchanges of data between the same software programs. . . . . . . I really (really) don't mean to open up a new discussion! Regards, Stewart -----Original Message----- From: E.Rodier [mailto:cerear@telusplanet.net] Sent: 07 June 2005 03:13 To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Re: Biological/adoptive parents - again! BUT the child-parent relationships entered the limited PAF way are likely to be lost in a GEDCOM transfer to other programs. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stewart Millar" > PAF does deal with the situation. ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== PAF @ FamilySearch Internet Genealogy Service http://www.familysearch.org/eng/paf/