At 02:33 PM 5/25/2005 -0400, BudL 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 >feature? >Has anyone found or developed a work around for this? Hi Bud, You are correct that PAF5 does not provide for multimedia file links to marriages. Thinking about the amount of extra programming it would take to handle links to marriages and provide the same features makes me believe that it was something that was too expensive for the benefit. They would have had to redesign the Individual screen to display photos, and they would have had to redesign the marriage record in the database. It probably was a feature that was dropped off the list when they set the priorities. I just put my marriage related multimedia into one of the spouses and identify that they are marriage related items in the description. Richard Rands

I have a very grumpy reason for not submitting my data to the PRF. With ancestral file,the info was available, first to FHCs before the internet, then online once FamilySearch came online. Pedigree Resource File comes only on CDs that have to be purchased. Our Stake FHC only has up to disk 30-something. Even those were purchased privately by stake members who wanted to"build up" the collection, but have not done so recently. I'd have to go to the regional FHC which is something I just can't do on a regular basis. It seems that whenever I do get a hit on the PRF index, it's up in the 60s or 80s. I do want to buy the entire collection for my use, but it's pricey and other more urgent expenses keep coming up. So I'm rather grumpy that we are urged to submit our information to this, but have to pay out in order to see it. Even rootsweb lets you look at others' submitted family histories for free. And, I'm not one who complains about not having free access to genealogical records; just complaining that one can only see the records if they have access to the CDs. If they were automatically supplied to my stake FHC like the AF ones were, or online, I wouldn't fuss. Linda ----- Original Message ----- From: Alan Whitcomb To: Linda Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 11:55 PM Subject: Re: [PAF-5] No Source Information given in IGI This gives us more reasons to submit our data to the Pedigree Resource File, and to encourage our friends to do this as well.

Technically, while this may be true of temple submissions now, this is not true for submissions 20 or so years ago. Back before we started submitted info on disks, when we had to submit pedigree charts and family group sheets, all of the source information, assuming there was any on the sheets, was included in what was submitted. When I submitted my mother's name to be done, I submitted a family group with all of my father's info (still living), all my mother's info, and all my siblings info (also all still living at the time). [Back in those days also one had to show a relationship to the name being submitted.] I also had to list sources during those days. So all that info is somewhere in the Family History Library's voluminous files. There was a time when a patron could possibly order a film which contained the sheets submitted by the patron, although I'm not sure what conditions determined if the sheets were microfilmed or not. I remember having seen microfilms of page after page of family group sheets. The notice on more recent IGI entries that it is a submission since 1991 suggests that possibly that is when they discontinued submitting the info this way and therefore no longer microfilmed the sheets also. As far as patrons having "always" been referred to the Ancestral File that can't always have been true. It hasn't been around that long. My dh and I were both FHC specialists (as they were referred to then) about 15 years ago when Ancestral File was just coming out on CD. If Ancestral File was available to be searched before that, it would have been a cumbersome thing to do as it would have involved writing to Salt Lake and hoping for a response. And maybe it's just my families, but I've never seen sources or pertinent information in my ancestral file families. I don't recall that we ever referred patrons to Ancestral File before that. (but then again, that is so long ago, my memories may be very dusty!) Linda ----- Original Message ----- From: "bkalm" <bkalm@comcast.net> To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 10:06 AM Subject: Re: [PAF-5] No Source Information given in IGI > The IGI has never had all source information available. Names that are > submitted to the temples for ordinance work do not include all of the > notes, > sources, etc. in a person's files, and never have. Only necessary > identification is submitted. Family History Center/Library patrons have > always been told to check the Ancestral File and now the Pedigree Resource > File, for families linked together and to obtain more information on > sources > and/or submitters. People should not go to the IGI and expect source > material and/or submitters. > > -------Original Message------- > > From: Linda > Date: 05/23/05 17:38:05 > To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [PAF-5] No Source Information given in IGI > > Sources are not required for submission of names for temple work. What > you > see is basically all the temple ever had. > > If the entry was for a marriage in 1860, I can't imagine that anyone > living > at that time is still alive now. > > Linda > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Helen W Hamilton" <hwhamilton2@msn.com> > To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 3:40 PM > Subject: [PAF-5] No Source Information given in IGI > > >>I found an entry in the IGI that I wanted more information on, but under >>Source it said No Source Information. Under messages it said Submitted by >>a member of LDS after 1991. >> Why are entries allowed where there is no source information provided? >> This was an entry for a marriage in 1860, nothing regarding anyone >> possibly still alive. >> >> Helen >> >> >> >> ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== >> RootsWeb >> http://www.rootsweb.com/ >> >> > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > PAF-5-USERS Mailing List > http://www.ausbdm.org/p5uindex.php > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 5/22/2005 > > . > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > Having trouble with the software? Check PAF 5.x Information > http://www.ausbdm.org/p5uinfo.php >

When I used the IGI on microfiche there was always source information in terms of batch numbers, and further information could usually be obtained. Helen

Thanks to everyone who discussed the IGI source information. Perhaps EVERYONE knows all these details as Ross complained. I for one did not, and it was helpful to me. I don't think it was off-track. Helen

I think we are getting off the intended subject of this List. We are or should be, interested in PAF related issues and not whether the IGI does now or previously did, provide Sources. We all know that until the TR computer based program was introduced, the IGI on FamilySearch always provided a source, as in Film or Batch number that one could refer to, or other. In some cases you could also find the name of the person who submitted the data. Ross GH Cotton, Burlington ON CAN 905)639-2929 Genealogy of the COTTON surname is my Enigma. I haven't sent an attachment if the details are not mentioned above. Check out my Genealogy Web Page at www.skylinc.net/~rgcotton GOONS member responsible for tracking the family name COTTON, #1437 Coordinator for Cotton DNA testing Project, Worldwide ----- Original Message ----- From: bkalm To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 12:06 PM Subject: Re: [PAF-5] No Source Information given in IGI The IGI has never had all source information available. Names that are submitted to the temples for ordinance work do not include all of the notes, sources, etc. in a person's files, and never have. Only necessary identification is submitted. Family History Center/Library patrons have always been told to check the Ancestral File and now the Pedigree Resource File, for families linked together and to obtain more information on sources and/or submitters. People should not go to the IGI and expect source material and/or submitters. -------Original Message------- From: Linda Date: 05/23/05 17:38:05 To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [PAF-5] No Source Information given in IGI Sources are not required for submission of names for temple work. What you see is basically all the temple ever had. If the entry was for a marriage in 1860, I can't imagine that anyone living at that time is still alive now. Linda ----- Original Message ----- From: "Helen W Hamilton" <hwhamilton2@msn.com> To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 3:40 PM Subject: [PAF-5] No Source Information given in IGI >I found an entry in the IGI that I wanted more information on, but under >Source it said No Source Information. Under messages it said Submitted by >a member of LDS after 1991. > Why are entries allowed where there is no source information provided? > This was an entry for a marriage in 1860, nothing regarding anyone > possibly still alive. > > Helen > > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > RootsWeb > http://www.rootsweb.com/ > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List http://www.ausbdm.org/p5uindex.php -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 5/22/2005 . ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== Having trouble with the software? Check PAF 5.x Information http://www.ausbdm.org/p5uinfo.php

The IGI has never had all source information available. Names that are submitted to the temples for ordinance work do not include all of the notes, sources, etc. in a person's files, and never have. Only necessary identification is submitted. Family History Center/Library patrons have always been told to check the Ancestral File and now the Pedigree Resource File, for families linked together and to obtain more information on sources and/or submitters. People should not go to the IGI and expect source material and/or submitters. -------Original Message------- From: Linda Date: 05/23/05 17:38:05 To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [PAF-5] No Source Information given in IGI Sources are not required for submission of names for temple work. What you see is basically all the temple ever had. If the entry was for a marriage in 1860, I can't imagine that anyone living at that time is still alive now. Linda ----- Original Message ----- From: "Helen W Hamilton" <hwhamilton2@msn.com> To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 3:40 PM Subject: [PAF-5] No Source Information given in IGI >I found an entry in the IGI that I wanted more information on, but under >Source it said No Source Information. Under messages it said Submitted by >a member of LDS after 1991. > Why are entries allowed where there is no source information provided? > This was an entry for a marriage in 1860, nothing regarding anyone > possibly still alive. > > Helen > > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > RootsWeb > http://www.rootsweb.com/ > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List http://www.ausbdm.org/p5uindex.php -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 5/22/2005 .

Helen W Hamilton wrote: >  > > I found an entry in the IGI that I wanted more information on, but under > Source it said No Source Information. Under messages it said Submitted by a > member of LDS after 1991. > Why are entries allowed where there is no source information provided? This > was an entry for a marriage in 1860, nothing regarding anyone possibly still > alive. > > Helen Sometime around 1991, the Temples introduced a new computer-based program called Temple Ready (TR for short); TR takes your PAF database and strips off everything but what you see on the IGI (name, bd, bp, parents or name, md, mp, spouse). The reason it strips off everything else is: many of us had lots of extraneous material in our NOTES -- such as, in 1995, some people copied the *entire* census enumeration list into the NOTES for each person named on the family census; others copied entire probate proceedings or a chapter from a book. Leaving all that in would swell the size of the computer needed to store it past "all HD capacity in the world". Additionally, it might violate the personal privacy of someone named in the NOTES. So TR doesn't transfer that to the Temple computer. Then by 1995, at least one Temple was refusing any submission not on a floppy disc (one exception). So the source in all those cases is "patron submission". When I asked why the patron's contact info couldn't be included as the "source", the issue of privacy protection came up, and I was pointed to the Ancestral File (now, I'm told to look in the PRF) where the same info with more detail was available *IF* the submitter agreed. Which is why researchers should use the IGI as a pointer, not a fact. FWIW & I HTH Cheryl

Fran, Regarding you message <I find the new policy on the IGI disappointing also> I do not believe there is anything new here as for long as I have been going to the IGI, which has been many years, there has always been "Submitted" and "Extracted" records. The extracted records are what you expect, extracted from church records, while the submitted records are just that, those submitted by individuals which may or may not have an "official" source and in many cases, may well be in error. I suggest you consider each based on their source and purpose. Jerry

There is still a flow of information from the Extraction Program which will give us a source, such as a church christening, etc. The Extraction records far out way, family contributed stuff. Hopefully anyone who submits something that will end up in the IGI will also submit it to the PRF database where we have a way to contact them. > From: FHB39@cs.com > Date: 2005/05/23 Mon PM 07:52:14 EDT > To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [PAF-5] No Source Information given in IGI > > I find the new policy on the IGI disappointing also. When the information was > from church record you could get the film, verify the information and > discover more. Now you not only cannot verify the information but as far as I know > you have no way to correct misinformation. > > > Fran > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > PAF-5-USERS Mailing List Archives > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/PAF-5-USERS/ > >

I find the new policy on the IGI disappointing also. When the information was from church record you could get the film, verify the information and discover more. Now you not only cannot verify the information but as far as I know you have no way to correct misinformation. Fran

I would delete them in this order. 1)Delete one of the children 2) Delete both parents from the Family View of the other child. 3)Go to edit parents marriage (right click on name in family view), and delete the marriage. 3)Delete the second child. If you delete the people before you delete the marriage, the marriage will stay in your records, unless you use PAF Insight to clean it out. (I think.) Your cousin, Alishea Check out my website: http://home.earthlink.net/~alishead1/alishea's/ -----Original Message----- From: Radford [mailto:radford2@bellsouth.net] Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 11:27 AM To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [PAF-5] Which is better? I have a family that came over with a file that was suppose to be just "my" family. This 4 person family does not belong in my husbands file. (I have made separate files) Is it better to delete by each 'individual' (4) or should I use "delete" the marriage, then delete each individual? There are 4 people in this family, mother, father and two children..none of them links to any other person except to themselves...I do not know how this family arrived? like they did. They are in 'my' file, so they would not be deleted except in my husband's family file... Thank you. Carol -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 5/22/05 ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List Archives http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/PAF-5-USERS/

I found an entry in the IGI that I wanted more information on, but under Source it said No Source Information. Under messages it said Submitted by a member of LDS after 1991. Why are entries allowed where there is no source information provided? This was an entry for a marriage in 1860, nothing regarding anyone possibly still alive. Helen

Sources are not required for submission of names for temple work. What you see is basically all the temple ever had. If the entry was for a marriage in 1860, I can't imagine that anyone living at that time is still alive now. Linda ----- Original Message ----- From: "Helen W Hamilton" <hwhamilton2@msn.com> To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 3:40 PM Subject: [PAF-5] No Source Information given in IGI >I found an entry in the IGI that I wanted more information on, but under >Source it said No Source Information. Under messages it said Submitted by >a member of LDS after 1991. > Why are entries allowed where there is no source information provided? > This was an entry for a marriage in 1860, nothing regarding anyone > possibly still alive. > > Helen > > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > RootsWeb > http://www.rootsweb.com/ > >

I have a family that came over with a file that was suppose to be just "my" family. This 4 person family does not belong in my husbands file. (I have made separate files) Is it better to delete by each 'individual' (4) or should I use "delete" the marriage, then delete each individual? There are 4 people in this family, mother, father and two children..none of them links to any other person except to themselves...I do not know how this family arrived? like they did. They are in 'my' file, so they would not be deleted except in my husband's family file... Thank you. Carol -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 5/22/05

Thanks everyone for all the input on Global Replace. I have learned much, which wasn't really being asked for, but I hope all the replies have also helped others. The PAF group is more active than ANY other listserve I am on. You are a great bunch of people!!! Laura ----- Original Message ----- From: <bjcase@awoc.com> To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 8:29 AM Subject: [PAF-5] Search and replace > When using search and replace click on "Case Sensitive" and it will only > get > "IA" and no "ia" in Pennsylvania. > > > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > FreeBMD - Free Access to England and Wales Civil Registration Index > Volunteer as a Transcriber Today! > http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/ > >

When using search and replace click on "Case Sensitive" and it will only get "IA" and no "ia" in Pennsylvania.

As Richard said, the report is essential. With it, if something does get messed up (and you do not have a backup to revert to) it is a often relatively simple to fix the errors. For example, Pennsylvaniowa can be searched for and replaced with Pennsylvania. Frequently there are only a handful of names that need followup correction but people freak out when they see results like Californialifornia and don't realize the same process that created the problem can also fix it. Gary Templeman -------------- Original message -------------- > Global replace can be most helpful with a little forethought. Laura's > example would have been more successful had the find been more selective > such as: ", IA " (comma, space, IA, space) with the Case Sensitive box > checked. It may be necessary to run it a second time with the find as ",IA > " (comma, IA, space). And don't forget to include the comma in the replace > field: ", Iowa" (comma, space, Iowa). One should never run a global replace > without the Create Report of Changes box checked. The listing will > identify any incorrect changes and allow you to correct them. > > Richard Rands

Next time you try to find and replace something like that, put a space after your two letters. It will filter better. Ruby in WA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Laura G." <beagenie@charter.net> To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 5:53 AM Subject: Re: [PAF-5] RE: Correcting spelling of names >A sample of an unexpected result. Several years ago I thought I would >change my old way of two-character State identificatio. Think Iowa was >plentiful, and simple, I asked for a global replacement for IA to Iowa. >Pennsylvaniowa, plu s several other such items came up. I gave up! > > Laura > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Regina Barry" <rmbarry1066@earthlink.net> > To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 3:50 AM > Subject: [PAF-5] RE: Correcting spelling of names > > >> If you have not imported the GEDCOM, the replace function in Wordpad or >> Notepad works great. >> >> If you already have imported the GEDOM, go to Tools, Global Search and >> Replace, and select Full Name from the pull down option list. >> >> If there's >lots< of variation on the spelling, you'll need to do each >> one. >> >> BE SURE to do a backup before doing any Global Search and Replace - one >> slip can cause very unexpected and unwanted results. >> >> Regina Barry * rmbarry1066@earthlink.net * >> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~rbarry4145/index.htm >> Think not those faithful who praise all thy words and actions; but those >> who kindly reprove thy faults. Socrates >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== >> FreeBMD - Free Access to England and Wales Civil Registration Index >> Volunteer as a Transcriber Today! >> http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/ >> >> > > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > PAF-5-USERS Mailing List Archives > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/PAF-5-USERS/ > > >

Thanks to everyone who shared their wisdom on FDB files. I took the easy route and had her resend it as a gedcom Regards, Ken Guilette South Barrington, IL ----- Original Message ----- From: ETM To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 11:29 AM Subject: Re: [PAF-5] FDB file That is a Legacy database, they have not exported it as a gedcom, simply sent you a copy of their file. You could download the free version of Legacy which would do the work for you or ask them to export a gedcom. Elaine For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. --H. L. Mencken Hello Kenneth On Tuesday, May 17, 2005, you wrote > Hi All > Someone sent me what she called a gedcom. > However, it has an FDB file extension. A google > search leads me to believe it is from LEGACY. > Any suggestions on how to open or import it??? > Regards, > Ken Guilette > South Barrington, IL ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== RootsWeb's WorldConnect Project: Connecting the World One GEDCOM at a Time http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/