Date   

Re: Duplicate Citations

Mike Tate
 

That will need to be investigated and fixed by the Plugin Author who is Jane Taubman.

You can contact her via the FHUG Forums or Leave a Reply against that Plugin in the Plugin Store.

Mike Tate

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of David Hodgson-Brown
Sent: 07 May 2021 13:47
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: [family-historian] Duplicate Citations

 

Hi All

 

I know I have lots of duplicate citations in my tree that I imported from RootsMagic. When I run the ‘Duplicate Citations’ plugin I get the following message

 

[string ‘c;\ProgramData\Calico Pie\Family Historian\Pl…]’:57: attempt to index a nil value (field ‘?’). No changes have been made to the data records.

 

Is there a way of tweaking the code to get around this problem? Can anyone suggest where to look in the GEDCOM for the offending data?  

 

Thanks

 

David Hodgson-Brown

 


Duplicate Citations

David Hodgson-Brown
 

Hi All

 

I know I have lots of duplicate citations in my tree that I imported from RootsMagic. When I run the ‘Duplicate Citations’ plugin I get the following message

 

[string ‘c;\ProgramData\Calico Pie\Family Historian\Pl…]’:57: attempt to index a nil value (field ‘?’). No changes have been made to the data records.

 

Is there a way of tweaking the code to get around this problem? Can anyone suggest where to look in the GEDCOM for the offending data?  

 

Thanks

 

David Hodgson-Brown

 


Re: Relationship Report

1399ducksbury@...
 

Thanks so much guys, just what I needed to show relationships.

Never had any reason to do queries before, but will explore in the future.

Dave


Re: Lumper or Splitter for one name study

David Hodgson-Brown
 

Hi All

 

Just another perspective. I lump items if I am going to use it for 1 fact/event such as Birth/Death/Marriage. If I am going to use it to support multiple facts/events such as a residence record which is attached to multiple people for a census then I have create a source using the Census Source. This is so I can alter only one record and it will affect all the people.

 

Regards

 

David

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of johnfirr via groups.io
Sent: 04 May 2021 16:50
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Lumper or Splitter for one name study

 

Thanks everyone,
that confirms where i think I am. I wouldnt want to do anything other than split where I have a specific source such as a certificate and image but it does seem to feel like splitting an index is perhaps a step too far so interesting that others have taken this approach.
John F.


Re: Lumper or Splitter for one name study

johnfirr@...
 

Thanks everyone,
that confirms where i think I am. I wouldnt want to do anything other than split where I have a specific source such as a certificate and image but it does seem to feel like splitting an index is perhaps a step too far so interesting that others have taken this approach.
John F.


Re: Lumper or Splitter for one name study

Lorna Craig
 

Like Adrian, I am a splitter for most things but a ‘lumper’ for indexes, where the information is minimal and there are no images involved.  So for the GRO England and Wales indexes I have one source for the births index, one for marriages and one for deaths. (Unlike Adrian I don’t distinguish which website I searched the index on).  The dates and index references go in the citations.

 

Only when I obtain a more detailed source, usually a certificate, do I create a separate ‘split’ source. An image of the certificate is attached to the split source.

 

Lorna

 

From: Adrian Bruce
Sent: 04 May 2021 16:10
To: Family Historian Groups.io mailing list
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Lumper or Splitter for one name study

 

I don't do an ONS but I am an ardent splitter. However, my unscientific gut feeling is that

 - (a) virtually every splitter will actually lump **some** source records;

 - (b) the classic source records that we (including me) lump are BMD **indexes** such as FreeBMD or the GRO online indexes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Re: Lumper or Splitter for one name study

Adrian Bruce
 

I don't do an ONS but I am an ardent splitter. However, my unscientific gut feeling is that
 - (a) virtually every splitter will actually lump **some** source records;
 - (b) the classic source records that we (including me) lump are BMD **indexes** such as FreeBMD or the GRO online indexes.

I have a single source record for all of the FreeBMD indexes, another for the GRO Online indexes, another for the Ancestry BMD indexes for England & Wales, one for CheshireBMD, one for LancashireBMD, etc, etc.

My reason was quite simple - I felt that the payload of repeated data in the source-record made it easier for me to reuse the same source record and the actual varying detail could easily go into the "citation" details. This gives only a couple of repeats for a citation for a single BMD index entry, unlike the number of repeats for a birth certificate, say, given that tends to support many more facts. (Normally I dislike repeats).

Adrian









Re: Lumper or Splitter for one name study

David Wilkinson
 

John,

I lump for things like birth, death, marriage indexes and certificates, each census e.g. lumped for 1841, 1851 etc and record the detail in the "where within source", "text from source" and "note" fields, thus they become unique under a lumped heading. The key to me is adopt a strategy then stick to it.

If I split everything I would 100,000s of entries in the Source table which seems daft to me.

The purpose of a citation is the the reader can understand where the data came from and find it easily if they wish.

David Wilkinson

On 04/05/2021 14:57, johnfirr via groups.io wrote:
Just a question out of interest really. I started using FH for family history research and adopted wnat I believe to be a "splitter" technique for recording sources i.e I raise an individual source for every record for every individual. This has the advantage that it allows me to record lots of detail and its very specific when searching, however it is relatively slow as there is lots of data entry for just one event ( say a Birth index entry).
Last year I transferred into carrying out a one name study and have continued to "split" which has not been a huge problem since the main name is very rare so if wanted to enter say all of the births on Findmypast for that name in the UK since 1837 I only have a couple of hundred.

However I have now started on one of the variants which whilst not huge is an order of magnitude higher so for instance I have just pulled all of the UK births for that variant from Free BMD and have a list of over a thousand. Entering these using splitting means also originaltng 1500 or so sources as well. This is a bit daunting and I am toying with becoming a "lumper" and creating one source for the CSV list arising from that search, only the perfectionist in me is stopping me at the moment.

Just interested in what other one namers do when you have a large list - is lumping the answer?

regards
John Firr


Re: Lumper or Splitter for one name study

Paul Sillitoe
 

Hi John

Whatever the dataset, I always find myself having to split it into granular detail in the end, to enable any sensible analysis.  In fact, I'm sitting here now trying to persuade myself that all the extra effort won't be necessary for a new task I'm about to start, but knowing in my heart that it will 😄

All best

Paul



Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone but not so smart as to usefully auto-correct the typos from my large fingers 🙂


-------- Original message --------
From: "johnfirr via groups.io" <johnfirr@...>
Date: 04/05/2021 15:16 (GMT+00:00)
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: [family-historian] Lumper or Splitter for one name study

Just a question out of interest really. I started using FH for family history research and adopted wnat I believe to be a "splitter" technique for recording sources i.e I raise an individual source for every record for every individual. This has the advantage that it allows me to record lots of detail and its very specific when searching, however it is relatively slow as there is lots of data entry for just one event ( say a Birth index entry).
Last year I transferred into carrying out a one name study and have continued to "split" which has not been a huge problem since the main name is very rare so if wanted to enter say all of the births on Findmypast for that name in the UK since 1837 I only have a couple of hundred.

However I have now started on one of the variants which whilst not huge is an order of magnitude higher so for instance I have just pulled all of the UK births for that variant from Free BMD and have a list of over a thousand. Entering these using splitting means also originaltng 1500 or so sources as well. This is a bit daunting and I am toying with becoming a "lumper" and creating one source for the CSV list arising from that search, only the perfectionist in me is stopping me at the moment.

Just interested in what other one namers do when you have a large list - is lumping the answer?

regards
John Firr


Lumper or Splitter for one name study

johnfirr@...
 

Just a question out of interest really. I started using FH for family history research and adopted wnat I believe to be a "splitter" technique for recording sources i.e I raise an individual source for every record for every individual. This has the advantage that it allows me to record lots of detail and its very specific when searching, however it is relatively slow as there is lots of data entry for just one event ( say a Birth index entry).
Last year I transferred into carrying out a one name study and have continued to "split" which has not been a huge problem since the main name is very rare so if wanted to enter say all of the births on Findmypast for that name in the UK since 1837 I only have a couple of hundred.

However I have now started on one of the variants which whilst not huge is an order of magnitude higher so for instance I have just pulled all of the UK births for that variant from Free BMD and have a list of over a thousand. Entering these using splitting means also originaltng 1500 or so sources as well. This is a bit daunting and I am toying with becoming a "lumper" and creating one source for the CSV list arising from that search, only the perfectionist in me is stopping me at the moment.

Just interested in what other one namers do when you have a large list - is lumping the answer?

regards
John Firr


Re: Relationship Report

Trevor Rix
 

Select Query Window on the Toolbar, select "Relations and 5 Nearest Relationships" from the dropdown list of queries that are already provided in Family Historian.


Re: Relationship Report

Trevor Rix
 

In the Records Window, right click a blank area in a column header > Configure Columns...

If "Relationship To Root" is not already showing in the left pane, scroll down to the bottom, select Other, click the > in the centre, enter Relationship To Root in the Header box, and enter =Relationship(FileRoot(),,TEXT,1) in the Expression box. Add. Move Relationship To Root up to your preferred position. OK.


Re: Relationship Report

gen@malmail.co.uk
 

I’ve not used expressions before, is there a step by step idiots guide to adding a “Relationship to Root” column?

Or the “ Relations & 5 nearest

Thanks

Malchal


Re: Relationship Report

Trevor Rix
 

Use the "Relations and 5 Nearest Re3lationships" query, OR add a "Relationship To Root" column in the Records Window using expression =Relationship(FileRoot(),,TEXT,1)


Relationship Report

1399ducksbury@...
 

In TMG, there was a report that listed all the relationship of a specified person, i.e. 1st cousin 2 cousin 3X removed, 4X great grandfather, etc. etc. I have looked all thru FH Ver 6 and can not seem to find anything.

Is there a comparable report in FH6?

Thanks Dave Browne


Re: Military Service

Mike Heseltine <noguru48@...>
 

Thanks to everyone for their response. Will be spending this wet Bank Holiday working out my strategy.

Mike Heseltine

On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 5:59 PM Sheila Bryant <sheila@...> wrote:
I can see that it might look like overkill, but I've found just using
the features I want/need and ignoring the rest works for me. I did
start to define new facts, but got in a right tangle and found I could
fit my guys into this framework. So far so good!

I too have volunteers/reservists who went on to join the "full"
service. In the past I've tended to view this as a form of  transfer -
again, so far it works for me.

I guess the key is finding what works for you and going with it!

On Sat, 1 May 2021 at 17:34, Adrian Bruce <abruce6155@...> wrote:
>
> It's very much a matter of preference but I found the Military History Fact Set to be rather too detailed for my family members - and for a One Name Study, I think that it would be overwhelming. Of course, you don't need to use all the fact types, you could just decide which you want to use and use Tools / Fact Types / Hide to hide the rest to avoid confusion.
>
> I would suggest that you need to use at least
>  - Military Service attribute, whose value is the name of each unit that someone served in, with appropriate dates;
>  - Campaign Medal attribute whose value is the name(s) of all(?) the campaign medals issued to this guy;
>  - Gallantry Medal attribute whose value is the name of a Gallantry Medal awarded - with the appropriate award date;
>
> You'd need to think what to do about Mentioned In Dispatches - I'd be inclined to put it in the Gallantry Medal attribute, rather than have its own attribute. The Silver War Badge is another oddity, perhaps. I'd be inclined to put that in a separate Campaign Medal attribute for each soldier, rather than in with the Campaign Medal attribute for the BWM and VM, simply because it's easier to work with.
>
> Military Service attribute - I record this at the battalion / battery / company level etc - whatever the basic unit is. Of course, at the start and end of his career, you might only know that they were in Training or the Reserve - you might not know a more detailed description. Most people will have several Military Service attributes.
>
> Whether you have separate events for demobbed and discharged is up to you - for my purposes I will normally enter the discharged date in the end date of the last Military Service attribute, while the demobbed date is just in the notes for a Military Service attribute. But if you want to run off a query listing these dates, then you really need to record them as events in their own right. I've never found the need to do that so I've never bothered recording them as their own events. This also avoids me getting mixed up over exactly what someone's start date actually is! (This is not a silly question - if someone joined up under the Derby Scheme as a volunteer, arguably they joined the Army at their date of volunteering, and then went home until they were mobilised... Which is the "start"?)
>
>
>



--
Sheila






Re: Military Service

Sheila Bryant
 

I can see that it might look like overkill, but I've found just using
the features I want/need and ignoring the rest works for me. I did
start to define new facts, but got in a right tangle and found I could
fit my guys into this framework. So far so good!

I too have volunteers/reservists who went on to join the "full"
service. In the past I've tended to view this as a form of transfer -
again, so far it works for me.

I guess the key is finding what works for you and going with it!

On Sat, 1 May 2021 at 17:34, Adrian Bruce <abruce6155@gmail.com> wrote:

It's very much a matter of preference but I found the Military History Fact Set to be rather too detailed for my family members - and for a One Name Study, I think that it would be overwhelming. Of course, you don't need to use all the fact types, you could just decide which you want to use and use Tools / Fact Types / Hide to hide the rest to avoid confusion.

I would suggest that you need to use at least
- Military Service attribute, whose value is the name of each unit that someone served in, with appropriate dates;
- Campaign Medal attribute whose value is the name(s) of all(?) the campaign medals issued to this guy;
- Gallantry Medal attribute whose value is the name of a Gallantry Medal awarded - with the appropriate award date;

You'd need to think what to do about Mentioned In Dispatches - I'd be inclined to put it in the Gallantry Medal attribute, rather than have its own attribute. The Silver War Badge is another oddity, perhaps. I'd be inclined to put that in a separate Campaign Medal attribute for each soldier, rather than in with the Campaign Medal attribute for the BWM and VM, simply because it's easier to work with.

Military Service attribute - I record this at the battalion / battery / company level etc - whatever the basic unit is. Of course, at the start and end of his career, you might only know that they were in Training or the Reserve - you might not know a more detailed description. Most people will have several Military Service attributes.

Whether you have separate events for demobbed and discharged is up to you - for my purposes I will normally enter the discharged date in the end date of the last Military Service attribute, while the demobbed date is just in the notes for a Military Service attribute. But if you want to run off a query listing these dates, then you really need to record them as events in their own right. I've never found the need to do that so I've never bothered recording them as their own events. This also avoids me getting mixed up over exactly what someone's start date actually is! (This is not a silly question - if someone joined up under the Derby Scheme as a volunteer, arguably they joined the Army at their date of volunteering, and then went home until they were mobilised... Which is the "start"?)


--
Sheila


Re: Military Service

Adrian Bruce
 

It's very much a matter of preference but I found the Military History Fact Set to be rather too detailed for my family members - and for a One Name Study, I think that it would be overwhelming. Of course, you don't need to use all the fact types, you could just decide which you want to use and use Tools / Fact Types / Hide to hide the rest to avoid confusion.

I would suggest that you need to use at least
 - Military Service attribute, whose value is the name of each unit that someone served in, with appropriate dates;
 - Campaign Medal attribute whose value is the name(s) of all(?) the campaign medals issued to this guy;
 - Gallantry Medal attribute whose value is the name of a Gallantry Medal awarded - with the appropriate award date;
 
You'd need to think what to do about Mentioned In Dispatches - I'd be inclined to put it in the Gallantry Medal attribute, rather than have its own attribute. The Silver War Badge is another oddity, perhaps. I'd be inclined to put that in a separate Campaign Medal attribute for each soldier, rather than in with the Campaign Medal attribute for the BWM and VM, simply because it's easier to work with.

Military Service attribute - I record this at the battalion / battery / company level etc - whatever the basic unit is. Of course, at the start and end of his career, you might only know that they were in Training or the Reserve - you might not know a more detailed description. Most people will have several Military Service attributes.

Whether you have separate events for demobbed and discharged is up to you - for my purposes I will normally enter the discharged date in the end date of the last Military Service attribute, while the demobbed date is just in the notes for a Military Service attribute. But if you want to run off a query listing these dates, then you really need to record them as events in their own right. I've never found the need to do that so I've never bothered recording them as their own events. This also avoids me getting mixed up over exactly what someone's start date actually is! (This is not a silly question - if someone joined up under the Derby Scheme as a volunteer, arguably they joined the Army at their date of volunteering, and then went home until they were mobilised... Which is the "start"?)



Re: Still struggling with mapping

colevalleygirl@colevalleygirl.co.uk
 

You can do that on Google Maps as well. Right-click on the location you want to geocode and the co-ordinates will be at the top of the right click menu. Free.

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of stephen.challis@...
Sent: 01 May 2021 12:43
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Still struggling with mapping

 

Memory map (https://memory-map.com/maps/) sell digital maps. If you hover your cursor over the place whose precise co-ordinates you want, they will be displayed on the screen. Easy! But not necessarily cheap.


Re: Still struggling with mapping

stephen.challis@...
 

Memory map (https://memory-map.com/maps/) sell digital maps. If you hover your cursor over the place whose precise co-ordinates you want, they will be displayed on the screen. Easy! But not necessarily cheap.

 

Stephen

 

 

Stephen Challis

Please reply to Stephen.Challis@...

 

From: family-historian@groups.io [mailto:family-historian@groups.io] On Behalf Of Lorna Craig via groups.io
Sent: 01 May 2021 10:28
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Still struggling with mapping

 

As it is only about a dozen places which are not correctly mapped I would simply geocode them manually.  The simplest way is to click the Drag icon at the right hand end of the map toolbar, to enable manual movement of the markers on the map.    Then drag the incorrect markers to the right place.  Alternatively if you know the correct latitude and longitude coordinates you can enter these directly into the Place record.

 

Remember to use Tools>Preferences>Map window to ‘Block Refresh for Non-tentative Geocodes’ so that your manually set markers don’t get disrupted by any subsequent auto-geocoding.

 

Lorna

 

 

From: johnfirr via groups.io
Sent: 01 May 2021 07:09
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: [family-historian] Still struggling with mapping



.....Its only about a dozen out of nearly 1000 places but it would be great to get it all properly aligned. Is there something I am missing?

581 - 600 of 4205