Date   

Re: Report shows differently to fact page

Miriam Smith
 

Thank you to all for your suggestions.  The reason I put the date in a different place is because I get sick of it being at the beginning ALL the time - especially if the sentence is short, with more short ones following.  Some of my 'notes' are quite long and detailed and I haven't had any problems previously with what order the sentence pieces were in.  I played around with my John Williams and put the date in various spots as you can see from the attachment.  I screen dumped relevant info to demonstrate what structure the sentence was and what it looked like on FH and the report.  I am unable to 'copy' as when you click in the structure part, it only copies the structure, not the sentence it makes, and some of the sentences don't all fit into the little space.  I note that every sentence is dodgy - BUT I also noticed that I have "financial" sentences.  When I put a note in a marriage sentence, it all works.
I did some further work on John Williams and realised that a "financial" fact was something that had come over from TMG.  So I created an identical "misc" fact but it still had the same errors.  I then used your %FACT.NOTE2%, Mike, but it just added another sentence using the "note" only.  (I haven't screen dumped that though)
I admit I used my "financial" and "legal" facts a lot in TMG and they have all come over, but I hadn't noticed previously that these sentences were 'up the creek' so to speak.

However, I have made an amazing discovery - I noticed that on another person I had a very big note (a transcription of his will actually) and it was in the report but the {note} was not in the sentence structure.  So I went back to John Williams and removed the {note} from one of the sentence structures and the note printed in the report.  But it didn't show it in the sentence where the structure is.  Previously I have always had to have the {note} in the sentence structure otherwise it didn't show, or print.

I will raise an issue with Calico Pie but I think it will not be as straightforward as I originally thought as I always check what my sentence "says" before moving on, so that I believe it will be correct when printed.

It still leaves me with what to do in the meantime, as whatever needs doing will be a huge job.  But again, thank you all and Mike - I probably wouldn't have picked up the previous thread as even when I read it I wouldn't have remembered it when I had my issue.


Re: Reference a section of place

Edward Sneithe
 

I want the point ability since I want to locate very closely where ancestors lived, traveled, etc. One task I have that I have not yet found a suitable platform is to be able to map  very specific migration pattern. I also need to add waypoints to adjust the migration path so I don't get unrealistic results. If I want to map Miami to Boston it takes a path out over the Atlantic when in reality the path would be through Florida, Alabama, Carolinas, etc.

Some people even want to go as fine as the location of a single grave in a cemetery

So far I can get the ability to map a path or reasonable maps but not both in the same product. It would be nice if I could map a path in FH.


I can adjust FH data to align with what I want without the waypoints.



On Monday, August 16, 2021, 01:58:44 PM EDT, David F <fhug-forum@...> wrote:


Is the basic problem that geocoding "puts a pin in a map"?

Places are areas, whilst addresses are much closer to points.

If you want to check who lived in a house through a period of time, or who were close neighbours, you probably want point-mapping (which either has to be "full-address" based or manually adjusted). If you are trying to show general migration (say from "Ireland" to "USA" or even "Cork" to "New York State") you probably want area-mapping.

Reducing an area to a point can be misleading; USA gets reduced to a point somewhere in Kansas, Australia gets reduced to somewhere close to Alice Springs.

Trouble is area-mapping requires definition of numerous points on sometimes complex boundaries - unless the system can piggy back on another existing mapping system that already understands areas. Even then, genealogists will want to define places like "Yorkshire, West Riding" which modern mapping systems no longer recognise!

David


Re: Reference a section of place

David F
 

Is the basic problem that geocoding "puts a pin in a map"?

Places are areas, whilst addresses are much closer to points.

If you want to check who lived in a house through a period of time, or who were close neighbours, you probably want point-mapping (which either has to be "full-address" based or manually adjusted). If you are trying to show general migration (say from "Ireland" to "USA" or even "Cork" to "New York State") you probably want area-mapping.

Reducing an area to a point can be misleading; USA gets reduced to a point somewhere in Kansas, Australia gets reduced to somewhere close to Alice Springs.

Trouble is area-mapping requires definition of numerous points on sometimes complex boundaries - unless the system can piggy back on another existing mapping system that already understands areas. Even then, genealogists will want to define places like "Yorkshire, West Riding" which modern mapping systems no longer recognise!

David


Re: Reference a section of place

Victor Markham
 

Of course it is the West (East or North) Riding of Yorkshire but for address purposes on FH West, East or North simplifies things.

Writing letters in those far off days people simply wrote East, North or West and that is sufficient clarity

Victor

On 16/08/2021 6:34 pm, Andrew Braid wrote:
Victor

Sheffield has never been in West Yorkshire. It was in the West Riding of Yorkshire until reorganisation.

Yorkshire is challenging from a geographic standpoint. Formerly three ridings and an Ainsty and now North, East, West and South plus Humberside and Teesside. And it's all about to change again

Like you I always use the old names.

Andrew 

On Mon, Aug 16, 2021, 18:13 Victor Markham via groups.io <victor=markham.me.uk@groups.io> wrote:

When I enter a place name in England I always give the place name it's full name.

When it copmes to county names I always stick to the ancien boundary names. What we see today are known as administration boundary.

As an example let's say Sheffield. If someone lived thewre in the 1960's or earlier they would be in West Yorkshire. When the boundary changed Sheffield became South Yorkshire, which is an admin boudary. I wouldn't bother to change thinghs from West to South. This sort of thing has happened all over the country so I stick to the old names. The boundaries are going through another change so it would mean one has to change things again if they do that.

This is how I do place names

anytown, anycounty, England (in one row)

Followed by any street in the second row

Both rows are separate on FH so it is easy to add the two addresses

I would put the full name of the place like Kingston Upon Hull not just Hull

When it comes to Yorkshire I would add East, North or West to Yorkshire. There are similar place names in say East Yorkshire and North Yorkshire (Scalby fr example) so one needs to know which is the right place

Victor

On 16/08/2021 5:57 pm, Edward Sneithe via groups.io wrote:
Mike,

I was thinking that if we use  place field like Address, City, County, State, Country that we re dependent on properly placed commas for missing data. I know you can't speak for FH but it would seem nice that when we are entering a place that we could get a formatted scree for all the possibilities for place and then FH would properly format the place field with comma for missing data.

Just a thought. It would make entering and extracting individual pieces more reliable

On Monday, August 16, 2021, 12:46:03 PM EDT, Mike Tate <post@...> wrote:


Yes, the FHUG Knowledge Base ‘Working with Places and Addresses’ explains similar options:

https://fhug.org.uk/kb/kb-article/working-with-places-and-addresses-for-new-users/

 

Family Historian allows some deviation from the GEDCOM specification, as do most products.

IMO the omission of Address from geocoding was a mistake.

 

I advise that you format your Place and Address data to suit your use of FH rather than adhere to the GEDCOM specification too closely.

 

Mike Tate

 

 


Re: Reference a section of place

Andrew Braid
 

Victor

Sheffield has never been in West Yorkshire. It was in the West Riding of Yorkshire until reorganisation.

Yorkshire is challenging from a geographic standpoint. Formerly three ridings and an Ainsty and now North, East, West and South plus Humberside and Teesside. And it's all about to change again

Like you I always use the old names.

Andrew 

On Mon, Aug 16, 2021, 18:13 Victor Markham via groups.io <victor=markham.me.uk@groups.io> wrote:

When I enter a place name in England I always give the place name it's full name.

When it copmes to county names I always stick to the ancien boundary names. What we see today are known as administration boundary.

As an example let's say Sheffield. If someone lived thewre in the 1960's or earlier they would be in West Yorkshire. When the boundary changed Sheffield became South Yorkshire, which is an admin boudary. I wouldn't bother to change thinghs from West to South. This sort of thing has happened all over the country so I stick to the old names. The boundaries are going through another change so it would mean one has to change things again if they do that.

This is how I do place names

anytown, anycounty, England (in one row)

Followed by any street in the second row

Both rows are separate on FH so it is easy to add the two addresses

I would put the full name of the place like Kingston Upon Hull not just Hull

When it comes to Yorkshire I would add East, North or West to Yorkshire. There are similar place names in say East Yorkshire and North Yorkshire (Scalby fr example) so one needs to know which is the right place

Victor

On 16/08/2021 5:57 pm, Edward Sneithe via groups.io wrote:
Mike,

I was thinking that if we use  place field like Address, City, County, State, Country that we re dependent on properly placed commas for missing data. I know you can't speak for FH but it would seem nice that when we are entering a place that we could get a formatted scree for all the possibilities for place and then FH would properly format the place field with comma for missing data.

Just a thought. It would make entering and extracting individual pieces more reliable

On Monday, August 16, 2021, 12:46:03 PM EDT, Mike Tate <post@...> wrote:


Yes, the FHUG Knowledge Base ‘Working with Places and Addresses’ explains similar options:

https://fhug.org.uk/kb/kb-article/working-with-places-and-addresses-for-new-users/

 

Family Historian allows some deviation from the GEDCOM specification, as do most products.

IMO the omission of Address from geocoding was a mistake.

 

I advise that you format your Place and Address data to suit your use of FH rather than adhere to the GEDCOM specification too closely.

 

Mike Tate

 

 


Re: Reference a section of place

Victor Markham
 

When I enter a place name in England I always give the place name it's full name.

When it copmes to county names I always stick to the ancien boundary names. What we see today are known as administration boundary.

As an example let's say Sheffield. If someone lived thewre in the 1960's or earlier they would be in West Yorkshire. When the boundary changed Sheffield became South Yorkshire, which is an admin boudary. I wouldn't bother to change thinghs from West to South. This sort of thing has happened all over the country so I stick to the old names. The boundaries are going through another change so it would mean one has to change things again if they do that.

This is how I do place names

anytown, anycounty, England (in one row)

Followed by any street in the second row

Both rows are separate on FH so it is easy to add the two addresses

I would put the full name of the place like Kingston Upon Hull not just Hull

When it comes to Yorkshire I would add East, North or West to Yorkshire. There are similar place names in say East Yorkshire and North Yorkshire (Scalby fr example) so one needs to know which is the right place

Victor

On 16/08/2021 5:57 pm, Edward Sneithe via groups.io wrote:
Mike,

I was thinking that if we use  place field like Address, City, County, State, Country that we re dependent on properly placed commas for missing data. I know you can't speak for FH but it would seem nice that when we are entering a place that we could get a formatted scree for all the possibilities for place and then FH would properly format the place field with comma for missing data.

Just a thought. It would make entering and extracting individual pieces more reliable

On Monday, August 16, 2021, 12:46:03 PM EDT, Mike Tate <post@...> wrote:


Yes, the FHUG Knowledge Base ‘Working with Places and Addresses’ explains similar options:

https://fhug.org.uk/kb/kb-article/working-with-places-and-addresses-for-new-users/

 

Family Historian allows some deviation from the GEDCOM specification, as do most products.

IMO the omission of Address from geocoding was a mistake.

 

I advise that you format your Place and Address data to suit your use of FH rather than adhere to the GEDCOM specification too closely.

 

Mike Tate

 

 


Re: Reference a section of place

Edward Sneithe
 

Mike,

I was thinking that if we use  place field like Address, City, County, State, Country that we re dependent on properly placed commas for missing data. I know you can't speak for FH but it would seem nice that when we are entering a place that we could get a formatted scree for all the possibilities for place and then FH would properly format the place field with comma for missing data.

Just a thought. It would make entering and extracting individual pieces more reliable

On Monday, August 16, 2021, 12:46:03 PM EDT, Mike Tate <post@...> wrote:


Yes, the FHUG Knowledge Base ‘Working with Places and Addresses’ explains similar options:

https://fhug.org.uk/kb/kb-article/working-with-places-and-addresses-for-new-users/

 

Family Historian allows some deviation from the GEDCOM specification, as do most products.

IMO the omission of Address from geocoding was a mistake.

 

I advise that you format your Place and Address data to suit your use of FH rather than adhere to the GEDCOM specification too closely.

 

Mike Tate

 

 


Re: Reference a section of place

Mike Tate
 

Yes, the FHUG Knowledge Base ‘Working with Places and Addresses’ explains similar options:

https://fhug.org.uk/kb/kb-article/working-with-places-and-addresses-for-new-users/

 

Family Historian allows some deviation from the GEDCOM specification, as do most products.

IMO the omission of Address from geocoding was a mistake.

 

I advise that you format your Place and Address data to suit your use of FH rather than adhere to the GEDCOM specification too closely.

 

Mike Tate

 

 


Re: Reference a section of place

Edward Sneithe
 

If I read the GECOM 5.5.1 and the new 7.0.0 it seems that the place should contain a location like city, county, state, country. The address field should contain the entire address, multi line address as it would appear on a mailing so I assume that would be street address, city, county, state, country, zip code

Gedcom 5.5.1 page 58 says place:

"This shows the jurisdictional entities that are named in a sequence from the lowest to the highest
jurisdiction. The jurisdictions are separated by commas, and any jurisdiction's name that is missing is
still accounted for by a comma."

The same standard says this about Address:

ADDRESS_STRUCTURE:=
n ADDR <ADDRESS_LINE> {1:1} p.41
+1 CONT <ADDRESS_LINE> {0:3} p.41
+1 ADR1 <ADDRESS_LINE1> {0:1} p.41
+1 ADR2 <ADDRESS_LINE2> {0:1} p.41
+1 ADR3 <ADDRESS_LINE3> {0:1} p.41
+1 CITY <ADDRESS_CITY> {0:1} p.41
+1 STAE <ADDRESS_STATE> {0:1} p.42
+1 POST <ADDRESS_POSTAL_CODE> {0:1} p.41
+1 CTRY <ADDRESS_COUNTRY> {0:1} p.41

"The address structure should be formed as it would appear on a mailing label using the ADDR and
the CONT lines to form the address structure."


 in 5.5.1 the place field is described like this on page 65:

"A comma-separated list of jurisdictional titles, which has the same number of
elements and in the same order as the PLAC structure. Entries should be in an
order where each is typically subsumed by the next.
Example — The following represents Baltimore, a city that is not within a
county.

2 PLAC Baltimore, , Maryland, USA
3 FORM City, County, State, Country"


From page 37 of the new 7.0.0 GEDCOM Standard an address is:

"A specific building, plot, or location. The payload is the full formatted address
as it would appear on a mailing label, including appropriate line breaks (encoded
using CONT (p.60) tags). The expected order of address components varies
by region; the address should be organized as expected by the addressed region."

It does not reference the person etc. at that location or naming. If I follow that standard then from my example I would have :

Place: East Hampton, Connecticut

and the address:

St Patrick,
47 West High St,
East Hampton, Connecticut, USA

including all the line breaks. If I follow this standard then the geocoding will not get the exact location but just the city location. The exact location is in the Address field. If I use this model then the geocoding is very general but the location can be dragged to the correct position thus manually making up for the lack of a street address in the place field. But that also has the drawback of not allowing for multiple locations in the same city.

It looks like the only solution for geocoding is to include the street address in the place field and extracting the components with FH functions.

I have also tried the use of labelled text in the note field, surrounded by privacy symbols like:

[[
Church: St Patricks
]]

and then in a sentence extracting the various components using FH functions.

If we are to follow the GEDCOM standard then it appears that the geocoding would be better placed on the address field rather than the Place field. It would be nice if FH gave us an option to select either or both to use  in geocoding so that 99.99% of my place fields only have City, County, State, Country and the address field has the specific street  address. 

A lot to contemplate. FH does have a way to adjust for any of these scenarios except for geocoding.

Should something like this be better defined and go on a wish list?

I hope I have not confused anyone.

On Monday, August 16, 2021, 05:57:26 AM EDT, <j.van.beek@...> wrote:


FH (especially with help of the numerous plugins) offers indeed a multitude of ways to implement users ideas, wishes etc.

For me this means that I've to ask myself why would I want what?". My answers to that question for the Place considerations are:
1. Places are about two things: naming and location on earth. The naming may change over time while the location stays the same. This is neatly solved in FH by using the standardized name and using the geo-location of that name. Sometimes we have Places with the same name but at a different location. Here also the standardized name and the (in this case different) geo-location help us out. In this case it's usually wise to add extra information to the name (e.g. county, province etc.) to set the names visually apart.
2. To not clutter up the narratives, I want the names to be as short as possible. So, no extensive use of state, county, province, country etc. info if, from the context of the narrative, it's obvious where the Place is expected to be located. And, due to point 1 there's always an exact reference to the location on earth.
3. Sometimes interesting information about the Place is available (e.g. the name of the hospital where a child was born, the name of a graveyard, the name of a church where people married etc. etc.). I'd like to add that in to the "Place name" to make it easily accessible within FH (see my solution for this in my former post).

For what it's worth: up until now the above approach has served me well with thousands of Places in The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France, the UK, the USA and a few other countries. :)


Re: Report shows differently to fact page

Mike Tate
 

Miriam, this and related problems were discussed 10 days ago in the FHUG Forums under ‘Fact definitions & unwanted carriage returns’.

See https://www.fhug.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=19695

It appears to be a fault that has arisen in FH v7.0 when using the {note} code followed by the {date} code.

As a workaround, you can replace {note} with {%FACT.NOTE2%} until the fault is fixed.

I suggest you report your specific symptoms to Calico Pie via their http://www.calico-pie.com/osticket/open.php support ticket system.

 

Mike Tate

 


Re: Reference a section of place

@JoopvB
 

FH (especially with help of the numerous plugins) offers indeed a multitude of ways to implement users ideas, wishes etc.

For me this means that I've to ask myself why would I want what?". My answers to that question for the Place considerations are:
1. Places are about two things: naming and location on earth. The naming may change over time while the location stays the same. This is neatly solved in FH by using the standardized name and using the geo-location of that name. Sometimes we have Places with the same name but at a different location. Here also the standardized name and the (in this case different) geo-location help us out. In this case it's usually wise to add extra information to the name (e.g. county, province etc.) to set the names visually apart.
2. To not clutter up the narratives, I want the names to be as short as possible. So, no extensive use of state, county, province, country etc. info if, from the context of the narrative, it's obvious where the Place is expected to be located. And, due to point 1 there's always an exact reference to the location on earth.
3. Sometimes interesting information about the Place is available (e.g. the name of the hospital where a child was born, the name of a graveyard, the name of a church where people married etc. etc.). I'd like to add that in to the "Place name" to make it easily accessible within FH (see my solution for this in my former post).

For what it's worth: up until now the above approach has served me well with thousands of Places in The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France, the UK, the USA and a few other countries. :)


Re: copy fact definitions

Mike Tate
 

You were perfectly clear about what you had done. Those modifications only affect one specific fact at a time.

 

As Lorna said and as the ‘Report Fact Sentence Templates’ advice I referred to says:

To make those changes global you must use the Tools > Fact Types… dialogue and Edit each Fact to change its Sentence Template.

There is no need to export/import such changes because just like most customisations they apply to all Projects.

 

You can copy the Template from the specific fact Sentence box and paste it into the Fact Types… Sentence Template box.

Just check that it works correctly for all variants of that Fact Type for the person’s Sex, Date, Age, Place, Address, Note, etc.

 

Mike Tate


Re: Report shows differently to fact page

Adrian Bruce
 

Can you guarantee that there's always a date? If so, maybe you could replace 
 {date} {place} {age}
by 
 This was {date} {place} {age}
This will result in 2 sentences (in English) for the one narrative sentence. Not quite sure this is exactly what you want but some experiments might show where the full stops and capitals end up. (Actually that might also work with no date but with a place?)


Re: Report shows differently to fact page

John Hanson
 

Miriam

Have you tried changing the position of the date in the sentence to see if it makes a difference to the output

 

It would also help if you copied the actual template rather than quote an example – that would make sure that it is exactly what is there not what you think. We all from time to time read what we think is there rather than what is actually there

 

One of the reasons that I have a test database that I can check things on without message up the master

 

Regards
John Hanson - researching the Halstead/Holstead/Alstead names
Researcher, the Halsted Trust - https://www.halsted.org.uk
Research website - https://www.halstedresearch.org.uk

2021 Family History Conference - https://www.elizabethanancestors.org.uk

 

 

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Miriam Smith
Sent: 16 August 2021 00:29
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: [family-historian] Report shows differently to fact page

 

Hello everyone

 

Since the upgrade to V7, I’m now preparing a report for my niece and some of the sentences are not coming out the same as previous reports.  I cannot work it out, and as it is happening to heaps of sentences, I’m hoping someone can put me in the right direction.

 

This is an example of the sentence: {individual} {note} {date} {place} {age}

 

This is what it looks like in the Fact page: He leased lands owned by Bridge Trust which bounded property of Sarah Sanders on 1 November 1834 in Northam, Devon.  (exactly what I want it to say.)

 

This is what it looks like in the Ancestors report: He leased lands owned by Bridge Trust which bounded property of Sarah Sanders.On 1 November 1834 in Northam.

 

Because of the date being later in the sentence, it has seemed to throw the whole lot into chaos and I have a lot like that which I have amended to read better in the context of the paragraph.  It hasn’t come like this previously and this is a report which I have often done.  Help appreciated as I don’t always want the date first.

 

Thank you, Miriam Smith

South Australia

 

Life is better by the lake !

 


Re: Report shows differently to fact page

Adrian Bruce
 

I have a feeling that v7 altered the production of the narrative sentences slightly, because I had an issue with the number of embedded spaces that CP Support said was because I was trying to control the spaces and FH was also trying to control the spaces. Not your issue but suggesting a change did take place and that there is something that happens in the report, that doesn't happen when displaying sentences in the Fact tab  

In your case, I would speculate that FH is automatically adding a full stop to the end of the text from the {note} when producing the report. That then generates the capital letter following and also loses a space. (I think!)

But unfortunately what I can't figure off the top of my head is how to alter that simply. I don't want to sound awkward but I think that's a rather unusual sentence construction in that you seem to have the verb and all the interesting stuff in the note. Probably CP never thought of how that might pan out. 

Sorry - I thought that this might have been close to my issue, but I don't think that it is.

On Mon, Aug 16, 2021, 00:29 Miriam Smith <mims010122@...> wrote:

Hello everyone

 

Since the upgrade to V7, I’m now preparing a report for my niece and some of the sentences are not coming out the same as previous reports.  I cannot work it out, and as it is happening to heaps of sentences, I’m hoping someone can put me in the right direction.

 

This is an example of the sentence: {individual} {note} {date} {place} {age}

 

This is what it looks like in the Fact page: He leased lands owned by Bridge Trust which bounded property of Sarah Sanders on 1 November 1834 in Northam, Devon.  (exactly what I want it to say.)

 

This is what it looks like in the Ancestors report: He leased lands owned by Bridge Trust which bounded property of Sarah Sanders.On 1 November 1834 in Northam.

 

Because of the date being later in the sentence, it has seemed to throw the whole lot into chaos and I have a lot like that which I have amended to read better in the context of the paragraph.  It hasn’t come like this previously and this is a report which I have often done.  Help appreciated as I don’t always want the date first.

 

Thank you, Miriam Smith

South Australia

 

Life is better by the lake !

 


Report shows differently to fact page

Miriam Smith
 

Hello everyone

 

Since the upgrade to V7, I’m now preparing a report for my niece and some of the sentences are not coming out the same as previous reports.  I cannot work it out, and as it is happening to heaps of sentences, I’m hoping someone can put me in the right direction.

 

This is an example of the sentence: {individual} {note} {date} {place} {age}

 

This is what it looks like in the Fact page: He leased lands owned by Bridge Trust which bounded property of Sarah Sanders on 1 November 1834 in Northam, Devon.  (exactly what I want it to say.)

 

This is what it looks like in the Ancestors report: He leased lands owned by Bridge Trust which bounded property of Sarah Sanders.On 1 November 1834 in Northam.

 

Because of the date being later in the sentence, it has seemed to throw the whole lot into chaos and I have a lot like that which I have amended to read better in the context of the paragraph.  It hasn’t come like this previously and this is a report which I have often done.  Help appreciated as I don’t always want the date first.

 

Thank you, Miriam Smith

South Australia

 

Life is better by the lake !

 


Re: copy fact definitions

Edward Sneithe
 

Lorna, I was hoping for an automated way but I guess the old cut and paste will work.

On Sunday, August 15, 2021, 04:58:25 PM EDT, Edward Sneithe via groups.io <truthfor16@...> wrote:


Mike,

I was probably unclear as to what I have done. I created a test project and modified the specific sentences and roles for one individual. The standard birth fact is untouched and everything I have done relates only to that one person and fact.

Now I want to make those changes for the basic fact type in a different project.''I tried Exporting a fact set and then importing it but my changes were not present. I have probably made an error.


Re: copy fact definitions

Edward Sneithe
 

Mike,

I was probably unclear as to what I have done. I created a test project and modified the specific sentences and roles for one individual. The standard birth fact is untouched and everything I have done relates only to that one person and fact.

Now I want to make those changes for the basic fact type in a different project.''I tried Exporting a fact set and then importing it but my changes were not present. I have probably made an error.


Re: copy fact definitions

Mike Tate
 

Full details are in the FHUG KB Narrative Report Fact Sentence Templates:
https://fhug.org.uk/kb/kb-article/narrative-report-fact-sentence-templates/

After setting the global default sentences remember to reset the specific ones you just modified.

Mike Tate


Re: copy fact definitions

Lorna Craig
 

You need to use Tools>Fact Types, then select the fact and click Edit.  You can change the main sentence template there. Then click on the Roles button to select each role in turn to edit it.

On 15/08/2021 19:42, Edward Sneithe via groups.io wrote:
I have been working on modifying sentences to read better (to me anyway). I have changed the basic sentence for an individual by editing a fact and then in the sentence box changed the sentence. I have also created roles and their sentences.

These are standard facts Birth Baptism, Death, Burial, Probate, Will. These new sentences work well in this environment.

How do I get the fact sentences and role sentences into the standard fact definitions?

1201 - 1220 of 5195