Date   

Re: FH Project Folder not updating on OneDrive

Sandra Blackburn
 

Yes, all the media has migrated OK and there are no  X marks showing on External File Links.
I should have realised the reason for the programme icon warnings - those programmes are not installed on the laptop - and I apologise for troubling you about those.
Thank you for your advice concerning Ancestral Sources.
I really am grateful for your help and hopefully I need not trouble you again, at least for a long time!
Regards, Sandra 


Re: Missing birth date

Jorge Planas Campos
 

Great Mike, you are a genius! You know there are 1,065 individuals that had no birth or baptism date?

 

I am facing another Spanish-related problem now: the Birth Tag Sentence in Spanish is : {individual} nació <el {date:ABBREV3}> <en {%FACT.PLAC:SHORT%}> but when there is no date or place, the sentence finishes up being: “So-and-so nació.” How can I put “nació” (was born) conditionally only if there is a date or a place of birth? I tried {individual} <nació <el {date:ABBREV3}> <en {%FACT.PLAC:SHORT%}>>, but this didn’t work out.

 

Should I open another topic?

 

Jorge

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike Tate
Sent: jueves, 28 de mayo de 2020 18:53
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Missing birth date

 

Yes, I can see your Spanish dilemma.

The attached Add Missing Birth Event Plugin should work.

 

If it does not do what you want, then Edit > Undo Plugin Changes will remove the Birth events.

Or you can use File > Backup/Restore > Revert to Snapshot.

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Jorge Planas Campos
Sent: 28 May 2020 17:31
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Missing birth date

 

I’m sorry Mike if I confusing you. Let’s go back to basics: it would be very helpful and I would be very thankful if you could provide a plugin to put a Birth Tag whenever a Birth or Baptism Tags exist. That will surely finish the problem and will allow me to go back to the other (Death, Will, Marriage, etc.) Spanish sentences without the {individual}.

 

Jorge

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike Tate
Sent: jueves, 28 de mayo de 2020 18:26
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Missing birth date

 

I am not quite sure what point you are making. In the case of Elisabet Carner the report should say:

Elisabet CARNER made a will on 26 December 1710 in St. Esteve. She died between 1707 and February 1711.”

That assumes the Will event starts its Sentence Template with the {individual} code.

 

I did try making the bold Name or the He/She conditional on any preceding fact, but could not find a solution.

 

Remember it is not just whether a Birth or Baptism exists, but whether any fact exists before the Death event, as in the case of Elisabet Carner and Will above.

So the {individual} paradox applies to every fact because any fact can come first.

With {individual} you get the Name if the fact is first or He/She otherwise.

Without {individual} you always get nothing wherever the fact is positioned.

 

In the case of Marriage, the Name in bold appears somewhere in the spouse sentences just above the Name that is not bold.

I don’t know any way to change that.

 

I think there are some improvements to the Report writer Sentence Templates in FH V7 when it gets released.

For a long time, Calico Pie have said they are keen to support multiple languages, but we don’t know when.

 

Regards, Mike Tate

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Jorge Planas Campos
Sent: 28 May 2020 16:26
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Missing birth date

 

Understood Mike, I did change the Death Tag Sentence. But if there are other Tags, the Death Tag doesn’t come up first to start the Report Sentence, as in the case of Elisabet Carner (see attachments).

 

Will put back {individual} in the Death Tag but, is there a way to avoid the He/She if Birth or Baptism Tags exist?

 

And what about the Marriage Tag?

 

Jorge

 

 

Virus-free. www.avast.com


Re: Relationships in Family Historian

Sandra Collins
 

Oh Jeez!!  thank you Mike and everybody else for helping; you all picked up straight away that I am reading it wrongly;  I am just not expecting that extra great there & reading gt x 2 great uncle as gt x2 uncle!!  {I am terrible for reading what I expect to be there & not what is always there, despite the fact I even copied it correctly!!}  Still doesn't make for easy reading on a diagram for me though;  means I'm going to have to engage the brain more now when looking at diagrams & relationships lol!! 

As ever this group is always so helpful, thank you all again;  I am now off to recheck all my dna relationships that I thought I'd got right, just in case I've messed up on any of those.  :-)

On 28/5/2020 4:01 PM, Mike Tate wrote:

Hi Sandra,

Those multiple great ancestors can get a bit confusing but I think FH has got it correct.

The first thing to check is how to interpret the (x2), and (x3), etc.

So great (x2) great-uncle = great great great-uncle

That is one generation different to great great-uncle

 

The following lists each generation on a separate line:

            great (x3) grandfather = great great great grandfather

            great (x2) grandfather = great great grandfather      great (x2) great-uncle = great great great-uncle

                                                            great grandfather                                                               great great-uncle

 

Hope that helps, Mike Tate

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Sandra Collins via groups.io
Sent: 28 May 2020 15:16
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: [family-historian] Relationships in Family Historian

 

Good afternoon,

First time I've posted since groups have changed so hope I'm in the right place.

I think there is an error on FH (or at least in mine) in showing the relationships and would like some clarification from someone with far more experience than me please.

Example:  In FH I have set myself as the root person.  My 3x gt grandparents are showing correctly - one of their sons is my 2nd gt grandparent showing correctly and the other sons & daughters of my 3 x gt grandparents are showing as 2nd gt aunts and uncles - are the 2nd gt aunts & uncles showing as correct please?  Should they not be 3rd gt aunts & uncles?

Looking closer at FH I have a level where it shows great great aunt & uncle & the next level up showing gt x 2 great aunt & uncle - isn't this the same thing & the same level??

Some guidance & help would be most welcome right now;  I've been happily sailing along thinking FH had it all under control for me but am beginning to think not right now.

Thank you.
Sandra.


Virus-free. www.avast.com


Re: Missing birth date

Mike Tate
 

Yes, I can see your Spanish dilemma.

The attached Add Missing Birth Event Plugin should work.

 

If it does not do what you want, then Edit > Undo Plugin Changes will remove the Birth events.

Or you can use File > Backup/Restore > Revert to Snapshot.

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Jorge Planas Campos
Sent: 28 May 2020 17:31
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Missing birth date

 

I’m sorry Mike if I confusing you. Let’s go back to basics: it would be very helpful and I would be very thankful if you could provide a plugin to put a Birth Tag whenever a Birth or Baptism Tags exist. That will surely finish the problem and will allow me to go back to the other (Death, Will, Marriage, etc.) Spanish sentences without the {individual}.

 

Jorge

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike Tate
Sent: jueves, 28 de mayo de 2020 18:26
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Missing birth date

 

I am not quite sure what point you are making. In the case of Elisabet Carner the report should say:

Elisabet CARNER made a will on 26 December 1710 in St. Esteve. She died between 1707 and February 1711.”

That assumes the Will event starts its Sentence Template with the {individual} code.

 

I did try making the bold Name or the He/She conditional on any preceding fact, but could not find a solution.

 

Remember it is not just whether a Birth or Baptism exists, but whether any fact exists before the Death event, as in the case of Elisabet Carner and Will above.

So the {individual} paradox applies to every fact because any fact can come first.

With {individual} you get the Name if the fact is first or He/She otherwise.

Without {individual} you always get nothing wherever the fact is positioned.

 

In the case of Marriage, the Name in bold appears somewhere in the spouse sentences just above the Name that is not bold.

I don’t know any way to change that.

 

I think there are some improvements to the Report writer Sentence Templates in FH V7 when it gets released.

For a long time, Calico Pie have said they are keen to support multiple languages, but we don’t know when.

 

Regards, Mike Tate

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Jorge Planas Campos
Sent: 28 May 2020 16:26
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Missing birth date

 

Understood Mike, I did change the Death Tag Sentence. But if there are other Tags, the Death Tag doesn’t come up first to start the Report Sentence, as in the case of Elisabet Carner (see attachments).

 

Will put back {individual} in the Death Tag but, is there a way to avoid the He/She if Birth or Baptism Tags exist?

 

And what about the Marriage Tag?

 

Jorge

 

 

Virus-free. www.avast.com


Re: FH Project Folder not updating on OneDrive

Mike Tate
 

One snag with synchronising your Desktop is all the icon shortcut paths must exist on both PC.

 

So presumably you have not installed Dropbox or Universalis or IrfanView on the laptop.

The options are to ignore the path does not exist warnings, install those three programs, or move those shortcuts to the Start menu or the Taskbar on your desktop PC.

 

The C:\Users\sandr\... shortcuts are because your account username on the laptop is different from sandr or perhaps you have not installed Zoom or Kindle on the laptop.

The solutions are much the same.

 

Alternatively, you could stop synchronising the Desktop icons via OneDrive.

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Sandra Blackburn
Sent: 28 May 2020 17:31
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] FH Project Folder not updating on OneDrive

 

Further to the above, I now have 5 laptop programme icons which say that "the specified path does not exist".  These paths should be:
C:Program Files (x86)\Dropbox\Client\Dropbox.exe
C:Program Files\(x86)\Universalis\Universalis.exe
"C:Program Files\IrfanView\i_view64.exe"
C:\Users\sandr\AppData\Roaming\Zoom\bin\zoom.exe
C:\Users\sandr\AppData\Local\Amazon\Kindle.exe
Can you advise me how to restore these, please.


Virus-free. www.avast.com


Re: FH Project Folder not updating on OneDrive

Mike Tate
 

No, you have effectively pre-empted those synchronisation instructions.

So your Projects should now automatically stay in sync.

But remember to only run FH on one PC at a time.

Whenever you change customisations you must repeat the Backup and Restore FH Settings Plugin process.

 

I presume all your Media have migrated OK?

i.e. You checked Tools > External File Links have no X marks.

 

If you use Ancestral Sources don’t forget to migrate that too, and only run AS on one PC at a time.

 

Mike Tate

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Sandra Blackburn
Sent: 28 May 2020 16:58
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] FH Project Folder not updating on OneDrive

 

All settings are now backed-up on the desktop and restored on the laptop.
Can you advise whether I now need to follow the Family Historian Synchronisation instructions in "Utility-Microsoft OneDrive (SkyDrive) or will both programmes automatically sync?
Thank you.


Virus-free. www.avast.com


Re: FH Project Folder not updating on OneDrive

Sandra Blackburn
 

Further to the above, I now have 5 laptop programme icons which say that "the specified path does not exist".  These paths should be:
C:Program Files (x86)\Dropbox\Client\Dropbox.exe
C:Program Files\(x86)\Universalis\Universalis.exe
"C:Program Files\IrfanView\i_view64.exe"
C:\Users\sandr\AppData\Roaming\Zoom\bin\zoom.exe
C:\Users\sandr\AppData\Local\Amazon\Kindle.exe
Can you advise me how to restore these, please.


Re: Missing birth date

Jorge Planas Campos
 

I’m sorry Mike if I confusing you. Let’s go back to basics: it would be very helpful and I would be very thankful if you could provide a plugin to put a Birth Tag whenever a Birth or Baptism Tags exist. That will surely finish the problem and will allow me to go back to the other (Death, Will, Marriage, etc.) Spanish sentences without the {individual}.

 

Jorge

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike Tate
Sent: jueves, 28 de mayo de 2020 18:26
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Missing birth date

 

I am not quite sure what point you are making. In the case of Elisabet Carner the report should say:

Elisabet CARNER made a will on 26 December 1710 in St. Esteve. She died between 1707 and February 1711.”

That assumes the Will event starts its Sentence Template with the {individual} code.

 

I did try making the bold Name or the He/She conditional on any preceding fact, but could not find a solution.

 

Remember it is not just whether a Birth or Baptism exists, but whether any fact exists before the Death event, as in the case of Elisabet Carner and Will above.

So the {individual} paradox applies to every fact because any fact can come first.

With {individual} you get the Name if the fact is first or He/She otherwise.

Without {individual} you always get nothing wherever the fact is positioned.

 

In the case of Marriage, the Name in bold appears somewhere in the spouse sentences just above the Name that is not bold.

I don’t know any way to change that.

 

I think there are some improvements to the Report writer Sentence Templates in FH V7 when it gets released.

For a long time, Calico Pie have said they are keen to support multiple languages, but we don’t know when.

 

Regards, Mike Tate

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Jorge Planas Campos
Sent: 28 May 2020 16:26
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Missing birth date

 

Understood Mike, I did change the Death Tag Sentence. But if there are other Tags, the Death Tag doesn’t come up first to start the Report Sentence, as in the case of Elisabet Carner (see attachments).

 

Will put back {individual} in the Death Tag but, is there a way to avoid the He/She if Birth or Baptism Tags exist?

 

And what about the Marriage Tag?

 

Jorge

 

 

Virus-free. www.avast.com


Re: Missing birth date

Mike Tate
 

I am not quite sure what point you are making. In the case of Elisabet Carner the report should say:

Elisabet CARNER made a will on 26 December 1710 in St. Esteve. She died between 1707 and February 1711.”

That assumes the Will event starts its Sentence Template with the {individual} code.

 

I did try making the bold Name or the He/She conditional on any preceding fact, but could not find a solution.

 

Remember it is not just whether a Birth or Baptism exists, but whether any fact exists before the Death event, as in the case of Elisabet Carner and Will above.

So the {individual} paradox applies to every fact because any fact can come first.

With {individual} you get the Name if the fact is first or He/She otherwise.

Without {individual} you always get nothing wherever the fact is positioned.

 

In the case of Marriage, the Name in bold appears somewhere in the spouse sentences just above the Name that is not bold.

I don’t know any way to change that.

 

I think there are some improvements to the Report writer Sentence Templates in FH V7 when it gets released.

For a long time, Calico Pie have said they are keen to support multiple languages, but we don’t know when.

 

Regards, Mike Tate

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Jorge Planas Campos
Sent: 28 May 2020 16:26
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Missing birth date

 

Understood Mike, I did change the Death Tag Sentence. But if there are other Tags, the Death Tag doesn’t come up first to start the Report Sentence, as in the case of Elisabet Carner (see attachments).

 

Will put back {individual} in the Death Tag but, is there a way to avoid the He/She if Birth or Baptism Tags exist?

 

And what about the Marriage Tag?

 

Jorge

 


Virus-free. www.avast.com


Re: Relationships in Family Historian

Adrian Bruce
 

Yes - I have a suspicion that you may have missed exactly what FH says - it and Mike Tate say (for example) "Great (x3) Great-Aunt". Note that "Great" appears **twice** in that relationship. It's horribly easy to read "Great (x3) Great-Aunt" as "Great (x3) Aunt" (been there, done that!) because you don't expect the second "great". Most of us would write  "Great (x4) Aunt" - maybe Calico Pie did it like that so that the number of greats in the first part, matched the number of greats in the sibling 3G-grandparent.

Adrian


Re: FH Project Folder not updating on OneDrive

Sandra Blackburn
 

All settings are now backed-up on the desktop and restored on the laptop.
Can you advise whether I now need to follow the Family Historian Synchronisation instructions in "Utility-Microsoft OneDrive (SkyDrive) or will both programmes automatically sync?
Thank you.


Re: Missing birth date

Jorge Planas Campos
 

Understood Mike, I did change the Death Tag Sentence. But if there are other Tags, the Death Tag doesn’t come up first to start the Report Sentence, as in the case of Elisabet Carner (see attachments).

 

Will put back {individual} in the Death Tag but, is there a way to avoid the He/She if Birth or Baptism Tags exist?

 

And what about the Marriage Tag?

 

Jorge

 

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike Tate
Sent: jueves, 28 de mayo de 2020 16:13
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Missing birth date

 

Jorge, I have looked at the Narrative Reports again regarding where Names are shown in bold and may have solved your problem without adding Birth events.

The rule is that the first time any person’s name is shown, it is shown in bold.

 

It does not matter what fact happens to be first. The Name of the person is always shown at the start of the line after the number.

BUT that depends on the Tools > Fact Types definition of that fact having its Sentence Template starting with the {individual} code.

So the Birth and Baptism events have Sentence Templates that start with the {individual} code.

But in your Death event Sentence Template have you removed the {individual} code because you want to stop it saying He/She ~ Ella/El ?

Unfortunately, that also removes the bold Name when there are no earlier facts.

 

The only variant is where the Narrative Report says “He married Janet SMITH.” where her name is for the first time so it will be in bold.

Then on her entry in the Report, it will say “Janet SMITH was …” with her name in full but NOT bold.

 

I hope that all makes sense, and explains why your Death sentences do not show the Name at the start of the line.

 

Regards, Mike Tate

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Jorge Planas Campos
Sent: 28 May 2020 14:24
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Missing birth date

 

Yes, because as far as I can see if there is a Baptism tag and no Birth tag a numbered entry with the individual’s name in bold is created, which is what I want. Is this true?

 

Just to add some confusion, sometimes it seems that when there is a Marriage tag –and no Birth or Baptism tag--, the individual’s name also appears in bold to head the entry in the report. So, if this is true, no new Birth tag would be necessary here either. But to be sure –because this might depend on the order of the tags—I would prefer to create a Birth tag anyways, no harm done.

 

Jorge

 

Virus-free. www.avast.com


Re: Relationships in Family Historian

David Gynes
 

Would anyone like to join my (lost cause) personal campaign to have “great” aunts and uncles called Grand Auntie & Uncle?  Makes it much easier to teach the grand-nephews and nieces their place and ours in the family tree 😀
[It will probably go as well as my other campaign, to stop the use of ‘for” before the word ‘free’. It is tautologous - “For for no cost” but as the BBC newsreaders now use it I know I’ve lost!!]
Enjoy your research during Lockdown!

David
 David Gynes



On 28 May 2020, at 16:10, Lorna Craig via groups.io <l.m.craig@...> wrote:

Hi Sandra,

Yes it is a bit confusing but it becomes clearer if you think of a grandparent as a 'great-parent', or alternatively think of a great-aunt as a 'grandaunt'.

So a great-aunt is the same generation as a grandparent, and a 2x great great-aunt (3 greats in total) is the same generation as a 2x great grandparent. (2 greats + 1 grand = 3 greats).

In your example of a great great-aunt, this is indeed a generation below a 2x great great aunt, because the first has two 'greats' and the second has three 'greats'.

FH could talk about a '3x great aunt' instead of a '2x great great-aunt', but it think it's done this way so that the number before the 'x' sign is the same for all people in the generation, whether they are n x great grand-parents or n x great great-aunts.

I hope that hasn't confused you even further!

Lorna

On 28/05/2020 15:16, Sandra Collins via groups.io wrote:

Good afternoon,

First time I've posted since groups have changed so hope I'm in the right place.

I think there is an error on FH (or at least in mine) in showing the relationships and would like some clarification from someone with far more experience than me please.

Example:  In FH I have set myself as the root person.  My 3x gt grandparents are showing correctly - one of their sons is my 2nd gt grandparent showing correctly and the other sons & daughters of my 3 x gt grandparents are showing as 2nd gt aunts and uncles - are the 2nd gt aunts & uncles showing as correct please?  Should they not be 3rd gt aunts & uncles?

Looking closer at FH I have a level where it shows great great aunt & uncle & the next level up showing gt x 2 great aunt & uncle - isn't this the same thing & the same level??

Some guidance & help would be most welcome right now;  I've been happily sailing along thinking FH had it all under control for me but am beginning to think not right now.

Thank you.
Sandra.




Re: Relationships in Family Historian

Lorna Craig
 

Hi Sandra,

Yes it is a bit confusing but it becomes clearer if you think of a grandparent as a 'great-parent', or alternatively think of a great-aunt as a 'grandaunt'.

So a great-aunt is the same generation as a grandparent, and a 2x great great-aunt (3 greats in total) is the same generation as a 2x great grandparent. (2 greats + 1 grand = 3 greats).

In your example of a great great-aunt, this is indeed a generation below a 2x great great aunt, because the first has two 'greats' and the second has three 'greats'.

FH could talk about a '3x great aunt' instead of a '2x great great-aunt', but it think it's done this way so that the number before the 'x' sign is the same for all people in the generation, whether they are n x great grand-parents or n x great great-aunts.

I hope that hasn't confused you even further!

Lorna

On 28/05/2020 15:16, Sandra Collins via groups.io wrote:

Good afternoon,

First time I've posted since groups have changed so hope I'm in the right place.

I think there is an error on FH (or at least in mine) in showing the relationships and would like some clarification from someone with far more experience than me please.

Example:  In FH I have set myself as the root person.  My 3x gt grandparents are showing correctly - one of their sons is my 2nd gt grandparent showing correctly and the other sons & daughters of my 3 x gt grandparents are showing as 2nd gt aunts and uncles - are the 2nd gt aunts & uncles showing as correct please?  Should they not be 3rd gt aunts & uncles?

Looking closer at FH I have a level where it shows great great aunt & uncle & the next level up showing gt x 2 great aunt & uncle - isn't this the same thing & the same level??

Some guidance & help would be most welcome right now;  I've been happily sailing along thinking FH had it all under control for me but am beginning to think not right now.

Thank you.
Sandra.



Re: Relationships in Family Historian

Mike Tate
 

Hi Sandra,

Those multiple great ancestors can get a bit confusing but I think FH has got it correct.

The first thing to check is how to interpret the (x2), and (x3), etc.

So great (x2) great-uncle = great great great-uncle

That is one generation different to great great-uncle

 

The following lists each generation on a separate line:

            great (x3) grandfather = great great great grandfather

            great (x2) grandfather = great great grandfather      great (x2) great-uncle = great great great-uncle

                                                            great grandfather                                                               great great-uncle

 

Hope that helps, Mike Tate

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Sandra Collins via groups.io
Sent: 28 May 2020 15:16
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: [family-historian] Relationships in Family Historian

 

Good afternoon,

First time I've posted since groups have changed so hope I'm in the right place.

I think there is an error on FH (or at least in mine) in showing the relationships and would like some clarification from someone with far more experience than me please.

Example:  In FH I have set myself as the root person.  My 3x gt grandparents are showing correctly - one of their sons is my 2nd gt grandparent showing correctly and the other sons & daughters of my 3 x gt grandparents are showing as 2nd gt aunts and uncles - are the 2nd gt aunts & uncles showing as correct please?  Should they not be 3rd gt aunts & uncles?

Looking closer at FH I have a level where it shows great great aunt & uncle & the next level up showing gt x 2 great aunt & uncle - isn't this the same thing & the same level??

Some guidance & help would be most welcome right now;  I've been happily sailing along thinking FH had it all under control for me but am beginning to think not right now.

Thank you.
Sandra.


Virus-free. www.avast.com


Re: Relationships in Family Historian

colevalleygirl@colevalleygirl.co.uk
 

Try https://stevemorse.org/relation/calculator.html -- if the relationships show up that same as in FH, they’re right (and they will).  Siblings to you 2nd gt grandparents will be 2nd gt aunts and uncles.

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Sandra Collins via groups.io
Sent: 28 May 2020 15:16
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: [family-historian] Relationships in Family Historian

 

Good afternoon,

First time I've posted since groups have changed so hope I'm in the right place.

I think there is an error on FH (or at least in mine) in showing the relationships and would like some clarification from someone with far more experience than me please.

Example:  In FH I have set myself as the root person.  My 3x gt grandparents are showing correctly - one of their sons is my 2nd gt grandparent showing correctly and the other sons & daughters of my 3 x gt grandparents are showing as 2nd gt aunts and uncles - are the 2nd gt aunts & uncles showing as correct please?  Should they not be 3rd gt aunts & uncles?

Looking closer at FH I have a level where it shows great great aunt & uncle & the next level up showing gt x 2 great aunt & uncle - isn't this the same thing & the same level??

Some guidance & help would be most welcome right now;  I've been happily sailing along thinking FH had it all under control for me but am beginning to think not right now.

Thank you.
Sandra.

 


Relationships in Family Historian

Sandra Collins
 

Good afternoon,

First time I've posted since groups have changed so hope I'm in the right place.

I think there is an error on FH (or at least in mine) in showing the relationships and would like some clarification from someone with far more experience than me please.

Example:  In FH I have set myself as the root person.  My 3x gt grandparents are showing correctly - one of their sons is my 2nd gt grandparent showing correctly and the other sons & daughters of my 3 x gt grandparents are showing as 2nd gt aunts and uncles - are the 2nd gt aunts & uncles showing as correct please?  Should they not be 3rd gt aunts & uncles?

Looking closer at FH I have a level where it shows great great aunt & uncle & the next level up showing gt x 2 great aunt & uncle - isn't this the same thing & the same level??

Some guidance & help would be most welcome right now;  I've been happily sailing along thinking FH had it all under control for me but am beginning to think not right now.

Thank you.
Sandra.



Re: Missing birth date

Mike Tate
 

Jorge, I have looked at the Narrative Reports again regarding where Names are shown in bold and may have solved your problem without adding Birth events.

The rule is that the first time any person’s name is shown, it is shown in bold.

 

It does not matter what fact happens to be first. The Name of the person is always shown at the start of the line after the number.

BUT that depends on the Tools > Fact Types definition of that fact having its Sentence Template starting with the {individual} code.

So the Birth and Baptism events have Sentence Templates that start with the {individual} code.

But in your Death event Sentence Template have you removed the {individual} code because you want to stop it saying He/She ~ Ella/El ?

Unfortunately, that also removes the bold Name when there are no earlier facts.

 

The only variant is where the Narrative Report says “He married Janet SMITH.” where her name is for the first time so it will be in bold.

Then on her entry in the Report, it will say “Janet SMITH was …” with her name in full but NOT bold.

 

I hope that all makes sense, and explains why your Death sentences do not show the Name at the start of the line.

 

Regards, Mike Tate

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Jorge Planas Campos
Sent: 28 May 2020 14:24
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Missing birth date

 

Yes, because as far as I can see if there is a Baptism tag and no Birth tag a numbered entry with the individual’s name in bold is created, which is what I want. Is this true?

 

Just to add some confusion, sometimes it seems that when there is a Marriage tag –and no Birth or Baptism tag--, the individual’s name also appears in bold to head the entry in the report. So, if this is true, no new Birth tag would be necessary here either. But to be sure –because this might depend on the order of the tags—I would prefer to create a Birth tag anyways, no harm done.

 

Jorge


Virus-free. www.avast.com


Re: Missing birth date

Jorge Planas Campos
 

Yes, because as far as I can see if there is a Baptism tag and no Birth tag a numbered entry with the individual’s name in bold is created, which is what I want. Is this true?

 

Just to add some confusion, sometimes it seems that when there is a Marriage tag –and no Birth or Baptism tag--, the individual’s name also appears in bold to head the entry in the report. So, if this is true, no new Birth tag would be necessary here either. But to be sure –because this might depend on the order of the tags—I would prefer to create a Birth tag anyways, no harm done.

 

Jorge

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike Tate
Sent: jueves, 28 de mayo de 2020 14:37
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Missing birth date

 

Just to clarify, you only want an empty Birth event added when there is no existing Birth event and there is no existing Baptism event too.

So if there is an existing Baptism event you do NOT want the Birth event added?

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Jorge Planas Campos
Sent: 28 May 2020 12:56
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Missing birth date

 

Yes! That would be great! I don’t need the estimated date of birth to be included, thanks. Only question is that the plugin should work if there is no Birth or Baptism tag.

 

I’ll apply the custom query as suggested by Neil to have the list of individuals ready.

 

Jorge

 

Virus-free. www.avast.com


Re: Missing birth date

Mike Tate
 

Just to clarify, you only want an empty Birth event added when there is no existing Birth event and there is no existing Baptism event too.

So if there is an existing Baptism event you do NOT want the Birth event added?

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Jorge Planas Campos
Sent: 28 May 2020 12:56
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Missing birth date

 

Yes! That would be great! I don’t need the estimated date of birth to be included, thanks. Only question is that the plugin should work if there is no Birth or Baptism tag.

 

I’ll apply the custom query as suggested by Neil to have the list of individuals ready.

 

Jorge


Virus-free. www.avast.com

4561 - 4580 of 5322