The problem there is that what FH generates in those cases matches what's in the GEDCOM specification. And there's nothing in the GEDCOM specification for "no details / date / whatever". Which makes i

I advised using the Facts tab because using the Main tab doesn't work as the software can't tell whether there has been any intention to create an empty entry, or whether it's just a user tabbing thro

If I understand you correctly, the issue arises when you want to trigger a line about the event in a diagram or something. In general, of course, just leaving the date empty is enough to mean "Unknown

To be honest Mike, if you'll pardon me adding my three pennorth, **assuming** that the error messages tell the truth, then it's the 1 _FAMC that's been detected as in error *first*, and the PEDI lines

Me too. There's one strange omission in the Narrative Reports (the ability to start a sentence with a new-paragraph) that is pretty much a show stopper for me, while I'd quite like to see other people

<johnfirr@...> wrote: I once saw a rather interesting take on that. Academics, though perhaps not so much biographers, tend to deal in bulk and therefore have no interest in citing a

My understanding is that the sourcing model in GEDCOM (ie, the data that is captured about sources of data) is essentially modelling published books. To that extent, it is closer to the academic sourc

I created custom individual events of Arrival and Departure - used depending on which sort of passenger list I had. Not a family event because that really applies only to the couple. Remember that all

As Trevor said, you can enter the stuff in any order, but I would suggest that you first think how you can enter the data and be sure that you haven't missed anyone. That might mean that you start wit

As Lorna says, the original cannot be changed (if you were indeed contemplating that). Different online sites treat "corrections" differently. FamilySearch has only just started accepting "corrections

Yes indeed, to both those bits that I clipped. One of the really frustrating things is those who've taken an Ancestry test and done nothing for their tree. I *assume* that they've just done it for the

I'm sure that it does happen. But frankly Lorna, I can't hold myself responsible for tracking down every moron and idiot who doesn't understand elementary details of checking. As is stated above, most

I got a bit uptight the first time that I saw my photos of my GG-GPs in someone else's tree. And then I thought that, after my death, there's every chance that the originals will be destroyed. So isn'

I have never seen the point of recording spelling variations or transcription errors against an individual. They are not facts about the individual but about the parish clerk or the transcriber. They

<truthfor16@...> wrote: ... That's not my interpretation. The INDIVIDUAL_EVENT_STRUCTURE is basically unchanged between 5.5 and 5.5.1 - except for the removal of the "Y" option on most

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 horr

Interesting to see that the cost of a certificate of (not quite) BMD was 2s 7d in 1884 - *exclusive* of a search fee! According to the Retail Price Index, 2/7 in 1884 would be worth £13.21 today! (See

Thing is that I personally believe that we should be referring to primary and secondary information, not primary and secondary sources. I believe that to be true not because ESM has a system doing tha

It makes perfect sense, Julia. The labels of Primary and Secondary information are just labels - they aim to help us, but the essential thing is to think about what happened to the information between

On Thu, 7 May 2020 at 23:58, Jan Murphy ... wrote: ... > I'm going to be very persnickity here but bear with me while I clarify > 1) Calling your 90 year old mother "a primary source" is journalism us