Jump to content


Anneli111

Member Since 17 May 2012
Offline Last Active Mar 05 2015 08:24 AM
-----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Allow { }, [ ], and/or ( ) around last name

09 November 2012 - 06:08 AM

I tried using Alternative name the farm name in the Suffix field as you suggested and it works great. Then I used the relation in surname (actually the patronym) e.g. Johans son, and the given name as it should.
It views in list as "Mattila farm, Johans son Anders"

It gave exactly what I needed, sorted per farm, also get the relationship for the father in a much better way than using brackets as I did previously.

Thank you Laura.

In Topic: Allow { }, [ ], and/or ( ) around last name

08 November 2012 - 11:49 AM

I have scandinavian families in my reasearch. Many names consist of Given name, Patronym and a farm name. The farm name changes when they move to a new Farm. Then you have the cases where certain occupations it is common to change the name whenever they want. So it is very difficult to see relations by looking at last names.

I have tried to figure out the best way how to handle this, using brackets for the Farm name etc, however never was satisfied with the sorting.. Using Alternative names are described above by Laura gave me a lot of new ideas. Patronym is usally very common, and it would not be really correct to use Farm name as Surnname I assume.

Is there anyone that has a good suggestion for such name structures, and at the same time have some logic in finding relations?

In Topic: Ability to convert shared facts to individual facts in GEDCOM export

07 November 2012 - 12:07 PM

What you describe would be really good, as you say it will maintain compatibility.

How to handle if you already have notes and description fields filled in? I would prefer the note field in this case. Even if you have other text here for me it would not matter. I would prefer to be at the beginning of the note, if other text exists.

I really like the shared facts, since it give a direct visibility of the fact in a completely different way. I started using shared facts and later on reading all suggestions on the forum that this will cause problems, tried to go and change to individual facts.

I quickly realized what a loss this is, not to use this function. So I am back using the shared facts. And back with the problem of the sharing of data with other researchers.... And hopeing someday a solution will be developed in RM.

In Topic: Problem with fact senteces - inconsistency between printed reports, Web repor...

07 November 2012 - 08:40 AM

I like you fact sentence and I will use it. Thanks for your help.

However even so I still consider the above cases are bugs that should be corrected in RM.
1. Narrative reports should not print the wife instead of the husband as described above.
2. WEB reports should work for fact sentences made for marriage events
3. Edit Person Window should reflect correctly the sentence that will be printed.

In Topic: Customized Fact sentence - OtherPersons field for witness

18 May 2012 - 01:27 AM

HI Laura.

Thank you for your reply to clarify this.
I beleive Help for Rootsmagic regarding the fact sentences in this case are incorrect.
This would mean it is only usable for the primary person.

For the fact it is stated that it can be used for witnesses, see below from Help included in Rootsmagic.
Section : Sentence Template Language , Fact Sentence Fields

Field: Field [OtherPersons]
Field type: 1 or more person
Decription: All witnesses to the event, regardless of role. In witness fact sentences, this excludes the main witness.

The way it is written does not state this, it states that it can be used if I read the above correctly. Do you agree?
In this case I might raise a ticket to correct the Help manual for this.

Regards / Anneli