- RootsMagic Forums
- → A Descendant's Content
A Descendant's Content
There have been 33 items by A Descendant (Search limited from 06-December 18)
I had created a new master source for a certain database of marriage records (Pennsylvania County Marriages, 1885 - 1950) on FamilySearch using the template "Vital Record, Filmed (FHL-GSU)" as that seemed to be closest to what i needed. When i came to the field for the film number i put in the film number given on the FamilySearch page for the record i was viewing. However i discovered after going through several records in that collection that they have various film numbers.
So now I don't know what should be in that field for "film number". I don't want to make a master source for every single record I use from that collection. Should I haved used another template for the source? Should i leave that field blank and somehow put the film number in the details of each citation?
I really like the help of the templates but i've also read alot of arguments in favor of using Free Form citations instead of Templates, and i'm undecided yet as to what I want to use.
Customize the toolbar with the back button. Thete is also a forward button.
Yoi can open RM Explorer, check the fact for Baker. Cancel Explorer, and you will still have Smith in your screen.
Nevermind I figured it out!
It was my practice in FTM16 to use the census as a source for names, birth dates and places, occupations, residences, etc. That is, I created facts for these things, using the census as a source, or I sourced facts i already had created. Naturally I end up with many alternate birth dates and names variations, and the possibility for several other facts per census.
Now that i've moved to RM5 and am changing (and hopefully improving!) some of my methods, i'm beginning to see how this could end up looking very complicated and redundant in a narrative report.
So i'm just wondering, what do you do with census data? Where do you put it all?
I am saving the census fact to each individual and not sharing it. This fact is set to not print in a Narrative report on the Lists, Fact type list and to print for a Family Group sheet. I do have the description enabled and enter the head of household into the description for the fact linked to the other family members.
I changed my default sentence to print the description if present.
[person:first]<?[Desc]| is listed in the household of [desc]| is listed [PlaceDetails] [Place]>< on the [Date:year] census>.
I also have an Individual user defined fact, ! Shared Census, that I link to the Principal [head of household] and then share with other family members. This fact is marked to print in a Narrative report and not print in a Family Group Sheet. If I am exporting a gedcom for use in another genealogy program, I unmark the gedcom selection.
I have all the advantages of using the roles switches and can put abbreviated notes in the Sharree's notes to be included in the Role sentence when the role sentence does not end with a comma.
I'm also interested in this custom fact. How does it differ from the individual Census fact?
So, if I understand right, your individual fact prints only in the Family Group Sheet and shows the person in the household of whomever you put in the description field. So you would also have the advantage of putting the head of household as its shown in that census, not just as the default name of the person in the program.
Then the shared fact is used in a narrative report only and is printed with notes, but it would show the head of household as the default name of the [principal]?
So, for example, instead of the first sentence being "Jane Smith was born in Maryland, on 6/10/1841", Its printing "Jane Smith appeared in the household of her husband, in the census 6/10/1841 in Maryland". THEN, the next sentence shows "she was born in Maryland, on 6/10/1841". And it does use the lowercase pronoun as shown here. So for some reason its doing a double birth fact, with one being a census.
It doesn't do it for the husband of the family, only the wife and certain children. And its only this family.
I have been experimenting with various census facts and this sentence that is printing is one of my custom fact sentences, but i was only working with census facts. I'm not really sure what i did to cause this. It seems to have happened after i added a census fact for 1860 census, as the problem didn't affect the one child that fact wasn't shared with. I deleted the census facts for the family but it didn't fix it.
Anybody have any ideas??
If it says that then you have the wrong date on the census.
But if the census date is correct, you probably do not have any other family facts listed for that family, not even a marriage fact.
I am assuming that the husband is the descendant if this is a descendant report, in the ancestor reports the husband is always listed first.
So, the husband's personal facts are listed, then the family facts and finally the spouse's personal facts. If the census is the only family fact then it will immediately precede the wife's birth date.
(Personally, I think there should be a paragraph break there, between the family facts and the spouse's personal facts, as there is between the first spouse and the family facts.)
The census date was correct, and this family has a good bit of information. Anyway the problem didn't go away when i deleted the census fact.
It was printing the birth information at the very beginning in a census sentence, then following it with the proper birth sentence. The narrative report started with the husband, who was the one i put the fact on, then shared it with his wife and children. The problem didn't occur on the husband and I had been looking at narrative report at various stages before this and it was fine.
After thinking about it i think I figured out what I did that may have caused it.
I had created a custom census fact, with rolls for wife and children, and i had attached this to the principal (the husband) then shared it with his wife and the children who were with them in the census. Later i decided not to use this custom fact after all, so i deleted it from the Fact Type List, knowing that it would remove it from this family.
That seems to be what caused the trouble, as this unwanted beginning birth sentence is using the custom census sentence which i deleted. And this problem did not affect the 2 children who did not have the fact shared with them.
Hopefully I explained that properly.
EDIT: I unlinked the wife (who was one of those affected by the problem) from the family then copied her over from the old database and relinked her and that seems to have fixed the problem for her part of the report. I guess i'll just have to do this for each of the children too.
Now i'm wondering why this happened. Shouldn't you delete facts from the fact type list that are in use?
I didn't see any double birth information, I saw that she appeared on the census with her husband on the same date as her birth date.
So I don't understand what is going on or where the problem is coming from.
Importing and merging another copy of that one family will probably only make things more complicated.
Without seeing your database I cannot guess what is happening. But, could it be that you have edited some sentence templates?
Yes that's how it looks. That she appeared in a census when she was born.
But there is no fact that would create this sentence. It happened after I deleted the custom Census fact I had created, and it affected only those children with whom the fact had been shared.
So in their Edit Person screen the only fact with their birth date and place is their birth fact. The sentence for the birth fact is still correct and it prints after this sentence that appears to show someone in a census at their birth.
Backup your database and send me an email with that backup file attached.
Tell me which person(s) you are having trouble with and I will try to figure it out.
I sent the file.
FWIW, I created copies of both the problem file and the backup from several days ago, then (using these copies) I manually deleted each of the problem people and merged just those people in from the old file. This has fixed the problem on the narrative report, even though the facts on these people didn't change.
Perhaps you can find the problem in the original file but if not, would there be problems using this "fixed" file?
That didn't seem to do any good.
The only thing I could figure out was to drag and drop to a new database, that seemed to fix the problem, but it lost 44 unused places, 4 MM items and 88 citations.
The 44 places were listed in the unused places list.
I will have to leave it up to the SQL people to do any more with it.
I am too old and dense to learn a new programming language.
Thanks for your help Alfred. I dragged and dropped to a new database. There doesn't seem to be any trouble with the place list that i can tell. As for multimedia items and citations i was reworking those anyway.
I supppose the moral of the story is to DO A BACKUP FREQUENTLY! I should've known better... Now departing to backup my database!
EDIT: Oh, I see now you meant it lost the unused places. That's totally fine as I delete them anyway.
I'm wondering how you cite documents that are sort of "duplicate?"
For example, suppose in researching a couples marriage, you find a marriage license, an original marriage register entry, and a later marriage register entry(one of those where they're reindexed by surname).
Another example would be finding a death certificate and a death register entry.
In both cases the different documents all come from one source technically would they not? That being the original document.
So, would you cite all these sources? If so, wouldn't that make for some pretty full source citation lists? If not, do you somehow make note that these other records exist in addition to the original or primary record?
I use a seperate Master source for each source. In the Source detail, I enter the data in the source that pertains to that individual and put a transcription of that data in the Research note.
I discuss any differences between sources in the fact note.
I can do a source report for that source and print the source details and see everyone's source detail in one place. Plus it prints in the Research note report.
If I only put the source detail in a fact note, I would have to search fact notes to find the source details and the Research note report would be basically useless.
I am not sure why how many Source details there are would be a concern given the amount of storage space on modern hard drives and flash drives.
Thanks for your input! I like hearing how others use sources, etc.
I guess what i meant by a "full citation list" could be explained in the following. If i have a couple with say 10 children and i find, to borrow my first example, a marriage license, and 2 marriage register entries for each one, and they each list their parents name, if I used each one as a source i could end up with 30 source citations for the parents name! Now if I just used the "original" source, such as the marriage license, there would be only 10. I'm not sure how i handled that previously... for some reason since I started using RootsMagic i feel like i must get everything "just right", though i know that won't happen.
When it comes to sources and master sources I guess i'm what is called a "lumper" - I prefer fewer Master sources.
What i'm wondering is if there is some way to find where the statistics come from. For example the report for my file says the maximum number of marriages for a person in my database is 5. I didn't know i had anybody with that many marriages so i'm wondering if there's some way to easily find this person in my file?
You can do a "Reports" - "Lists" - "Fact" List of the "Marriage" fact and "people with more than one of this fact type".
Then scroll down the list to see who has a large space between their name and the following name.
I figured it out. I did a couples report showing couples without a marriage event and scrolled down til I saw the same name several times.
So, the first paragraph would have their basic birth, marriage, (and perhaps birth info of spouse), then death and burial info. Then a new paragraph starts the rest of the narrative. In Rootsmagic the narrative is all chronological, unless i've missed something.
So the wish is... would it be possible to have some option you could check/uncheck on the narrative report to print BMD facts first?
I know you could do somewhat the same thing using the sort dates and rearranging the facts but that would be tedious.
Does this make sense? Does anyone else think this would be good?
I think the wish has already been stated on the forum to have the ability to force a new paragraph whenever we want it.
I recently developed this method for creating a new paragraph before a fact sentence - I created a new fact and called it "New Paragraph". I did not enable the description, date, or place fields, and it would only be included in narrative reports(though I suppose it would need to be included in a GEDCOM if the recipient wanted the report to have your custom paragraphs). For the "sentence" I just put 2 returns, then 4 spaces with the spacebar. The returns put the next fact as the start of a new paragraph and the 4 spaces indent it the same amount as the other normal paragraphs. To all appearances it seems to work. You place it where you want using the sort date.
Perhaps it would later prove to cause some problems, I don't know. Just working thorugh ideas!
Hmm.. your're right RM doesn't indent any paragraphs! I think what I was seeing was the persons very first paragraph following their number. Since there's a number first it is somewhat indented. So i guess you wouldn't need the 4 spaces. I realized i was getting 5 spaces that's what i intended when i saw that it added a space on its own. I had wanted it to match what i thought was its own indenting...
I finally got to try the user defined paragraph out, and I really like it.
I did find that I need two facts, 1 individual and 1 family. I like to have returns between the end of the marriage and family facts and the spouse's individual data, and I needed the family paragraph fact sorted after the family data to do that.
I also played around a little with sharing the individual paragraph fact by sharing the Witness role with that sentence just having the returns. I'm not sure just when I might want to do that yet.
Hi Laura, I'm glad my idea is of use to others!
I hadn't thought of making a family fact with this trick. I just tried it and one problem I found is that if you use this family fact AND have family notes, it will put the new paragraph before the notes. Then the family notes will still proceed right into the spouse info.
So, what I was doing to separate the family info/notes and the spouse info is to put my individual fact at the very beginning of the spouse's fact, that is, sort it before their birth. However, if you then print a narrative report, using that spouse in the direct line, it will mess up their first paragraph, since they're the primary individual.
So your idea of a family fact is best for separating the spouse from the family info at least when there is no family note. Its also great because it will work both ways - you can print a narrative with either spouse in the direct line and the family info will still be separated from spouse info.
What if you don't actually have anything written in your note? Is it just used for the special spacing then?
I guess our output largely determines what approach we use.
To get the required effect, you actually have to add the spacing characters at the end of the fact note rather than the beginning. So the fact note for fact #1 creates the paragraph for fact #2, the fact note for fact #2 creates the paragraph for fact #3, etc. If the fact note is otherwise blank, all it contains is two occurrences of the CR/LF sequence. Striking the Enter key one time on the PC keyboard enters one occurrence of the CR/LF sequence. As you might suspect, I have tons of fact notes that contain only the double CR/LF sequence and the note looks blank to the eye in the note editor. It's only when you print out a report that the purpose of the double CR/LF sequence really becomes manifest.
Okay that's what I figured you meant