Was not able to reproduce this in my testing with a simple test database.
So I resorted to manually fixing this, which fortunately was not too bad, only a couple dozen duplicates it turns out.
Jump to content
There have been 63 items by strathglass (Search limited from 10-April 20)
Do not believe I've seen this before:
I have numerous instances of the same image appearing twice in the media gallery: the two entries point to the same file.
I am guessing it may be because of how I tagged the people in the media entry (drag and drop...onto each person).
In some cases where all family members are tagged, I see the one version has just the parents tagged, and the second/duplicate image has just the children tagged ... that is very odd.
Is there a nice easy way to fix this?
Secondary issue: I forget but do have an fading memory of a related issue:
In some cases one of the files has a caption entry and the other does not. Easy way to fix this particular issue in the process of fixing the above duplicate issue?
I have several photographs in my media gallery where I am now seeing multiple (normally just two) instances of a single file.
So for each case what I see in the gallery is a pair of identical thumbnails that both point to the SAME media file on my hard drove.
The only difference seems to be one version is tagged to certain people in the photo, and the other version is tagged to the remaining people in the photo.
I notice for a lot of them that involve a family, frequently one version has just the parents tagged, and the other version has all the kids tagged.
For a lot of/all of these, I added the media by drag and drop onto each persons individual media gallery.
Is there a way to clean this up so I just see one thumbnail in the media gallery per each unique media file, and that one media gallery entry is tagged with ALL the people in the photo?
How safe is it to run two different versions of RM?
The installer gives me this warning: "An older version of RootsMagic was found on this computer. Having different versions of RootsMagic on the same computer is only recommended for advanced users."
What exactly are the problems having two different versions might cause?
NOTE: I would only ever use each version with its own unique database, never share the same database or media files with different versions.
Never dealt with this before:
A relative moved away, she ended up moving to New York City.
So I have four artifacts that I want to put into their own source:
I assume there is one further form to indicate citizenship was granted, no? What would that be called?
Is there a description of the set of records normally expected associated to immigrants to that country?
But the main question is what would I call these four items as sources?
And in RM7 I notice only two migration related source templates:
Immigration-Emigration Rolls, Databases
Immigration-Emigration Rolls, Images
Is either of these appropriate for all 4 of these records? (I would assume the Images one, since these are all images from familysearch)
Well, not sure why it went to such an odd state: that is a problem.
But when I went ahead and added a new male as a new husband of the mother, and then unlinked daughter from mother and unknown dad (not sure how that new relationship got in there!) and then linked daughter back to mom and new husband...everything is OK again.
I unlinked a daughter from her parents, so that I could re-link to same mother and new father.
But before I could add a new father and relink the daughter, I see two problems:
1) Daughter now shows up in the mother's descendants view as a child of the same mother and another of her existing husbands.
2) The daughter's pedigree view shows her as descended from the mother, but the mother is showing in the upper/father slot! (I can click the lower spot to "add mother")
Any ideas how to fix this?
I was using shared facts for the fact type ResidedAt(fam): this asks for the spouse name but not the children.
So I added the children to the fact as witnesses using the Share button.
Does this seem OK?
One issue this does cause: parents live at a place for many years, and have children while there.
The sentence for the children says they lived there for the full time range for the original fact, not respecting that their birthday is much later than the fact start date!
That is confusing and not correct.
Is there a better way to deal with this?
How come there is an emigration fact but no migration fact?
How in general are you supposed to record the destination for someone who migrated? There is no field for that in the emigration fact.
Are you supposed to add a ResidedAt fact? That is ugly when you don't know the emigration date since the two facts would not necessarily appear together.
Thanks for the good input folks, that helps. Just need to decide in which cases the use of 2 facts is worth the extra effort.
Jerry - At least for GEDCOM if I cared I could manually edit the .GED output as required to put preferred date first, although that would be tedious if there were lots of entries to fix!
Example: two different sources indicate a birth date a couple days apart.
Another example: one birth date says Dec. 19, 1864 (no location), another indicates just 1865 (with a location).
In one case I put in the date field of the fact something like "25 Mar 1858 or 26 Mar 1858"
In another case I used two different facts.
I prefer the former approach...is there a best practice here?
Is it OK to list two dates or even a date and a date range within one date field?
I have someone who was never married: I have a marriage fact for the person, with the "Note" field set to "never married" (the marriage fact is otherwise empty).
But that doesn't come out in a (narrative) report.
How do I record the never-married fact in a way that would show in a report?
I should explain a bit: I PROBABLY had the two equivalent files (PDF and TXT) linked to the same artifacts (probably just a source in this case), but I was not 100% sure of that...that is the main issue, and why I thought it easiest to relink the TXT media file to the PDF: I had erroneously assumed since it was the same file as an existing media item it would result in one media file entry, but obviously not!
But what I've learned from your responses (especially Jerry-thanks!) is that I can see in the top right pane the tag list identifying where the media file is being included.
So I can fix this simply by deleting one of the two media list entries that are pointing to the the same file as long as I do these two things:
("a") for the to-be-deleted media list entry: if it has any unique tags in the tag list not found in the other (to-be-kept) media list entry, add the other (to-be-kept) media list entry to those tagged items, and
("b") double check the caption of the to-be-deleted media list entry and compare it to that of the to-be-kept media list entry: reconcile any differences if required via an update to the caption of the to-be-kept entry.
Thanks for the help!