Family Historian User Group

Grateful to Helen for the KB update. Defused my objection so much that there's probably no need to waste effort on further changes there. BTW it's an excellent resource. Thanks for the other suggestion, will submit a Wish List item for the interface. I thought it best for clarity, to start with, pac...

The "thing" Calico calls "Note Record" is referred to by that name almost everywhere in the user interface. And a "Note" is almost always called a Note. Calico does it that way because it reflects GEDCOM structure. The Knowledge Base, by its section heading titles, nudg...

Vyger wrote: ↑16 Mar 2024 13:39 visual highlight

Excellent.

ColeValleyGirl wrote: ↑16 Mar 2024 08:56 Hard to see where they'd fit alongside this lot...

laz_gen's idea was only a single "sourced" icon (which sounds OK to me) but I take your point. Certainly agree it could be a property box option.

Many thanks, Bill

I think this must have been discussed before, but... The FH Knowledge Base "Working with Places and Addresses" option "Places Only" has acknowledged limitations for my purposes, and I continue to use both Place and Address. FH maintains Address "records" using a simple ...

Many thanks for your support, Helen.
Quite understand the situation
Merry Christmas.
Paul

Keywords : Import to Ancestry, Citation information, WWW, Web address, GEDCOM extension tag, Address Structure, Template, Uncategorised Data. TL;DR : This post suggests a Family Historian (FH) GEDCOM extension tag to store web page URLs, motivated (in part) by Ancestry tree Citation information ite...

Thanks, Mike

I'm probably being really dumb here... can a text scheme be fudged to create an active hyperlink? The point is, I navigate almost entirely via diagrams and would rather click through to (say) a source image or web page - rather than by first locating that item in the property box. Think of other pos...

Mike, many thanks for the quick reply. Must say I'm hugely disappointed it's thought to be a free-for-all under the covers of a custom top level. Not trying to pick a fight here, but nowhere have I found it explicitly allowed that a top-level record may hide non-underscored custom tags. So far, all ...

I see in the exported GEDCOM file from the plugin that these are present as 1 STAN xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. In the RM import of the GEDCOM, I get errors for all these flagging them as Unknown Info. Hi, and sorry for reopening this thread, but hoping Mike @tatewise or other expert could comment on this.....

If this is going to progress to the Wish List, it needs a lot of fleshing out into a request that people can understand and vote on. Well, whoever created that mock-up did IMO a mighty fine job (thanks!). I haven't found anything to disagree with and believe it would be a massive step in the right ...

How weird!
I didn't post this (tho' did say something similar, and did make a screenshot).
I'd be grateful if Jane/Admin could correct the author (to credit the clever person who made this).

You may be correct Paul. What are your input values to the calculation and where is the resulting age to be displayed? Hi, Mike, thanks for answering. This is the way I use input ages and the calculated value [shown in square brackets]. Obviously there would be some benefit for such comparisons if ...

Apologies if this has been raised before ( I did check KB & Forums).

The 1921 Census prompted me to look at formatting a string with calculated age in years and months. That doesn't seem possible without excruciating pain using a couple of TimeSpan() plus extra calculation. Hope I'm wrong .

Pathological Pools Being drawn back to this, just a few more observations... There are apparently 3 equivalent routes to creating an unrelated individual, all starting out with an "empty" pool number (beginning to learn here). (1) From the Individual Records window (by right-click in the ...

David Potter wrote: ↑20 Apr 2022 07:38 Does the FH > Window > Refresh tool not help?

Well, David, I should have checked before opening my big mouth. Window > Refresh does exactly what is needed, and I never would have believed that.

Many thanks for the suggestion. Kudos!

Never tried, but wouldn't expect so - given that opening a brand-new diagram rooted in any of the participants didn't help.

Gowermick wrote: ↑13 Apr 2022 16:41 Paul,
Not too rare an occurence, I’ve suffered from it too. I just go to another screen and come back, and it has updated itself.

Good you discovered that, GM

tatewise wrote: ↑13 Apr 2022 09:06 However, prior to running the Query the Pool number is missing. I wonder what the Query does to cause the assignment.

Not quite sure what you're saying here, but the oddity I mention of failure to update instantly is *very* rare. Probably too rare to make a fuss about - so I won't.

johnmorrisoniom wrote: ↑13 Apr 2022 08:13 When you add a connected or unconnected individual, they are not immediately assigned a pool number. That is only assigned when the data is saved.

I believe that is incorrect. If you watch a diagram (that displays pool number), drag down to create a child, its pool number appears instantly.

I've come to rely heavily on RelationPool() e.g. for heavy-duty splitting trees as well as routine maintenance. Splendid tool. It's also handy for me to show this value in diagram boxes, and that is how I came to notice a curiosity. Working in a Pool 1 diagram, I added an extra spouse to one person ...

My recurring complaint, almost since Day 1 (exaggerating a bit), is that the whole structure is a mess. i.e. slavishly using the GEDCOM model as the interface paradigm. Was working on a WLR but decided to save time and put it to you graphically: Window, sub-form, sub-sub-form. I know you will "...