As usual, Mike, you are quite correct. However, I read the question as asking if it were possible to alter directly the record id for a specific individual. It seems that this is not possible except using a method that you yourself describe as cumbersome.
I used to use the renumber facility regularly when I first started to use FH as I didn’t like gaps in the number sequence. I soon realised, though, that doing so was quite counter-productive, that gaps in the numbering sequence were only cosmetic and that FH was best left to organising itself with the allocation and maintenance of record ids. Having reviewed the options in the Record Identifiers dialogue, I am quite concerned that one of the options, to copy Custom Ids, could possibly be quite dangerous. Having spent a lifetime in IT, and a very large proportion of that in software design and development, I am well aware from personal experience the problems that can arise from having a corrupt key or index within a database. I assume FH will make all the necessary checks to avoid duplication of record ids when copying Custom Ids, but personally, it is not a feature I would contemplate using, and again from a personal point of view, I think the Record Identifiers dialog should be removed, with the exception of a complete re-generation, though I’m sure others will disagree.
I used to use Custom Ids quite a lot to cross-reference to paper documents, but as time went by I realised that this too was a duplication of effort and that FH was far better at organising my research than using paper, so gradually my paper copies have been consigned to the shredder and the Custom Ids removed. However, in retracing some of my research, questioning some of the assumptions made, I have found that using a project that focusses on a single family from a single parish a very effective research method, allowing a much more forensic examination of sources. I now use the Custom Id field to cross-reference a family member where they have migrated from one parish to another or to a different town or city, and thus appear in more than one project. I integrate their individual reference id from their parish of origin within the custom Id across projects: another reason for not re-numbering record ids. I do keep a master, all families, tree, but as my research has been going on for nearly 15 years, this now comprises more than 10,000 individuals and extends to over 26 Gb of storage, and which I find it rather unwieldy to work with when I need a fine degree of focus.
As regards the Detail tab, I am aware that information entered here can also be entered using the tree representation of the GEDCOM file on the All tab, which I do find reminiscent of the representation of directory structures on early incarnations of Windows. In my opinion, however, the Detail tab provides a more familiar and intuitive window in which to record information about an individual that crops up quite regularly, and particularly for users new to FH. For example, I use the alternative name to record formal name changes, name used to record where first names might have been dropped in favour of a name chosen by the individual him or herself. The use of Nickname is obvious, as are the extra date fields for Baptism and Christening. Title, name prefix and suffix I also use on occasion. A particularly useful field is the Count of children, which, if set to zero and the appropriate diagram option is set, causes a line to be drawn under the individual’s box on a diagram giving a clear indication that that line of the family has no further known issue, and therefore warrants little of no further research other than for lifestyle and other period information. The Detail tab could only be improved by enabling the recording of physical characteristic such as height and weight, hair and eye colour, and complexion, information readily available from military records. On the other hand, perhaps this is something Nick Walker might like to look at for the next version of AS
