Family Historian User Group

I am about 25% through a major clean-up of Places and Addresses after 15 years of inconsistency. This entails a repetitive use of Tools...Work with Data...Places, finding a place in error, then clicking Where Used and correcting each person. I find it easiest to sort the Place List in Reverse Display Order, but when I start the cycle again, the Place List reverts to being sorted by Part 1,

Is there a way to permanently configure the Place List to open in Reverse Display Order, sorted by Last?

May I suggest you use a rather different technique, because you can probably make all those corrections within the Tools > Work with Data > Places dialogue.

In that dialogue, when you have found the Place name that needs adjusting, click the Edit button top left.
Then in View/Edit Place Details dialogue click the [...] button to the right of the Place: name box, and Edit Place Name.
That will update the Place name in all the records where it used.
It will retain the Reverse Display Order setting, so you can easily move on to the next Place.

It also ensures that any Note, Latitude & Longitude or Media recorded against each Place is retained.

I suspect, that the method you've been using will have dissociated those details, and orphaned many Place records.
Go to the Records Window, open the Places tab, and click the Links column heading to sort them.
Scroll to the bottom and tell me how many records have Links listed as 0.
They are your original Place records that have been orphaned.

My issue is mostly places that have address details within them. Using the method you describe I would correct the places more easily, but then lose the opportunity to move the address details to the address field. The majority of my database was created under The Master Genealogist many years ago, and has be exported to several other genealogy software, the last major being Reunion, and bad habits travelled along with these changes over the years. I fear the long hard method is the only solution.

There are only 2 places with 0 links amongst thousands of place entries; hopefully this cleanup will leave less than a thousand places.

I gather there is no way to keep the Place List in Reverse Display Order ?

It did cross my mind that is what you were doing.
You are correct about the Reverse Display Order setting.
The long hard method is the only solution I'm afraid.

BTW: In performing this clean-up are you working to a standardised set of fixed column parts for Places and Addresses?
e.g. All Place names are formatted as say 'Town, County, Country', and similarly for Address fields?
Not only does that make sorting in Tools > Work with Data > Places/Addresses more effective, but also allows Queries and other features to be based on particular column parts.

Yes, I am trying to standardize, at least up to my ability. US city, county, state, and country is easiest for me. Other countries I expect to be harder because I am not aware of the compatible breakdown.

Phase 1 is separating the address details from the place details - about 25% completed
Phase 2 will be to standardize the breakdowns by country and correcting spelling, accents, etc.
Phase 3 will be to geocode places where possible
Phase 4 will be standardization and cleanup of Addresses

If you need advice about other countries, then feel free to ask in these Forums.

When it comes to geocoding, it seems you are aware that Place names as granular as cities will only plot the position of cities, and the Address is ignored. For that reason, some users have chosen to ignore the Address field and put everything into the Place field.

One wrinkle that annoys some users is to do with the Place and Address of churches.
If all you know is the name of the church is say St.Mary then that goes in the Address and the city goes in the Place.
This can lead to lots of different churches all using the same Address such as St.Mary albeit with different Place names.
In Tools > Work with Data > Addresses all those churches will be treated as one St.Mary address.
That makes it difficult to update specific church Address fields when more details are discovered, because you have to take the Place name into account to differentiate one church from another.

tatewise wrote:This can lead to lots of different churches all using the same Address such as St.Mary albeit with different Place names.
In Tools > Work with Data > Addresses all those churches will be treated as one St.Mary address.
That makes it difficult to update specific church Address fields when more details are discovered, because you have to take the Place name into account to differentiate one church from another.

To handle this exact problem, I enter just the city and state (or something similar) in brackets in the address. This way I can differentiate between the different churches or cemeteries or other addresses I'm looking at that would otherwise be the same.

For example:

Our Savior's Lutheran Church,,,, [[Everett, Washington]]
Our Savior's Lutheran Church,,,, [[Stanwood, Washington]]

The part in brackets is discarded in reports.

Sorry to be late to reply. This is a very old chestnut and I suggest you search through old posts to find what works for you. This might be a good jumping point
Addresses - Suggestion for Best Practice (12965) at
viewtopic.php?p=63685#p63685
but especially the links from there and from there!

The attached queries might help with sorting/ organising. (amend accordingly)