Family Historian User Group

David, regarding your earlier points about FH & GEDCOM.

In the All tab, drag the header border between Record and Record Id to widen the first column.
Then each ... ellipsis expands to a more descriptive field name.

You can move the Note on the All tab as usual by using the up/down black arrows top right.

The NOTE hangs of a SOUR tag, which links to the SOUR record.
That is similar to the NOTE tag, which links to the NOTE record, but can also have local subsidiary tags.
That is also similar to a Media OBJE tag, which links to the Media OBJE record, but can have local subsidiary tags.
I guess the tag could have been named CITE instead, but that SOUR tag is the citation and links to the Source record.

%INDI.BAPM.SOUR.NOTE[1+]>% does honour the [1+] looping index, but only if no other looping index exists.
The workaround is to have multiple Text Scheme Items with data references such as:
%INDI.BAPM[1+].SOUR.NOTE[1]>%
%INDI.BAPM[1+].SOUR.NOTE[2]>%
%INDI.BAPM[1+].SOUR.NOTE[3]>%

Note records cannot have attached Media images, because the GEDCOM specification does not allow it.
Yes, FH could make a special exception and allow them, but they would not export to any other product.
I have recently been resolving a similar problem where Legacy allows Address fields to have Media attached.
But that is invalid GEDCOM and imports into FH as UDF, and a Plugin must move them up to the Fact.

However, as I mentioned before, why all those data gymnastics just to avoid split Sources?

Thanks wrt

• Expanding the column width!
• Then being able to move the "citation notes" up/down
• Pointing out that the SOUR in the All tree is actually closer to a CITE (although in hierarchical database design the position in a tree can vary?)
• The resolution of looping - one day my understanding of looping will be sufficient that I will instictively get it right first time!

tatewise wrote: Note records cannot have attached Media images, because the GEDCOM specification does not allow it.

And actually is not logical because the image does not belong to the "note" whether it is a transcription or a research comment. Both the image and any note belong to the citation and both can be attached to the citation. Previous posts above show that it is possible to attach notes to the citation (admittedly through the All tab which is a bit messy - but that is a UX/UI design issue rather than a core FH functional or GEDCOM structural issue). Images are attached to the citation as easily as they are attached to the source - it is a radio button choice on the attach media icon in the Source/Citation side of the property box - and citation is the first choice.

tatewise wrote: However, as I mentioned before, why all those data gymnastics just to avoid split Sources?

Why all the smudging of the difference between sources (external - authoritative) and citations (internal - interpretative) just to avoid putting notes etc where they belong?

I don't think we will ever agree on this one and hope that we can acknowledge that both sides have valid arguments - at least we don't have Cambridge Analytical analysing us and sending dark adverts for one side or the other!