* Additional Untitled Sources

[tatewise]

I suspect it is not ideal but there is the diagram in Formal Database Structure that has been in the KB for years and was extracted from some FH documentation may be the Getting the Most From FH or a Help page.

[ColeValleyGirl]

I suspect it is not ideal but there is the diagram in Formal Database Structure that has been in the KB for years and was extracted from some FH documentation may be the Getting the Most From FH or a Help page.

Yes, but it isn't a very good diagram -- nor is it up to date.

[AdrianBruce]

... Also if it is not a record, why would my suggested garbage collection affect it? It would only apply to blank Records!

Well, for clarity, we need a precise definition of Record in the context of FH. From the v6 viewpoint, that would be

• Individual
• Family
• Note (as in freestanding / shared Note-Record if that's not a bit circular);
• Source
• Repository
• Submitter
• Submission (no, me neither!)
• Media (as in the media record within FH, not the media outside in the PC's file system
• Place
• Header

These all have level 0 in the GEDCOM file. Unless I'm very much mistaken!

Notice that citations, facts, etc, are not, on this basis, records, so are excluded from the garbage collection (PS to anyone wondering about that name - it has a long, honoured history!)

Strictly, since all the above must have an identity (or equivalent), then none can ever be empty, so I assume that "empty" refers only to the rest of the (potential) stuff for that record.

I would exclude Place-records from the garbage collection as I will frequently create Place-records before a major piece of research so that I just call them up as necessary. Not sure if anything else would have a key and only that key (i.e. be empty in logical terms)

Nevertheless, I be interested in knowing why you would keep a blank fact or item! ...

Plenty of facts are empty apart from their "key" tag. A "Death" could be entered with no data other than the tag to show someone is dead. Citations (by which I mean the link between fact and source) can be empty in logical terms, especially for a splitter who wants to justify a fact but hasn't bothered with Primary/Secondary, Text-from-source, etc, etc. But these aren't records, so are excluded - I just mention them in response to your query.

[AdrianBruce]

... Yes, but it isn't a very good diagram -- nor is it up to date.

Yes, can I vote for crows-feet notation, please?

Actually, whatever the notation, it would need explaining - I never did get my head round the extra bars, and without concrete examples, I tend to forget which end the "o" for optionality goes... If it ever was consistent across all notations!

[BillH]

In V6 the equivalent was Add>Source. And if you click the Add Citation button in the Sources For pane you still have to choose whether to create a new source or select an existing one, just as in V6.

I never have this problem in FH 6. I think for me it is a workflow issue. I use Add Citation and then click on New. If I change my mind and don't want the new source, I then click on the Cancel button. In this scenario no untitled source is created. Maybe this is what other people are doing rather then using Add > Source?

I opened an issue during beta testing about this as I was creating untitled sources during testing. I was told by CP that it is working as designed in FH 7 and they closed the issue.

Bill

[Gowermick]

Adrian,
With regards to place records, they shouldn’t be classed as ‘Empty’ if they contain a Placename! You’re possibly confusing Empty with Unused/uncited
Once a place record has a name (and possibly geocoding), it is not empty, so would escape the Garbage collector!

Bill,
CP’s response is not a surprise to me. They never considered the fact that their design could be wrong! They were looking at it purely from a programmers perspective, and not the users!

[AdrianBruce]

Adrian,
With regards to place records, they shouldn’t be classed as ‘Empty’ if they contain a Placename! You’re possibly confusing Empty with Unused/uncited
Once a place record has a name (and possibly geocoding), it is not empty, so would escape the Garbage collector!
...

You're just illustrating the need to define the word "Empty". The Place-name is the key of a Place-record. I'm sure that you class a Source-Record containing the key and only the key as empty (a Source-Record without a key is physically impossible). But a Place-record containing the key and only the key is not empty. One's "empty", the other isn't. I'm pretty certain we agree what the software should do - I'm just being pedantic about defining the terms... Because that's how computers work.

[tatewise]

By unique key, you are referring to the Record Id.
Actually, you can create a Place record with just a Record Id and empty Place name Text field.
You can even create several of them. Try right-click New Place on the Places tab of the Records Window.
They are 'empty' records by the same definition used for other records.
As soon as you add the Place name Text field they are no longer 'empty'.
That is equivalent to adding the Title field to a Source record.

What confuses the issue is that most records are linked by Record Id whereas Place records are linked by unique Place name, but the unique key is still the Record Id. e.g. The Place name in a Place record can change but its Record Id cannot.

[Gowermick]

Adrian,

My definition of an Empty Record, is any record with a Record ID (the key), but contains no other information.

The ones that immediately spring to mind are Individual Records, Source Records, Place Records and Note Records, all of which can simply be Added as a blank record, without the need for user to add any text.

[AdrianBruce]

... My definition of an Empty Record, is any record with a Record ID (the key), but contains no other information. ...

I'll buy that. As you can see by Mike's reply (thank you Mike), I'd actually missed that you can create a Place Record with no Place-name. Hence proving my own argument that we need to carefully define what "empty" means. Just not the proof I expected!

[Gowermick]

Adrian,
Following on from Miketate's comments re places, I think this may be something new in FH7 (someone with FH6 can verify, please).
As far as I remember, in FH6, one couldn't Create or Delete a Place Record via the records window. In fact, if you wanted to delete a place record, you had go to the trouble of merging the unwanted record with another! Or am I going senile

[BillH]

I am still on 6.2.7. You have always been able to delete a place record from the record window place tab. Just select the record and hit the delete key. To add a place record there you right click and select New Place.

Bill

[tatewise]

I confirm what Bill says, so Mike Loney must be going senile and I'm 74

[AdrianBruce]

... As far as I remember, in FH6, one couldn't Create or Delete a Place Record via the records window. ...

Sorry... From my v6, I can confirm that you can create a new place via the Places tab - and then delete it again. Oddly though, it was ages before I found that out - you have to do it via a right-click (I haven't found a menu option to do it in v6 - one of those UI inconsistencies that seem to have crept in) and the right click has to be in white space, otherwise you just get an edit facility for the clicked-on place.

[Gowermick]

Perhaps I was thinking of the map window that wouldn’t allow Place Deletes
I know I used the Merge to get rid of unwanted places in the Map window, so assumed the same applied in the records window. You learn something new everyday.
NB I’m 75, so perhaps the extra year makes all the difference, something for you to look forward to