Family Historian User Group

Both I think were actually there before 7.1.3
1939Register and census come to that
If you enter a man who has been married twice it shows him as a W even though the second marriage was before the date of the census - not insurmountable as you can change it
marriage record
When entering a marriage post 1837 it complains if you don't enter a reference number for the marriage entry but does not then copy it to the text within source

On the second point, the Ref ID field in AS goes in to the source record Publication info field rather than the transcription itself. I personally put the record entry number in the Other Info field, and had added {OTHER} to the template in the right place to have it go in to the transcription. Similarly with the other auto-text templates that have a record number.

Others might do it differently, but this works for me as I have then got the publication information (where it came from) in the source record, and the content from the register entry on the Text from Source.

Where the reference goes is configurable in the options settings, at least for method 1 entries. I'm still on 7.1.2 so can't comment on a 7.1.3 issue, but I haven't seen any problems with the marriage reference populating the auto text field in 7.1.2 (or prior versions).

I don't use the rich text templates, but in the standard autotext template for marriage Parish Registers 1837- (England/Wales) the Marriage No: field in the auto text from source is populated from the contents of the Ref ID: field on the Further Info tab by the {REF} function. If, like me, you include the full source reference in the Ref ID: field, it does mean that the entire reference is inserted into the autotext, but as long as the marriage number is included in that reference, its easy enough to trim the resulting text from source to suit.

I tend to forget all the options available and just use as it comes, so would have missed that, and I use RT versions now.
I checked and the RT version of Parish Registers 1837- (England/Wales) unlike plain text one has a No. but does not include any field value, so is blank, hence my comment about adding in {OTHER} there.

Hi John

johnhanson wrote: ↑

10 Feb 2021 10:09

Both I think were actually there before 7.1.3
1939Register and census come to that
If you enter a man who has been married twice it shows him as a W even though the second marriage was before the date of the census - not insurmountable as you can change it

AS won't always get this kind of thing right and as you say, you should always check the suggestions and change them as necessary. However, I'll take a look and see if I can make AS do better with this scenario.

marriage record
When entering a marriage post 1837 it complains if you don't enter a reference number for the marriage entry but does not then copy it to the text within source

The problem is that the reference id field is generally used to record the full citation reference, rather than just the certificate number (and recorded in the source publication information or citation where in source fields). Although this doesn't necessarily cause an issue for non-RTF source templates, with RTF templates it made the formatting look odd (and led to an inaccurate transcription). Some of the beta-testers raised this and I agreed so removed the {REF} field from the auto-text templates. So once the auto-text has done its work and you're making the final edits that are almost always required to make an accurate transcript, simply type the number into the source text. Alternatively, you could clone a copy of the templates and put the {REF} keyword in or use the {OTHER} field as Chris mentioned.

Best wishes

Nick