* Template issue when exporting back to RM8

[MFriend]

Hi Mike and Mark:

I again did a direct import into FH7 and then an export to RM8 via gedcom from FH7. I set everything to the defaults for Rootsmagic. This time there was no errors listed in the log file. It looks like the citations (.page as listed in FH7) were imported but into the wrong field:



It gets inserted into the "Detail Comment" field (shone below the Research note). It looks like it is getting added to/ merged with whatever is already there.

I thought it might be helpful for you both to have the originals, so I emailed you both a link to a zip file that contains (minus media) the FH7 file that was imported from the RM8 file, The gedcom exported from FH 7 and imported into RM8, and the final RM8 file (minus media).

The separate issue of missing media links in the citations still occurred of course but it sounds like that is someting for FH to look at. On a side note with the missing media issue: I had not created any shared (reused) citations. What I did do is run the citation deduplication feature in RM8 (which converts them to reused citations it seems). The reason I find that helpful before uploading to ancestry is that Ancestry creates a separate citation link for every citation. So for example I might end up with the 1940 Census being listed 4 times (example: once for residence, once for birth, once for name, etc.). By running the deduplication those facts are all linked on Ancestry to one citation (hence it looks a lot cleaner and a visitor looking at the sources has to click on a lot less).

Matthew

[tatewise]

Yes, as I explained, templated fields like Page cannot transfer to RM8 (or any other product) using standard GEDCOM because there is no sure way to associate them with a Source Template definition. So the Export Gedcom File plugin default option moves them into a Note/Comment field, possibly along with other values, but it does retain the Field Name as a Label.
Other options are available but whether they work well with RM8 requires experimentation.

Does it really matter that the templated field values are in another field as far as sync with Ancestry is concerned?
The Ancestry fact Citations will still have reasonable evidence supporting each fact.
See FHUG Knowledge Base Exporting Templated Sources and Sources and Citations in Version 7 (for New Users), especially under Should I Use Source Templates? where it suggests generic standard GEDCOM Source Citations may be a better option.

If it really matters that the templated Page values appear in the RM8 'Where Within Source' details, then a plugin is needed to move the templated Page values to the FH Where Within Source field prior to export.

[MFriend]

Mike I'd say probably not to worry about a plugin (at least not for me). As I had mentioned I think, I never used the 'non-gedcom' parts of RM like tasks, research notes, etc. I was able to export a gedcom yesterday that imported into FH7 in the regular citation field (not as a template), all the media links imported ok, and the export to RM was fine. Since I have everything like I want it in FH7 and the export is fine to RM8, there is no need for doing a plugin for me (I was just trying to be helpful in case other users in the future want to do a direct import into FH7 and want to eventually sync to Ancestry/FS).

[tatewise]

As was said earlier, using GEDCOM to migrate from RM to FH is NOT recommended.
Direct import is far superior for most users. (Your usage may be a special case that you can tolerate.)

I only suggested that a plugin may need to be written in extreme circumstances.

It would be useful to have your feedback on the scenario where Page is in the RM Detail comment and the Project is synchronised with Ancestry. Does that significantly affect the Ancestry Fact Citations?

[MFriend]

It would seem that the citation information would be uploaded to Ancestry. Instead of being in the normal citation field, it would show up in the "Other Information" part of the citation (merged onto whatever else might have been in that FH7 Note section). If someone really wanted to look up the citation it would at least provide them the info.
example:

Other information
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MNKP-5PR Page: Year: 1920; Census Place: Reno, Preston, West Virginia; Roll: T625_1969; Page: 6B; Enumeration District: 140

How 'pretty' it looks is not very important it would seem. In fact, RM8 (Its not an FH issue) seems to have an issue with 'losing' proper formatting when uploading to Ancestry so instead of a nicely formatted transcription (with line breaks) it gives a mess like this in the transcription of text section:

Name: Goldie Fay BolyardAge: 5Birth Year: abt 1915Birthplace: West VirginiaHome in 1920: Reno, Preston, West VirginiaResidence Date: 1920Race: WhiteGender: FemaleRelation to Head of House: DaughterMarital Status: SingleFather's Name: Jasper F BolyardFather's Birthplace: West VirginiaMother's Name: Gennie BolyardMother's Birthplace: West VirginiaOccupation: NoneNeighbors:Household Members Age RelationshipJasper F Bolyard35 HeadGennie Bolyard31 WifeGilbert R Bolyard11 SonCora P Bolyard9 DaughterBessie M Bolyard7 DaughterLizzie R Bolyard6 DaughterGoldie Fay Bolyard 5 DaughterSilva E Bolyard3 DaughterEvert R Bolyard1 Son

[Mark1834]

Looking at the FH project GEDCOM, it looks like a simple matter of the link to the media file not being included when an RM8 shared citation is converted to multiple FH copies (FH does not support shared citations). Hopefully, it should be a straightforward fix, but let's see what CP say...

It might be a side shoot, but CP have confirmed my analysis of why some media are apparently missing, and it will be fixed in the next minor update (along with the issue of corrupted dual dates, so they are rightly prioritising issues that affect user data, not just convenience for plugin authors).