Family Historian User Group

I'm not sure whether this is because I'm doing something wrong, or because the Where Used Record Links plugin doesn't support this particular scenario.

I have an ancestor who married at least five times that I am aware of, and I have been in contact with other descendants to share and gather information, which can involve going back over enquiries that have been made and reasons for accepting or discounting various items of information. I have a marriage record for an individual with the same name, within a compatible timeframe and location; but which having investigated further, has turned out to relate to an unconnected person.

As I might need to refer to this information in the future, and to retain a record of the fact that I have investigated and discounted it, I have created a source record for the marriage register entry and linked it to the media record for the register image. I then created a research note explaining the existence of the entry, and why it has been discounted, which I have linked to the namesake individual in my project, and to the source record.

I haven't linked the source record to the individual in my file, as it doesn't actually relate to him, so the only links are between the research note and the namesake individual in my file, and the research note and the source record.

If I run the Where Used Record Links plugin on this source record or any list of source records that include it, the plugin shows the message "=LinksTo() 2 disagrees with 0 links found!"

The result set for the relevant source shows
and if I delete the second line containing <no 'Where Used Record Links' found> it also removes the source record from the first line.

Am I misusing the research notes feature, or is it that the plugin doesn't expect to find research note links?

How have you linked the records together?
In the Source record did you use the Notes tab and then Add Note > Shared Research Note?
OR have you used the rich text Record Link to Source feature in the text of the Research Note?

The plugin should report the former, but I've not yet updated it to include the latter yet, which probably explains the error message you mentioned.

Hi Mike,

I used the latter method, so I will ignore the warning. Thank you.

Phil

I have updated the Where Used Record Links plugin to include rich text Record Links discussed earlier (but not published in the Plugin Store yet).
However, Record Links can be dotted throughout the Result Set and not easy to spot with Data Ref Where Used such as:
_RNOT.TEXT._LINK_I
INDI.NOTE2._LINK_I
SOUR.TEXT._LINK_I

So I was thinking of adding an @ symbol prefix as that looks a bit like the paperclip icon used to add Record Links.
Then clicking on the column header will bring them all to the top.
@_RNOT.TEXT._LINK_I
@INDI.NOTE2._LINK_I
@SOUR.TEXT._LINK_I

What do you think?

Alternatively, a leading space character will work the same way but does not stand out so well.

Mike,

The @ symbol or a similar "unique" prefix would be my preference, to make them more obvious as you say.

I'm a relatively new FH user though, so I'll leave it to you to do whatever you think is best

Thank you for solving it so quickly!

Mike,

I've found another research note link that's not being shown with a preceding "@" character in WURL v1.5

"_RNOT.TEXT.SOUR" - created by citing an existing source from the Add Source Citation button drop down menu in the note window toolbar.

Sorry!

Sorry, but that is perfectly correct.

The @ signs do NOT signify Research Note links specifically.
They signify rich text Record Links added using the paper clip icon in ANY rich text Note, Text From Source, etc.
They are the type of link that will NOT migrate in exported GEDCOM to another product as they are a special FH feature.
Their data references end with such as ._LINK_I or ._LINK_F[2] or any other ._LINK_... for other record types.

_RNOT.TEXT.SOUR is a normal GEDCOM record to record citation link just like an INDI.BIRT.SOUR citation.
That type of link will migrate in exported GEDCOM to another product, albeit that the _RNOT will become a standard NOTE.

Ah, OK. I understand now.

I had the impression from our previous conversation that all _RNOT type record links would be prefaced with the "@" symbol.

I'll get me coat...