Reversing a Place Name

Chrisv · Post by **Chrisv** » 18 Apr 2022 13:38

I am trying to reverse how a Place name appears in the Source Records field. I have "Grand Rapids, Kent, MI, USA" I would like the USA to not show, and the order to be reversed, such as: "MI, Kent, Grand Rapids".
I found a reference to a Qualifier in one in the forums called TextPart that may assist, but I did not understand how it would work in my application, as explained in the help files at https://www.family-historian.co.uk/help ... tpart.html
Does anyone know how I can accomplish this, and give some insight/examples of using textpart??

Post by **tatewise** » 18 Apr 2022 15:28

I presume your Source record Place name Fields are linked to Place records.

So in the Source record Property Box the Place field can only be displayed in the format held in the Place record.
If you rearrange the Place record format then that will affect everywhere that Place names are displayed.
It is not advisable to remove the country 'USA' from Place record names.

Can you explain where you want the reversed Place name to be displayed. i.e. Is it just in Records Window columns?
If only in specific dialogues then it may be possible to devise an Expression to reverse Place name parts in those displays.

BTW: TextParts(...) is a function (not a Qualifier) that can be used in an Expression and would be involved in the reversal.

Chrisv · Post by **Chrisv** » 18 Apr 2022 16:35

The reversal and USA omission will only be used in the Source Record field as shown below.
I should also add that some of the records will be originating from AS - but that shouldn't make a difference, I don't think.

jimlad68 · Post by **jimlad68** » 18 Apr 2022 18:20

Have you tried Mike's Search and Replace plugin with LUA Pattern Mode for swapping parts. You can decide to reject each change if you do not like the outcome. If you are competent with Plugins a similar LUA pattern should work.

jimlad68 · Post by **jimlad68** » 18 Apr 2022 18:40

With AS, with {PLACE} in the Title Template, it will create a Source name of whatever you enter in the Place field.

I suspect you may want this to sort things more easily so you may like to check out my take on PLACe structure convention see https://www.fhug.org.uk/forum/viewtopic ... ce#p104363

Post by **tatewise** » 18 Apr 2022 21:28

Chris, with templated Sources, the Title is governed by the Source Template definition of the Record Title Format.

Use Tools > Source Template Definitions..., select the template and View/Edit... the Record Title Format as shown below.

: RecordTitleFormat.png (28.94 KiB) Viewed 2140 times

The place name field comma separated parts are formatted using =TextPart(...) as below:
{=TextPart(%SOUR.~PL-LOCATION%,3)}, {=TextPart(%SOUR.~PL-LOCATION%,2)}, {=TextPart(%SOUR.~PL-LOCATION%,1)}

After saving the changed templated use Compare/Sync with Source Template Record and update the Source Template Record.
Then in each Source record that uses that template, the Title must be updated using the cog Autogenerate Record Title option.

Chrisv · Post by **Chrisv** » 19 Apr 2022 12:41

I am following all the parts of Mike's instructions of using the =TextPart(...), but for the life of me, I can't find the ...

the Title must be updated using the cog Autogenerate Record Title option.

I can't find this under any of the cogs, or in the help or KB??

Post by **LornaCraig** » 19 Apr 2022 13:20

See below. (If the cog icon is not visible, just click in the Title field and it will appear.)

: Title cog menu.JPG (38.22 KiB) Viewed 2067 times

Post by **tatewise** » 19 Apr 2022 13:25

It is also in the Property Box of the Source records. Click the cog wheel to the right of the Title box.

: RecordTitleInSource.png (50.25 KiB) Viewed 2067 times

You must choose a Source record that uses the Source Template that has the new Record Title Format.

Chrisv · Post by **Chrisv** » 19 Apr 2022 13:39

Jim Orrell,

I store my PLACes in Highest order first with strict comma separation e.g.

England, , Greater Manchester, Bolton, Westhoughton:Chequerbent, Brancker Street, 51
England, , Lincolnshire, Lincoln

This is exactly what I am trying to accomplish, for the same reason, but only to the Places detail and only in the Source Records window (at least for now).
Having the dates show as you recommend in the Source Records window will be my next challenge.

Can you explain the reasoning of using the double comma?

Chrisv · Post by **Chrisv** » 19 Apr 2022 14:11

Thanks, I guess I never noticed that cog wheel.
Sorry Guys, but I'm still struggling. I am using {Jurisdiction} for {Place}, as shown below. I've tried inserting {JURISDICTION} into the function, but that didn't work and I suspect I may need to swap my {Jurisdiction} with {place}, or can I change the function somehow??
Appreciate the help!

Chrisv · Post by **Chrisv** » 19 Apr 2022 14:19

HOLD THE PHONE!
It works! I had done an oops in my entering.
It works Great!
Thank You!

jimlad68 · Post by **jimlad68** » 19 Apr 2022 14:20

Chrisv wrote: ↑
19 Apr 2022 13:39
Can you explain the reasoning of using the double comma?

From the other post examples

England, , Greater Manchester, Bolton, Westhoughton:Chequerbent, Brancker Street, 51
England, , Lincolnshire, Lincoln
England, , North Yorkshire, Richmondshire, Leyburn, Market Place, , Bolton Arms, DL8 5BW
USA, New York, New York, Manhattan, , 10th Avenue, 1000, St Luke's; Roosevelt Hospital

If you move onto the other links from the post, the 2nd comma separation is for "state or similar" within a country, so USA, State, etc
So, as you correctly ponder, technically the England, , County should be UK, England, County
so I might/should change that in future to make it strict "modern day" nomenclature. Of course each "Sovereign state" or country or postal system may need it's own nomenclature to tie in with for example the comma separated street position. For instance before getting to street, I have 2 positions for town e.g. Wigan, Leigh Leigh being a very distinct district of present day Wigan, should I need to delineate further I have to use a semicolon to keep the comma separated structure, e.g. Wigan, Leigh;Westleigh. The reason I use semicolon is that it does not upset the Records Window Filter like say ~ does.

There are many posts and ponderings on PLACe nomenclature!!

Chrisv · Post by **Chrisv** » 19 Apr 2022 14:24

Now that it is working (Thanks again), I still don't understand the Help file's explanation of HOW it works. I want to understand the logic so I can apply it to future situations.

Post by **tatewise** » 19 Apr 2022 14:26

Maybe you need to review how Source MetaField Data Reference Shortcuts are constructed.
See FH Help page Understanding Data References and scroll down to Data References And Metafields where it explains how to use the Field Type and the Filed Name to construct the shortcut.

Your field is a Place type of field and its name is Jurisdiction so its shortcut is %SOUR.~PL-JURISDICTION% and not %SOUR.~PL-LOCATION%. I fail to understand how you got that working!
Exactly what do you not understand?

To format Dates with year then month and day use the ABBREV3 qualifier.
e.g. {%SOUR.~DT-EVENT_DATE:ABBREV3%}
Also, in Tools > Preferences > General tab set the Preferred Short Date Format to any that put yyyy first.
Unfortunately, months 1-9 and days 1-9 are displayed without a leading 0. I am not aware of any workaround.

Post by **tatewise** » 19 Apr 2022 14:41

PostScript.
I have just realised there is a neater way of displaying the Jurisdiction Place first 3 parts in reverse:
{=TextPart(%SOUR.~PL-JURISDICTION%,1,3,TIDY_REV)}

That replaces the entire expression:
{=TextPart(%SOUR.~PL-JURISDICTION%,3)}, {=TextPart(%SOUR.~PL-JURISDICTION%,2)}, {=TextPart(%SOUR.~PL-JURISDICTION%,1)}

Chrisv · Post by **Chrisv** » 19 Apr 2022 16:34

I got it working by realising my mistake and swapping out Location with Jurisdiction after making the screenshot, and then I realised the title I was looking at had been manually adjusted and was not showing the revised title properly.
Thanks for the even neater way of displaying this.
I now have a real-life example that is working, and that I can apply to other situations. Now I can go back to the Help pages and I think it will start to make a lot more sense. The key to my understanding is having working examples pertaining to my project.
I have absolutely no programming experience, but I do have a lot of experience writing complex Excel expressions and have used them extensively for years, but for some reason, I am having problems with some of FH functions and data references.
Obviously, this is all new to me, but come hell or high water, I will conquer them! I'll study the FH Help page, Understanding Data References and if I still have questions, I will ask.
Thanks for all your input everybody!

Chrisv · Post by **Chrisv** » 19 Apr 2022 18:44

For those new to updating the Title after making changes to the Source Template Record (see below)
- you have to tap the Cog button twice in order for the change to take effect. First you must remove the Autogenerate Record Title check mark. You then need to add the check mark back for the changes to take effect.

cwhermann · Post by **cwhermann** » 24 Apr 2022 20:32

I am working through the same issue with my source/citation templates and want to make sure I understand how FH handles the fields I create.
If I have a field in my template I titled, for example, "Jurisdiction" and set the Field Type as Place - then FH will create a link to and pull in the information from the Place Record, is this correct?

Post by **tatewise** » 24 Apr 2022 20:59

Yes, correct, Curtis.

cwhermann · Post by **cwhermann** » 24 Apr 2022 23:42

Will have to "ponder" on a new/different strategy for source/citation templates. In the context of sources, I defined "Jurisdiction" as the entity that was responsible for the records being cited. Sometimes that was a "geographical place" that would fit the definition of a place record, but in other instances, the jurisdiction might be an entity that does not fit the definition of a place, e.g., a taxing entity, a state agency, etc.
In RM there was no connection/link between the place fields in templates and the place records so the distinction didn't matter. Now that I have the flexibility in FH to designate the field as a place or text - need to determine best way to utilize the flexibility.

Post by **tatewise** » 25 Apr 2022 09:48

I suggest you relax the concept of 'Place' to incorporate 'authorities' such as you mention.
Presumably, such 'authorities' have a head office that you can use to set the State and Country, etc.

davidf · Post by **davidf** » 25 Apr 2022 10:31

cwhermann wrote: ↑
24 Apr 2022 23:42
... In the context of sources, I defined "Jurisdiction" as the entity that was responsible for the records being cited. Sometimes that was a "geographical place" that would fit the definition of a place record, but in other instances, the jurisdiction might be an entity that does not fit the definition of a place, e.g., a taxing entity, a state agency, etc.
...

I'm not on V7 so these considerations remain theoretical for me, but I have always regarded "jurisdiction" as having some "legal" meaning which in genealogical terms could be one of two things:

The "jurisdiction" in which the original creator of the source operated. A Will under "English and Welsh" jurisdiction, is handled differently (at least in terms of language) to a Will under "Scottish" jurisdiction - so this aspect could be worthy of capture.
The "jurisdiction" of the copyright holder of the "source" being examined - again this may be something that needs to be captured.

Whilst either of these might be determined from the place of publication / place of online service, they are not necessarily the same.

cwhermann · Post by **cwhermann** » 26 Apr 2022 03:30

In my "pondering", the light bulb came on that I better decide what approach/methodology I was going to use with place and addresses and what impact that might have on utilizing place records in the source record entry.

Within the context of sources/citations, I have decided on the approach to enter the “Jurisdictional” information within a text field based on the following:

Data entry is simpler in that I don’t have to worry about comma placements to conform to my place record format. (Although I have not made a definitive decision on what approach I want to use with addresses and places – I am leaning towards the entire address and place in the place record)

A text field will accommodate both geographical based and non-geographical based jurisdictions.

The =TextPart(..) function can be used to accommodate the order of the jurisdiction text elements as needed in the Footnote, Short Footnote and Bibliography templates.

If the jurisdiction has an address, (thank you to Mike for pointing that out) it can be included as a repository with an appropriately formatted place entry.

Does this approach miss out on some benefit to having a place record linked to a source record that I have overlooked?

Post by **tatewise** » 26 Apr 2022 09:12

Probably unlikely in this instance, but the benefits of linking to a Place record arise if the same 'Jurisdiction' Place applies to more than one Source record and you wish to add Notes, Media, or other details that can be held in the Place record.
With the text alternative, such information would have to be repeated in each Source record or a shared Note record.

Family Historian User Group

* Reversing a Place Name

Reversing a Place Name

Re: Reversing a Place Name

Re: Reversing a Place Name

Re: Reversing a Place Name

Re: Reversing a Place Name

Re: Reversing a Place Name

Re: Reversing a Place Name

Re: Reversing a Place Name

Re: Reversing a Place Name

Re: Reversing a Place Name

Re: Reversing a Place Name

Re: Reversing a Place Name

Re: Reversing a Place Name

Re: Reversing a Place Name

Re: Reversing a Place Name

Re: Reversing a Place Name

Re: Reversing a Place Name

Re: Reversing a Place Name

Re: Reversing a Place Name

Re: Reversing a Place Name

Re: Reversing a Place Name

Re: Reversing a Place Name

Re: Reversing a Place Name

Re: Reversing a Place Name

Re: Reversing a Place Name