* Mystery numbers after a merge/addition

[Jessie 888]

Still a newbie, making mistakes! I've just added a small FH project to my main one using the merge/compare and selecting the don't match any records bit. (I get into all sorts of trouble when I merge things too quickly so I thought I'd look for duplicates later.)

Everything seemed to go well but now I have a little (2) after all my new additions (see picture). They appear in the Focus Window, and the Records Window, and on diagrams. How do I get rid of them, please?!

[LornaCraig]

Does this just appear after Place names? I don't have access to FH right now so I can't test this, but it might happen if you have identical place names in the two files. Unlike other record types, no two Place records can have the same name so when you told FH not to merge any records it had to distinguish between these otherwise identical records by appending (2) to one of each pair.
This shouldn't happen with other record types because they can have identical names (although they will always have different ID numbers).

[Jessie 888]

Yes it does appear after place names. When I delete the place to test it, it disappears but when I put the place back in it comes back.

In case I didn't explain properly at the beginning, these new records are 99% new individuals so they're not duplicates of any in the original file. Don't know if that makes sense!

I don't really understand what you meant, Lorna. Sorry!

[LornaCraig]

Remember that when you add the contents of the smaller project to the larger one you are not just adding Individual records. There will also be Family records, Note records, Source records, Repositories, Media and Place records. You told FH not to merge any records so you will have a small number of duplicate records, including not just Individuals but (almost certainly) Families, Places and Sources at the very least.

With most record types you can have two or more records with the same name - for example two 'John Smith' individuals. They will have different record IDs but the same name. This is because in real life there are many people who share the name, and several of them might be in your project. But no two places can have exactly the same name because that means they are the same place. So FH has to distinguish between them in some way, until such time as you decide to merge them.

If you look at the Records window, Places tab, is there one Place record called "Bodmin district, Cornwall, England" and another called "Bodmin district, Cornwall, England (2)"? You will also be able to see them using Tools>Work with data>Places. When you are satisfied that they relate to the same place, use the merge facility and select the version without the (2) as the final version.

[tatewise]

A Gedcom/FH V6 database is composed of 10 different types of record.
There is a tab for each one in the Records Window and also in the Merge/Compare File dialogue.
See how_to:key_features_for_newcomers#records_fields_multimedia|> Key Features for Newcomers > Records & Fields & Multimedia first paragraph.

Individual records are just one of those 10 types.
Now most records are uniquely identified by their Record Id number.
This allows their Name or Title to be the same in two separate records, i.e. you can have more than one John Smith and the Record Id differentiates one from the other.

BUT Place name records are different. The Place name must be unique in each record.
St Columb district, Cornwall, England already exists in a Place record in your main Project.
Your other Project must also have a Place record for St Columb district, Cornwall, England.
So when you combine the two, without merging, the two Place name records for St Columb district, Cornwall, England are not allowed, so FH adds [2] to make the imported one unique.

You can eliminate that by merging the pairs of similarly named Place records one pair at a time.
That is going to be somewhat tedious if you have more than just a few.
Do you need advice about how to merge Place records?

Also, if there are any other of the 10 types of records that need merging, then they will need handling one pair at a time.

[Jessie 888]

Lorna and Mike,
Thank you both very much for that. I understand now! You always give me the confidence to believe it can be sorted and not to give up!

I think I've done it ... or, at least, made a start ... very proud of myself. I tried two ways so maybe you could tell me if this was right, and which one is the way to go?

First, in the Focus Window, at the end of the birthplace in the Property Box, I clicked on the three little dots and merged them that way. (It took me a while because I didn't realise I had to use Control to select the second place!) Then I tried the Tools>Work with Data>Places which I'd never used before. I'm definitely going to use that again to tidy up lots of records ... very exciting. The only problem with that window was that I couldn't see any of the little (2) references to know which ones to merge?

I learn something new with Family Historian every day ... love it.

[tatewise]

Excellent.
The [...] button and Tools > Work With Data > Places both take you to the same Place List dialogue.
The (2) suffix may not be displayed because the Part 1/2/3 columns are not wide enough.
Hover your cursor on the vertical line in the headers between the last Part and Used and it will turn into two parallel lines with arrows. Left-click and drag to the right to enlarge the last Part column and that should reveal the (2) suffix.

(BTW: See Tools > Work With Data > Addresses for similar useful features.)

An alternative method, is to open the Records Window and select the Places tab.
Click on the Place Records header to sort them alphabetically, so the similarly named places come together.
The duplicated ones should come together in pairs.
As before if the suffix is not shown, hover on the line to the right of Place Records and drag it to the right.
Select the two records to be merged, with the final version selected first, and use Edit > Merge/Compare Records.

This dialogue is a little more complicated, but gives more control over what exactly to merge.
This technique is the one to use for merging any other duplicated records of any type.

[Jessie 888]

Thank you so much, Mike. All your suggestions worked perfectly and I've learnt a lot. Happy days!