* creating a file for Ancestry with no facts for living individuals

[tatewise]

I am currently away from my normal PC with FH V6 and using FH V5 on XP.
But I would be surprised if the V5 options are not somewhere in V6.
Is there not an Options button in the new Automatic Source Citation pane?
Perhaps somebody else can help explain.

[LornaCraig]

I must admit in V6 I can't see an option specifically to disable automatic citation for new Individual, Family and Note records. The Help file says that when automatic citation is selected "a source citation ... will be applied automatically to all new data that you add to your project, when you add it; or to existing data when you modify it. " This suggests that the creation of a new record would cause the citation to be added to the whole record even if no details are entered in the new record.

[BillH]

Lorna,

Thanks for looking. Now I know that I wasn't just blind.

I will just use the query method that Mike suggested to remove these from the file that I upload to Ancestry. It doesn't hurt anything for them to be there on my main project. After all... I didn't even know they were there.

Thanks

[BillH]

Mike,

Use an Indiviudal Query with Columns for:
...
Name Suffix = %INDI.NAME[1].NSFX%
and repeat for ...NAME[2]... et seq for Alternate Names
Record Source = %INDI.SOUR[1]% without the > near end

The repeated NAME[x] entries word great. I will say I was a bit confused at first as I would delete all of the values in the column for ...NAME[2] and then I would resort the column and there would still be values in the column. FH was shifting the 3rd alternate name to be the 2nd alternate name and the query was showing them in the ...NAME[2} column again. I "fixed" this by putting my columns in reverse order (NAME[9] followed by NAME[8] etc.)

The %INDI.SOUR% entry worked great for whole source records on the individual, but I still would like to get rid of the whole source records on the FAM records. I tried using INDI.FAMC[x]>SOUR[x] and INDI.FAMS[x]>SOUR[x] neither of these worked. Do you know what the correct "variable" name is for the whole record source on a FAM record?

In the GEDCOM it looks like this I think.

0 @F1259@ FAM
1 HUSB @I3548@
1 WIFE @I3549@
1 CHIL @I2094@
1 SOUR @S331@ <-----------

Thanks

[PeterR]

Have you tried using a Family Query rather than an Individual Query?

[tatewise]

Automatic Source Citations
Surprisingly, the FH V5 options to govern where Citations are added do not exist in FH V6.
To avoid them in future you need to monitor those cases where <whole record> Citations are added.
i.e. Whenever Automatic Source Citations are Enabled and a new Record is created, then with its Property Box open, in the Sources For pane select <whole record> * and click X Delete Citation.

Delete Whole Record Citations by Query
Sorry, I should have clarified the Family record case.

Yes, you could use Peter's suggestion of a Family Query with (without the > near end)
Record Source = %FAM.SOUR[1]%

But your idea of using the Family links in an Individual Query should work with (without the > near end):
Family as 1st Spouse Source = %INDI.FAMS[1]>SOUR[1]%
Family as 2nd Spouse Source = %INDI.FAMS[2]>SOUR[1]%
Family as 3rd Spouse Source = %INDI.FAMS[3]>SOUR[1]%
You may need more if any of your families have 4 or more spouses.
The Family as Child links do not need to be checked as all Family records will be covered by the Family as Spouse links.

BTW: You should obtain the correct "variable" name/Data Reference from the Fields pane (Data Ref Assistant) on the left. All such places where Data References are required have a Data Ref Assistant pane or a button often called <<Select.

[BillH]

Peter, thanks for the suggestion, I'll give that a try.

Mike,

I contacted Calico Pie and they said that option was removed and if I wanted to see it added back in I should fill out a wish list request. The thing is I don't think it would get many votes. I'm not sure why adding back a feature that they removed should require a wish list request.

I thought my idea should work too. What happened was that when I deleted the contents from the results cell, it deleted the whole record citation, but it also deleted the citations on the marriage date and names. Well... at least that seemed to happen. I tried it twice. I may have been looking at it wrong somehow. In any case, I think the family query would be easier. I didn't even realize there were family queries. I learn something new about the program all the time.

I'm looking at the query window at the columns tab and I see the list of fields on the left and the selected fields on the right. I know if I select a field on the left it appears on the right and I can see what the data reference for that field is. I don't see anything called a Data Ref Assistant pane. How do I get to it?

image1.jpg (79.71 KiB) Viewed 9921 times

My real problem though was that I didn't even know what the correct field was to select to get it's data reference. I didn't word it well, but I was really trying to ask you was what field I should use. Sorry about that.

Thanks

[tatewise]

You are probably correct about the lack of Votes for those Auto-Citation options.

Those %INDI.FAMS[1]>SOUR[1]% refs most definitely do NOT delete anything except <whole record> Citations.
Unless you used %INDI.FAMS[1]>SOUR[1]>% with the final > link to the Source record, in which case the cited Source record gets deleted along with the Citation, and so anything else that cited that Source record would also lose its Citation.

What you need to watch out for is the Deletion warning message.
It should warn about deleting fields, and NOT records.

If you check the New Custom Query dialogue you will see the Query Type can be any type of Record (except Header) plus the special Fact Query. Checkout fhugdownloads:queries|> Downloads and Links ~ Queries and there are at least 5 types, although mostly Individual of course.

In the case of Queries, on the Columns tab, the Fields pane is the Data Ref Assistant, but on the Rows tab, it is via the [...] button to right of Expression box.

[BillH]

Mike,

Unless you used %INDI.FAMS[1]>SOUR[1]>% with the final > link to the Source record, in which case the cited Source record gets deleted along with the Citation, and so anything else that cited that Source record would also lose its Citation.

That must have been what I did. I didn't notice the change in wording on the warning. In any case, I used the family query and it works fine.

As for the types of queries, I guess I've always started by cloning existing queries and hadn't done a family one yet. Good to know there are other types besides individual and fact queries. I think those are all I've used in the past.

In an earlier reply you said:

To avoid them in future you need to monitor those cases where <whole record> Citations are added... select <whole record> * and click X Delete Citation.

I will just not worry about them in my project as they don't hurt anything, I just don't need them and didn't realize they were even there. I'll just strip them out as part of my process of creating a file for upload to Ancestry.

Thanks

[tatewise]

BTW: Not only is there a change in the warning wording, but records will have the associated record icon attached in the Result Set cell.

[BillH]

Mike,

Sorry to keep going on this, but I'm still unable to find the data reference for fields I would like to remove.

I've figured out that on a citation I can remove the Note and the Where within Source fields using the fact query. I found these data references by trial and error by selecting things in the Fields column of the query dialog. What I can't figure out is what the data reference is for the citation Text from Source field. I've tried a few, but they were not the right one.

image1.jpg (59.64 KiB) Viewed 9894 times

Do you know the correct data reference for this field? Also, if I have a field in the property box used for data entry is there a way to figure out what the correct data reference is for it? Trial and error hunting through the Fields list is a pain.

Thanks

[tatewise]

Yes, that Text From Source field is a little coy.

There is no direct way to get from a Property Box field to its Data Reference but the following should help.
Open the All tab of the Property Box and double-click on the name twice to fully expand all fields.
Taking the Text From Source as an example, you know which Fact the Citation is attached to.
So identify that Fact in the All tab and the Text From Source field & contents should be just below.
That will give you the data hierarchy, which is this case is Fact ~ Source ~ Data ~ Text From Source.

Now in the Query > Columns > Fields expand that same hierarchy Fact ~ Source> ~ (Data) ~ Text From Source - bingo!
%FACT.SOUR[1].DATA.TEXT[1]%

[BillH]

Mike,

That is an excellent method of finding the right data reference. I rarely use the All tab, so hadn't even thought of this.

You are truly a Megastar!

Thanks

[davidm_uk]

@Bill,
When you have finally got this working to your satisfaction I'll be really interested to see your process description. It sounds like a total nightmare to achieve what one would imagine to be a simple result.

[tatewise]

@David
Check through the whole thread and you'll see that Bill wants to remove more details than the Subject line suggests.

The process has also highlighted some deficiencies in the Export Gedcom File Plugin, and the Clean Living People Plugin (see Clean Living People plugin question (14697)), not to mention the mess Ancestry makes of standard GEDCOM, where it would not be so bad if it simply ignored some GEDCOM tags (as other products do) but instead produces some weird displays.

[BillH]

Hi David,

This is the final process that I used to create the GEDCOM that I just uploaded to Ancestry. I may tweak it in the future, but this is what I ended up with for now. I have to thank Mike (Tatewise) for a lot of the overall process as he originally gave me the crux of it. I just modified it to my needs. Also thanks to Lorna and Peter for their suggestions.

Note that what Mike says is the case. I wanted to remove some additional items because of privacy concerns that I have that others may not have. In addition, I hate the way Ancestry handles the synthetic facts that the Export Gedcom File plugin creates, so in most cases I removed any fields that resulted in those synthetic facts. I also deleted some field values that I just didn't need out on Ancestry. I was looking for a pretty bare bones tree as my primary goal was to get a file out on Ancestry to go along with my DNA results. I was not looking to get any hints from Ancestry or anything like that.

My methodology probably has some redundancy in it because I use options in some of the steps that do the same thing as what options in previous steps have already done. I was too lazy to remove this redundancy and figured it really doesn't hurt anything anyway.

The steps and the options used in each step can be tailored to fit your needs as desired. I use 4 custom queries to remove some of the field values. I have attached these as well.

Ask if you have any questions on what I'm doing.

EDIT: I have removed the file Create file for uploading to Ancestry.docx as the procedure didn't really work the way I wanted it to. A better method and procedure are available later in this topic. I have left the queries here, but the method described later which uses the plugin Clean Unwanted Fields is a better method.

Bill

[BillH]

The rest of the queries...

[davidm_uk]

Hi Bill,
Many thanks for uploading all of this. I've now downloaded all of the items and will take a close look to see if/how I can use or adapt this to achieve what I want for an Ancestry upload.
Best Wishes, David

[tatewise]

Bill, having looked at your documented steps I can't identify why you need to create & merge the LivingData & PublicData.
The Split Tree Helper appears to apply identical settings to both, except that all Facts are deleted from LivingData.
But the later Clean Living People Plugin deletes all those same Facts and linked Source Citations.
Your Query steps remove all <whole record> Citations.
So those earlier create & merge steps are not needed.
Am I missing something?

I believe the only steps you need are :-

1. Use File > Import/Export > Export > GEDCOM file to exclude all but Source records.
2. Run the Queries to Delete unwanted fields (some may be unnecessary if Clean Living People is updated).
3. Run the Clean Living People Plugin to set Name to Living and Delete all their Facts, Media, Notes, Sources.
4. Use File > Split Tree Helper to delete records with no links, delete Submitter & Submission, delete all Note fields, and selected Facts as per your document for PublicData, but also delete all Flags and Named Lists.
5. Run Export Gedcom File Plugin with options as per your document.

I have created how_to:exporting_gedcom_with_multimedia#export_to_website_without_sensitive_data|> Export to Website Without Sensitive Data based on these concepts and can be adjusted as experience demands.

[BillH]

MIke,

For LivingData.ged I use Split Tree Helper to delete all facts and also to delete all source records.

For PublicData.ged I use Split Tree Helper to delete only Child Count and Marriage Count and also I delete only Source Records with no links to them.

Does your method result in the same thing? I tried the method you described early in this thread and it didn't work. Is this one much different?

Bill

[tatewise]

I think my new sequence does the same thing as your documented sequence.
It adds the Queries step and Split Tree Helper step compared to my earlier suggestion.

The removal of all Note, Media, Repository, Submitter & Submission records is the same for both methods.
The removal of all the Query selected fields is the same for both methods.

The only potential difference is how Facts and Sources are handled.

It seems to me that your create & merge of LivingData and PublicData removes Living people Facts and all Child/Marriage Count facts and any Sources linked to those facts, but retains all other Sources.

My Clean Living People Plugin step deletes all those Living people Facts and unused Sources.
My Split Tree Helper step removes Child/Marriage Count facts and any unused Sources or other records due to any of the preceding deletions.
So that should do the same thing as your create & merge.
It is difficult to test comprehensively without setting up a lot of data similar to your project.

[BillH]

Mike,

OK... I'll give it a try and compare the output to my method.

Thanks

[BillH]

Mike,

This method seems to have a problem. I've tried it twice, and I can't get it to remove sources on living people. I'm thinking maybe the problem is that Clean Living People only gets rid of unused sources for living people, rather than all sources. Am I doing something wrong?

Thanks

[tatewise]

The Plugin script does delete all unused Sources and it does with my test on the Family Historian Sample Project.

But it is a moot point as the subsequent Split Tree Helper step does Delete Source Records left with no links to them.

Are you saying some Sources are left with 0 Citations?

The Queries removed all <whole record> Citations and many Name fields.
The Plugin removes all Living Facts.
Are those Source Citations still on some Name fields that are converted to Living?

If so, then that is another flaw in the Plugin that need fixing, and the workaround is to add %INDI.NAME.SOUR% to the Query fields to delete.

If that is the only snag, are my steps quicker than your steps?

[BillH]

Mike,

Are you saying some Sources are left with 0 Citations?

No... sorry I didn't explain myself very well. I should have been more precise.

Are those Source Citations still on some Name fields that are converted to Living?

Yes, that is what is happening. On all of the living individuals, the names got changed to living, but the citations are still there.

If so, then that is another flaw in the Plugin that need fixing, and the workaround is to add %INDI.NAME.SOUR% to the Query fields to delete.

How would this work? This would remove the citations for all individuals, not just living people. My queries are not making any decisions about whether someone is living or not.

If that is the only snag, are my steps quicker than your steps?

It is definitely quicker and easier not having to do the merge. If we can figure out the citations on living people's names issue, I think I could use this method.

Edit:
I just noticed that the file using your method has 3224 more records than the one using my method. I'll try to figure out why. Just in the Individual records portion of the file there are 2950 more records in the file using your method. I visually searched around, but it isn't easy to find any differences. Is there an easy way to maybe count the number of INDI records or something like that?

Thanks