Family Historian User Group

Thanks Mike!

When I have both a death and burial fact I would like to check in the sentence definition of the burial fact whether the burial fact exists. This to allow me to make the burial sentence dependent on this test.

Any ideas?

It's a source field and that's what I did wrong, {%FACT.SOUR[1]>~TX-NUMMER%} work like a charm.

Thanks!

Sorry Mike, no reasoning (or maybe old age ).

{%FACT.SOUR[1]>.~EN-TYPE%} is obviously wrong. But, how about {%FACT.SOUR[1].~TX-NUMMER%}? That should provide NUMMER shouldn't it?

I have a single source with the meta fields NUMMER (text) and TYPE (enumerated). My goal is to reference both fields in a fact sentence definition. Following your advice I tested {%FACT.SOUR[1].~TX-NUMMER%} and {%FACT.SOUR[1]>.~EN-TYPE%} . The first one shows nothing (although the "nummer"...

What is the easiest way to refence a meta field in a fact definition?

Working perfect!
Indeed Google geocoder is for some places somewhat better than Bing. I have both API's so I use Google.
Thanks for a great job!

About not showing the map... what happens is that the correct coordinates are found but the map shows some place in the desert of Algeria (all zoomed in). When I then Geocode Plot This Location again, the coordinates stay the same and the map shows the correct location. I've tried all combinations o...

Mike, For me the plugin (your latest version) is working fine. I have it set to Plot Geocoder: Google Maps and the plugin and Web Page Maps to Bing. One thing: when I press Geocode Plot This Location it finds the location (coordinates), but doesn't show the map. When I press it again (for the same l...

I see. If (or when ) you have a testable substitute (I'm not a great fan of Leaflet Maps), I'd be happy to be an alfa or beta tester!

Cheers, Joop

Hi Mike,

When running Map Life Facts I got sa script error. Can you help?

Thanks, Joop

Hi Mike,

I've run a number of tests with version 3.8.1 and compared the results with 3.8. The result is indeed disappointing, it increases the score somewhat for the "no last namers" but that's it.

So I'll keep using 3.8. Thanks for the time and effort!

Cheers, Joop

Thanks Mike, tomorrows todo.

I see.

Could I test it on my database to compare with the published one?

tatewise wrote: ↑13 Feb 2023 17:33 I made a small change to the Name scoring such that if two people have no Surnames then that is treated as if they had matching Surnames. That simply added the default score of 7 to their Individual column score.

What preference did you change in Names Matching to get that effect?

Alle names in small print only are individuals without a last name. My "problem" isn't a problem as the plugin is very helpful. It's just that in dealing with older names patronymic are important and since there is no separate field for it in FH I store them as the last part of the first n...

In essence my point is that a patronymic is like a temporary (for 1 generation) last name. If the plugin could somehow attach a score to that then, I guess, the resulting output would be extra valuable.

I've attached a screenshot of the output with the plugin setting to default.

Hi Mike, Your plugin Find Duplicate Individuals is one of my favorites but since I'm getting further back in time most of people's names are without a family name. A patronymic is then, at least here in Holland, used to identify people. I store the patronymic as the last part of the first name (as i...

Yes, and the odd thing is that it must have been introduced during one of the last few updates. I haven't been using FH for some months and my plugins always worked ok. Just recently started entering data again and noticed the odd behaviour. Anyhow, CP is aware of the problem now. Thanks for your he...

The problem is that when you restart FH the preference is reset and then SetValueAsText reverts to it's poor parsing. I'll report it to CP.

The problem is solved. In preferences the preferred short date format was set to "dd/mm/yyyy". Setting it to "dd-mm-yyyy" solved the problem. Odd however that the parsing of "dd-mm-yyyy" is dependent on changing the delimiter from "/" to "-". I would...

Adding to my previous post: suppose the date is 24-12-1867, the date set by my statements is frm 0024. It's like the part "-12-1867" is kind of ignored?

Changed to

if f.type == 'Date' then
local dt = fhNewDate()
if dt:SetValueAsText(f.value, true) then
fhSetValueAsDate(pField,dt)
end

But still no date. I have no idea why.

I have these statements in some plugins to set a date: if f.type == 'Date' then local dt = fhNewDate() if dt:SetValueAsText(pField, f.value) then fhSetValueAsDate(pField,dt) end pField is a valid pointer to the field, f.value is text field containing a valid date e.g. "02-08-1865" This alw...

There is a maximum number of attachments, here are the other two.