Family Historian User Group

Agree - there have been many discussions on lumped/split converters over the years, and they always come to the same conclusion- technically possible to do, but highly specific to individual setups and virtually impossible to generalise.

I was re-reading this thread, and I’d like to suggest something that might make the process easier. There seems to be two distinct steps involved. The first of these is converting all the raw data into FH7 templated sources. There are probably four steps to this: 1. Read the GEDCOM file for the core...

Remember that plugins don't get bored or distracted - if they need to check tens of thousands of citations to identify what’s used where, they will do it willingly and speedily! Your approach is the right one though - be absolutely clear in your mind what you want the plugin to do before getting int...

Teresa, with a bit of practice, editing and customising source templates is something most FH users will get to grips with. It doesn’t require any particular prior skills or experience. Creating a Data Entry Assistant to accompany that template is much more complex, but templated sources work fine w...

Ok, I’ll look at the new draft tomorrow and respond to you directly.

Think it came off the rails after about the second or third posting, but I’ve not got anything further to add so it’s probably run its course.

One option you might want to experiment with is setting the Private flag for individuals you don’t want to include. I do that with my Ancestry tree, and the export routine omits them completely so they are not included in the public tree in any form.

OK, I'll be more specific if that helps: The very first sentence says Family Historian version 7 introduces a new way of working with Sources and Citations , although it is possible (with a few customisations) to continue working in a similar way to Version 6 . IMO, it would be better to say Family ...

We’re getting a bit off the original topic, but a few things stuck out for me in the referenced KB page. “Method” looks fine in that context, and I don’t think it is likely to cause splitter/lumper confusion. However, right at the top it says you can carry on with an FH6 style of working with custom...

Robert, what you seem to be describing is Families without a Marriage. Why not just use the “Never married” option for the family? It’s simpler than creating a custom event.

For non unique items I agree. You don't need to identify where you viewed a source. For unique items you do. And since providers like ancestry and fmp use different images and indexes very often I wouldn't call them non unique. IMO, it's a case by case judgement, and more about whether the content ...

Mark, arthurk clearly stated that he would be converting his 'lumped' generic Source Citations into 'splitter' templated Source Citations No he didn't. What he said was "When I move to FH7 I am quite tempted to move to split census sources and include a tabulated transcription of each entry". It wo...

arthurk, you can combine them into a single entry in a Bibliography (e.g. "1851 census", with or without Ancestry, etc) simply by omitting the finer details from the Bibliography Format template. If Arthur' are like mine, all are generic sources with a typical title along the lines of "Census 1881:...

Exactly- the census is the source, and the website/url/date is how and when you accessed it. This discussion seems to be between two camps - those who want to record full details of how and when, and those who aren’t bothered (my analogy of which shelf in which library the printed book was on). Agai...

Helen, I think you have misinterpreted what I was saying, so apologies if I was not clear. By verification, I mean verifying that the source has been recorded accurately, not that the source information is correct. For me, an individual source citation is more about the former, not the latter. It is...

I only realised after reading it back afterwards that I got three homophones into one posting- cite, site, and sight...

I am a humble scientist by training, not an academic historian, so I’m struggling slightly with one key point here. Some sources are easily checked to verify the conclusions drawn, e.g. a Parish Register entry. Others are not. “Interview with granny on 1 Apr 1980” is not a verifiable source. Neither...

When you read through the links, bear in mind that they are written from a FH perspective (not unreasonably, the clue is in the name!). RM and FTM store their data in databases that handle the more complex relationships involved in lumping, so lumping works well in those products (indeed, FTM only l...

My understanding is that there is no "standard" way of representing superscripts relative to the main text, and it is largely under the control of the originating software. I think it is a fair complaint against FH that they have chosen an unusually small and difficult to read way of presenting them...

It doesn't help the display on screen, but superscript legibility is much better if you export the report as a RTF file and print or PDF from MS Word. See attached examples below. FH does seem to use an unusually illegible format for its superscripts. The Word default is much better, although other ...

but the GEDCOM posted by Mark here Re: Freeform citation in V7 ~ Sun 11th Apr 2021 20:58 does not contain any Footnote, Short Footnote and Bibliography templates. Those fields are in the Source Template definition window (off to the right of the area I captured), and are plain text fields. Unlike F...

It was fine up until today, but it's getting worse. I now can't fix the problem by restarting FH or even rebooting, and on one occasion the program crashed completely when I added a new fact. STOP PRESS - just received the following from CP, precisely 17 minutes after raising a support ticket - Than...

Odd misbehaviour from FH7.0.4 this morning. If I create a new fact, I am unable to add a source for that fact, and the new fact does not appear in the drop down list in the yellow source pane. Source addition defaults to "whole record". Restarting FH fixes it, but it soon comes back again. See scree...

I found another gotcha that tripped me up until I figured out what was happening. You define a multi-line string with something like S1 = 'Line 1\nLine 2\nLine 3' This displays each line on a new line, with no carriage return after the final line, so no blank lines in reports - all good. Copy that s...

Thanks Mike, these are all inherited from FH6, so no links. I’ll modify it to change all citations that match the clipboard contents. It’s better than what I have now, and probably the best that is possible.

I can see now why Jane limited her excellent plugin to formatting split source text!