* New Pre-release: 6.1.3

[tatewise]

The important point about the Julian Dates is that it changed on introduction of FH V6.0 without any explanation, having been different in V2 through V5.

[LornaCraig]

Lorna, you can move to any Citation in the yellow Sources For pane via the drop-list at the top without even being on the Facts tab never mind selecting a Fact. You just open the Sources For drop-list and choose any item with an asterisk *.

Ah, of course I had forgotten that . But I think this makes the behaviour of the Show Media button in the Facts toolbar even more confusing. If you switch from one fact's sources/citations to another fact's sources/citations in the Source pane and then click Show Media in the Facts toolbar the View Media dialog will display Media for Citation for the latter fact. So it will be displaying the wrong selection of Media (it should display Media for Fact) and for a fact that is not selected at all in the Facts list.

This doesn't sit well with the claim that "Various enhancements have been made to the way the Show Media dialog interacts with the Property Box, to ensure that it always behaves as you would expect."

[tatewise]

I totally agree, I think this is a similar bug/mistake as the one for the Source For cog. The wrong item selection is governing the button action.

[tatewise]

New & Enhanced Features in 6.1.* still does not mention the way the Media icons now behave in the Facts tab More column and in the yellow Source For pane.

PLEASE, PLEASE can it be renamed the Citations For pane.

As expected, none of the earlier reported Help issues have changed.

[LornaCraig]

PLEASE, PLEASE can it be renamed the Citations For pane.

I don't suppose there will ever be universal agreement about this. I use a mixture of Method 1 and Method 2 for Sources, but always use Method 1 when I have media for the Source. I am happy for the yellow pane to continue to be called the Source Pane, and for it to be headed Sources for, because I think of it as a list of Sources for a given fact. Each Source can be selected in turn and its citation details examined, but it is the Source itself that is of most interest. People who mainly or exclusively use Method 2 probably think of it as a list of Citations for a given fact, because it is the Citation that is of most interest.

[tatewise]

But the point is that all the fields on that yellow pane are Citation fields. They are replicated for every Citation and distinct from the Source record itself, which confusingly for some also has a Text From Source and Note field. As I see it, you are adding a Citation of a Source record. The button does actually say Add Citation!

[NickiP]

As Lorna says, there is unlikely to be any universal agreement over the yellow pane. I also use a mixture of Method 1 and Method 2, but consider the yellow pane to be only for Sources unless the "Where within Source" has some text entered in it (which obviously relates to a Citation). Now with easy access to adding media to Source Citations as well as Sources, I've decided to add media to some Citations where the Source is shared between more than one Fact but where I only want the media to show against one of the Facts. In this situation, I don't actually add any text to the "Where within Source" and it usually relates to where I've created a custom Fact for, eg., a Marriage Witness, rather than use the Witness Role on a Marriage Fact because of the order the Sources appear in Narrative Reports. I prefer the Source Media in Narrative Reports appearing against a grouping of Sources for the Principal(s) rather than a Witness who appears first in the Report (Ancestor or Descendant). While I appreciate that many make think this a bit disjointed, its just a way I have decided to work.

While I understand Mike's train of thought, if many FH user are using Ancestral Sources to enter data and sources anyway, it isn't likely to be as confusing for them as perhaps it is thought. If they look at the Source Pane after having used AS to enter the data, it will be more obvious for them what it relates too. For someone like me who doesn't use AS at all and enters all data manually, the new features are very welcome.

That said, I agree the "Add Citation" button label perhaps needs changing to better reflect what it is for, namely to add a Source which can then have a Citation created by entering Text in the "Where within Source" box.

[tatewise]

It is actually a GEDCOM concept. All those yellow pane fields are GEDCOM Citation fields that are as much a part of the Fact as the Date, Age, Place, and Address fields. They all reside in the Individual (or Family) record, and all provide details about the Citation.

For example, the Assessment field defines the 'quality' of the Source Citation with regard to that particular Fact. Whereas, another Citation of the same Source record can have a different Assessment in the context of a different Fact. As an illustration, a Census Event can a have a Citation with Assessment of Primary evidence for a Census Source document because that is indisputable evidence of the Census Return itself. Whereas a Birth Event can a have a Citation with Assessment of say Unreliable for the same Census Source document, because the Census Birth Place and Age details are notoriously unreliable.

The Add Citation button does just that. It can simply cite an existing Source record, in which case only Citation fields are created. That initial Citation dialogue does just offer to Select Source... not create Source. You have to click the New button to create a New Source Record.

[mjashby]

Julian Date 'Bug' or problem.

TimTreeby wrote:

"I would have to disagree that there is actually a BUG with Julian Dating. As some countries used Julian Dating and had 1st of Jan as the Start of New Year. (e.g Scotland from 1600 to 1752, had New Year start on 1st of Jan and was using Julian Calendar). Also not every document created in England and Wales used the Civil year on dating, so some documents could well be dated say 10 Feb 1742, when in reality it should of said 10 Feb 1741. This is actually noted in the Calendar Act, as to why the Date was changed."

Yes Scotland did adopt 1 January and Gregorian style Calendar dating from the start of the year from 1600 (probably due to a strong Catholic influence), which was why I specifically mentioned England. In fact. England and the rest of the 'British Empire' due to both political and Church of England allegiance, including all of North America (Canada and the present USA) plus the rest of the Empire worldwide didn't adopt the Gregorian Calendar until 1752; and the vast majority of records used for genealogical purposes including Church records. Manorial Records, Taxes, land transfers/leases etc. etc. back to the Norman Conquest are based on an administrative year which commenced on 25 March.

My real point is that if FH is to include and respect a Julian Calendar feature then it MUST accept the fact that the Administrative Calendar Year started on 25 March, not 1st January, when that calendar was applied; and that under such circumstances, there was no such concept as dual dating ('Old' Style'/'New Style') until long after many of the events were actually recorded, e.g. It is very clumsy to have explain to someone, how an individual managed to sign a Will on their deathbed several months after they were buried(!) and none of the supporting documentary evidence used 'double-dating'.

The fact that other countries changed Calendars at different times isn't really a factor if the software works correctly as users 'simply' have to remember to stop applying Julian dating when citing dates from 1 Jan 1600 onwards for records from Scotland; and from the start of the appropriate year for countries outside British Empire that were affected by the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar from different years.

Mervyn

[LornaCraig]

Crucially, on this date issue FH is not following its own rules. The Help files say:

Before 1752, England and the American colonies used March 25th as New Year’s Day.

Tools > Preferences > General tab offers a choice of 1582 or 1752 for the change over date, and the Help files say :

Apart from affecting the way that days-of-the-week are calculated, the only other practical effect of changing the ‘changeover date’ setting is that it will affect which warnings you may get when you enter dates.

[TimTreeby]

Mervyn,
You misunderstood about Scotland. They used the Julian Calendar up until 1752, but had 1st Jan as New Years Day from 1600.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_calendar for when countries changed New Years Day and moved to Gregorian, and most made changes at different times.

Moving New Year to 1st of Jan was not specifically for the Gregorian Calendar, it just happens that we changed both at the same time. Also if you read what I posted then even in the ACT for changing the Calendar they noted that some people may of been using 1st of Jan as New Year where as most others were using 25th Mar.

[AdrianBruce]

... there was no such concept as dual dating ('Old' Style'/'New Style') until long after many of the events were actually recorded ...

I agree that FH has broken its own pre-V6 rules re Julian calendar handling. However, dual dating is found in original documents in England before 1752. There are even documents using 1 January as the start of the New Year before 1752. I think the summary is:

• Scotland pre 1600 - Julian calendar and New Year officially starts 25 March (I have no knowledge of dual dating or anything in Scotland);
• Scotland 1600-1752 - Julian calendar and New Year officially starts 1 Jan;
• Scotland post-1752 - Gregorian calendar and New Year starts 1 Jan;
• England pre 1752 - Julian calendar and New Year officially starts 25 March - dual dating occasionally found;
• England (not Scotland as I originally wrote!) post-1752 - Gregorian calendar and New Year starts 1 Jan;

And if you want to be really confused, after 1752, some people actually altered their birth-dates. According to the SoG booklet, George Washington was born 11 Feb 1731/32 according to contemporary references but after 1752 gave his birth-date as 22 Feb 1732!

[SimonOrde]

I can confirm that there is a bug with the menu button on the toolbar of the Source pane. It checks citation and fact media instead of citation and Source record media as it should. This affects both the greying of the menu, and the list of media in the submenu "Open Media in Editor/Player". We also agree that if you click on the 'Show Media' button on the toolbar in the Fact tab of the Property Box, it should always show media for the currently selected fact (i.e. as it will do now if the fact list already has the keyboard 'focus'). We also agree that, as Nationality and Origin are distinguished in FTM, they should continue to be distinguished when these are imported into FH. All of these issues will be fixed in time for the official release. Thank you everyone who pointed them out.

[LornaCraig]

Thank you for the above, Simon.

There is an issue that has been outstanding since v6.0.
When adding a link to a Place record from the Media Window there are still no Filter or Record ID boxes in the ‘Select Place’ dialog, for quick location of the required record. There is a field labelled Place at the bottom of the dialog but nothing can be typed into it and it only becomes populated when a Place is selected in the list.

The Filter and Record ID boxes appear in the dialog when linking to an Individual, Family or Source record from the Media Window, so why not when linking to a Place record? (And to conform to the pattern for the other record types the dialog should be headed 'Select place to link to'.)

I realise time is probably short, but please is there any chance of getting these boxes added?

[tatewise]

Yes, it would be useful to know your outline release plans Simon.

I suspect you want to formally release say FH V6.1.4 as soon as possible to satisfy FTM/Ancestry migrants.

But do you then intend to follow that up with further bug fix releases for all the other outstanding issues, and perhaps a new Book?

[johnmorrisoniom]

I had thought that my ssues with FH crashing had gone. I had realised it was only happening on my laptop, so I uninstalled the reinstalled and all seemed OK. However since updating to to 6.1.3 I am getting completely random "FH has stopped working and has to shut down" on both my desktop and laptop, and even if I am not actually using FH but just have it opening while I am using the internet. The only thing I can think of that would cause this is the new snapshot feature.

[tatewise]

John, if I remember correctly, you have very large Projects, and that may be the cause.
If you disable Automatic snaphots in Tools > Preferences > File Load/Save does the problem go away?

[Valkrider]

I am not certain whether this is normal behaviour or not BUT it does exist in this version.

If I start entering a place then it is auto completed. Say the auto completion is Richmond, Surrey, England. However the source record for the entry actually says Richmond, Middlesex, England. Normal Windows behaviour is to double click on a word in this case Surrey and it highlights the whole word and it can be over typed. However, in 6.1.3 double clicking on the word Surrey opens the Place List dialog. This is surely incorrect behaviour whether it is unique to 6.1.3 or earlier version?

[AdrianBruce]

... Normal Windows behaviour is to double click on a word in this case Surrey and it highlights the whole word and it can be over typed. ...

Oooh, err. That's a bit subtle. In fact, it's hardly alone in that behaviour....

Double click the name of a month in a date and it opens the Date Entry Assistant.

Double click a word in an occupation and it opens the Occupation List box.

Double click a word in the Note item of the Individual's Fact tab and it opens a "Note" window. (That one does annoy me, innumerable times, as the Note window is normally little different from the size and shape of the Note item, so I've achieved nothing!)

If I could make up an explanation (or excuse?) - double clicking a word leading to the highlighting of that word is the behaviour of a standard text box. These are not standard text boxes - though arguably there ought to be some subtle hint of that. In the case of the Note item on the Individual's Fact tab, there is, and it's the "..." on the vertical bar.

Actually, there is an issue linked with the behaviour quoted for the place-name above. Double clicking brings up the Place List dialogue, as pointed out. If you then double click the place-name at the top of this dialogue, in the box labelled "Find:", it just brings up a new Place List dialogue box, planted exactly over the top of the previous one. I'm not sure what ought to happen - either highlight the word for amending the currently selected location in the Find box or bring up the View/Edit Place Details box. But bringing up the same window exactly on top of itself isn't expected or helpful.

[tatewise]

In defense of FH, if you hover the cursor in any of those boxes, they do display a [...] button on the right.

[AdrianBruce]

... if you hover the cursor in any of those boxes ...

Oh, so they do. I have a feeling there was once a suggestion that the "..." button only appeared at the cursor-over stage in order to reveal a bit more screen area for the value in the normal circumstance.

It's not an issue that bugs me too much - apart from double clicking a word in the Note item of the Individual's Fact tab and it opening a "Note" window instead of selecting the word... And there I've got a permanent "..." button / bar to give me a clue that it's different, yet it doesn't appear to be sinking in to my brain.... Users? - huh!