Yes, if you look earlier in that thread, you will see once you have created a census/source, you can select the people on the census and then apply it to all of them.
-
Only registered members can see all the forums - if you've received an invitation to join (it'll be on your My Summary page) please register NOW!
-
It's easier than ever before to check your entries from the 1881 Census - more details here
FTAnalyzer and GenoPro
- Thread starter Bryman
- Start date
Yes, if you look earlier in that thread, you will see once you have created a census/source, you can select the people on the census and then apply it to all of them.
Bryman
LostCousins Megastar
How should this situation be handled? I don't know if this is my wrong specification or a misinterpretation within FTA.
While married, a man gets a woman (other than his wife) to have his baby.
I have recorded the relationship without any marriage fact and the GEDCOM report file contains . . .
0 @fam00022@ FAM
1 HUSB @ind00045@
1 WIFE @ind00053@
1 EVEN
2 TYPE Casual relationship or dating (short-term)
FTA then treats this as a marriage although it is not. Does anyone have any suggestions?
While married, a man gets a woman (other than his wife) to have his baby.
I have recorded the relationship without any marriage fact and the GEDCOM report file contains . . .
0 @fam00022@ FAM
1 HUSB @ind00045@
1 WIFE @ind00053@
1 EVEN
2 TYPE Casual relationship or dating (short-term)
FTA then treats this as a marriage although it is not. Does anyone have any suggestions?
Can you explain how FTA "treats this as a marriage". What exactly is displayed that says it's a marriage? I suspect I've not done enough to deal with family facts where there is no marriage. However more information on what you are seeing and what you'd expect would help narrow down where the problem is.
Bryman
LostCousins Megastar
Sorry, I was trying to be concise and economical (and lazy?).
The GEDCOM output for both relationships with the husband is:
I suspect that GenoPro lists HUSB and WIFE for all relationships although quite what it will do in future with same sex marriages is anybody's guess. There is no mention of marriage nor date for the casual relationship.
Does the GEDCOM specification allow other identifiers such as PARTner, MISTress or LOVEr, etc? If not, then GenoPro has no other option.
FTA shows ind00053 as Wife under Families tab but without marriage date.
FTA shows both husband and mistress as blue for Marriage No 1 in BMD report (sorts first because no date?).
FTA shows husband as green for Marriage No 2 in BMD report.
FTA shows wife as green for Marriage No 1 in BMD report.
FTA shows both husband and wife as Direct Ancestor under Relation in Census report.
FTA shows mistress as Marr to Direct/Blood under Relation in Census report.
Perhaps FTA could introduce a description of PARTner or UNMArried on reports where marriage does not exist?
Such unmarried relationships are becoming increasingly popular, at least in NZ where the law seems to confer most marital rights to partners after just two years of co-habitation.
The GEDCOM output for both relationships with the husband is:
Code:
0 @fam00020@ FAM
1 HUSB @ind00045@
1 WIFE @ind00046@
1 CHIL @ind00047@
1 CHIL @ind00048@
1 CHIL @ind00049@
1 CHIL @ind00050@
1 CHIL @ind00051@
1 CHIL @ind00027@
1 MARR
2 DATE 15 OCT 1839
2 TYPE Religious Marriage
2 PLAC St Botolph without Aldgate, London, England
2 NOTE 1839 - Marriage Reg: Qtr 4 Vol 2 Page 183
0 @fam00022@ FAM
1 HUSB @ind00045@
1 WIFE @ind00053@
1 EVEN
2 TYPE Casual relationship or dating (short-term)Does the GEDCOM specification allow other identifiers such as PARTner, MISTress or LOVEr, etc? If not, then GenoPro has no other option.
FTA shows ind00053 as Wife under Families tab but without marriage date.
FTA shows both husband and mistress as blue for Marriage No 1 in BMD report (sorts first because no date?).
FTA shows husband as green for Marriage No 2 in BMD report.
FTA shows wife as green for Marriage No 1 in BMD report.
FTA shows both husband and wife as Direct Ancestor under Relation in Census report.
FTA shows mistress as Marr to Direct/Blood under Relation in Census report.
Perhaps FTA could introduce a description of PARTner or UNMArried on reports where marriage does not exist?
Such unmarried relationships are becoming increasingly popular, at least in NZ where the law seems to confer most marital rights to partners after just two years of co-habitation.
Hmmm yes I can see that most of this is from the headings used on the forms. Internally its just storing the IDs of the people in the family. It simply displays a heading of Husband and Wife as convenient rather than trying to be meaningful. The absence of a marriage fact is a perfectly valid thing to query and show as red as it could simply have been you forgot to enter the marriage details.
What I need to consider though is what constitutes a KNOWN non-marriage. ie: something that's universal across GEDCOM - I wonder if there is something in the standard. I'll need to re-read it.
Then what I can do is if there is a means of identifying a known non-marriage, eg: you are aware they never married and only created a child together for instance. Then I could mark that as GREEN as you'd entered something to signify that you KNOW there is no marriage thus the program shouldn't be suggesting you need to find one.
A bit of investigation required I think. If there is a standard I'd rather use that than adopt something that won't work for other programs. I know in FTM 2014 that there is a "partners" fact you can put against a family but I'm not at all sure if that isn't just some custom tag. What we really need is a standard.
What I need to consider though is what constitutes a KNOWN non-marriage. ie: something that's universal across GEDCOM - I wonder if there is something in the standard. I'll need to re-read it.
Then what I can do is if there is a means of identifying a known non-marriage, eg: you are aware they never married and only created a child together for instance. Then I could mark that as GREEN as you'd entered something to signify that you KNOW there is no marriage thus the program shouldn't be suggesting you need to find one.
A bit of investigation required I think. If there is a standard I'd rather use that than adopt something that won't work for other programs. I know in FTM 2014 that there is a "partners" fact you can put against a family but I'm not at all sure if that isn't just some custom tag. What we really need is a standard.