On the 'family group' view, when no children have yet been researched/added to a couple, or when I just don't want to research the family any further it says
'Children
no recorded children'
I have had people email me to say that I am wrong - that there are recorded (ie registered) children. They think that this statement means that I am saying that the couple never had any children. So - can I change the wording to make it more explanatory - something like 'no children researched'? If so, how do I do that? Or would it be better to ask the developers to make a change in the software?
Thanks
Maz
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
This has been discussed in the help forum previously, as well as a recent developers discussion. Yes, change it to whatever you wish using a lang.extra file.
It used to say "No Known Children", the we changed it to the more correct "No Recorded Children", as you may not have researched that line or know of existing children. It was changed back to Known, and now simply say No Children (in SVN), a truly factual statement, but somewhat misleading to some. My site continues to read (using extra):
" Children: This lineage is not currently extended and may not be known."
-Stephen
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Anonymous
-
2010-02-08
I agree. On my site I have changed it to "No children recorded here" , but you can use what ever you like
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
<<I have had people email me to say that I am wrong - that there are recorded (ie registered) children.>>
Or just ask the person?
"Really!? I didn't know. How many? Can you let me have their names/details…?"
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Anonymous
-
2010-02-08
Thanks for your suggestions. I've changed the wording to 'This lineage is not currently extended and may not be known', AND asked the person if they can supply the names/details.
Maz
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Maz,
Are you using a Gedcom tag or just Note to add this info? I have 3 scenarios: where there are actually no children borne to the couple; where I don't know if there are any; or where I've not entered them yet.
For the first, I'm using the Number of Children = 0 which I really don't like but have been told it's the proper Gedcom to use. But, what about the other two, similar to yours?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Anonymous
-
2010-02-09
Mac
I'm not using either of those things. My problem (or rather my users' problem) was that they misinterpreted a line of text that is generated by PGV itself. This line of text is generated regardless of the reason why there is no children entered, and says 'no children recorded' which they took to mean that the couple never had any children, when the reason why there are no children recorded could well be that, but could also be that I don't know of any, or that I haven't yet entered any. I have edited the code so that it now says 'This lineage is not currently extended and may not be known" instead of 'No children recorded', which I think explains the situation a bit better, plus I think I am more likely to get people volunteering their own information about the children.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
What is "family group view"? The report doesn't reproduce this. I'm trying to do so as I too want to avoid ambiguity. There again, it'll probably be addressed by that time :)
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Mac
Report? Family group view was Maz's terminology for any of the FAMILY pages which display Children, Parents and G-Parents.
……//family.php?famid=FXXX&ged=xxxxxx.ged
Stephen
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Sorry for confusion as I didn't know F### page makes comment about children for a marriage not listing any. I just created a "access only" account and now see what Maz refers to. "No recorded children" I concur, is misleading given one of 3 options would exist: truly no kids, none known about, known but not entered. So even kiwi's "No children recorded here" wouldn't cover w/o listing the 3 reasons, IMHO. (Although the Gedcom tag for 0 children could eliminate one, but that must be known for certain.)
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Mac
You miss the point. Gedcom is supposed to reflect Known/Proven facts, not suppositions or guesses.
If, under your 3 scenarios, you know that there was no issue to this union, then the proper tag for the FAM is NCHI 0. If you do this known fact, the words change to NO CHILDREN, rather than "No recorded children".
The statement of No Recorded Children, or in my case, "Children: This lineage is not currently extended and may not be known." adequately covers the only remaining options. In some cases, I may actually have already recorded in SOUR or NOTE an extension of the family but have not yet had time to extend the gedcom. With many thousands of remote lines, I'm still trying to complete my own lines before branching too far asunder. In other cases, I'm hoping that GOOGLERS will find the line and offer extensions, which happens about 1-2 times per week.
Stephen
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Anonymous
-
2010-02-09
No Worries Macalter. I ended up settling for the following terminology where, for any reason, there are no children listed:
'This lineage is not currently extended and may not be known. Please use the email link below if you can provide further information.' I take your point re Gedcom tag for 0 children. I've never used that one before but will certainly do it from now on when I know for sure there are no ankle biters.
Maz
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Meliza:
Not "all of us" are in agreement on this. Better to leave things as they are, and those who don't like the wording of the text can supply their own in the extra.en.php file.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
On the 'family group' view, when no children have yet been researched/added to a couple, or when I just don't want to research the family any further it says
'Children
no recorded children'
I have had people email me to say that I am wrong - that there are recorded (ie registered) children. They think that this statement means that I am saying that the couple never had any children. So - can I change the wording to make it more explanatory - something like 'no children researched'? If so, how do I do that? Or would it be better to ask the developers to make a change in the software?
Thanks
Maz
This has been discussed in the help forum previously, as well as a recent developers discussion. Yes, change it to whatever you wish using a lang.extra file.
It used to say "No Known Children", the we changed it to the more correct "No Recorded Children", as you may not have researched that line or know of existing children. It was changed back to Known, and now simply say No Children (in SVN), a truly factual statement, but somewhat misleading to some. My site continues to read (using extra):
" Children: This lineage is not currently extended and may not be known."
-Stephen
I agree. On my site I have changed it to "No children recorded here" , but you can use what ever you like
<<I have had people email me to say that I am wrong - that there are recorded (ie registered) children.>>
Or just ask the person?
"Really!? I didn't know. How many? Can you let me have their names/details…?"
Thanks for your suggestions. I've changed the wording to 'This lineage is not currently extended and may not be known', AND asked the person if they can supply the names/details.
Maz
Maz,
Are you using a Gedcom tag or just Note to add this info? I have 3 scenarios: where there are actually no children borne to the couple; where I don't know if there are any; or where I've not entered them yet.
For the first, I'm using the Number of Children = 0 which I really don't like but have been told it's the proper Gedcom to use. But, what about the other two, similar to yours?
Mac
I'm not using either of those things. My problem (or rather my users' problem) was that they misinterpreted a line of text that is generated by PGV itself. This line of text is generated regardless of the reason why there is no children entered, and says 'no children recorded' which they took to mean that the couple never had any children, when the reason why there are no children recorded could well be that, but could also be that I don't know of any, or that I haven't yet entered any. I have edited the code so that it now says 'This lineage is not currently extended and may not be known" instead of 'No children recorded', which I think explains the situation a bit better, plus I think I am more likely to get people volunteering their own information about the children.
What is "family group view"? The report doesn't reproduce this. I'm trying to do so as I too want to avoid ambiguity. There again, it'll probably be addressed by that time :)
Mac
Report? Family group view was Maz's terminology for any of the FAMILY pages which display Children, Parents and G-Parents.
……//family.php?famid=FXXX&ged=xxxxxx.ged
Stephen
Sorry for confusion as I didn't know F### page makes comment about children for a marriage not listing any. I just created a "access only" account and now see what Maz refers to. "No recorded children" I concur, is misleading given one of 3 options would exist: truly no kids, none known about, known but not entered. So even kiwi's "No children recorded here" wouldn't cover w/o listing the 3 reasons, IMHO. (Although the Gedcom tag for 0 children could eliminate one, but that must be known for certain.)
Mac
You miss the point. Gedcom is supposed to reflect Known/Proven facts, not suppositions or guesses.
If, under your 3 scenarios, you know that there was no issue to this union, then the proper tag for the FAM is NCHI 0. If you do this known fact, the words change to NO CHILDREN, rather than "No recorded children".
The statement of No Recorded Children, or in my case, "Children: This lineage is not currently extended and may not be known." adequately covers the only remaining options. In some cases, I may actually have already recorded in SOUR or NOTE an extension of the family but have not yet had time to extend the gedcom. With many thousands of remote lines, I'm still trying to complete my own lines before branching too far asunder. In other cases, I'm hoping that GOOGLERS will find the line and offer extensions, which happens about 1-2 times per week.
Stephen
No Worries Macalter. I ended up settling for the following terminology where, for any reason, there are no children listed:
'This lineage is not currently extended and may not be known. Please use the email link below if you can provide further information.' I take your point re Gedcom tag for 0 children. I've never used that one before but will certainly do it from now on when I know for sure there are no ankle biters.
Maz
Why not update the en language file for all of us?
Meliza:
Not "all of us" are in agreement on this. Better to leave things as they are, and those who don't like the wording of the text can supply their own in the extra.en.php file.