Would it not work if one were to start a new file for her and then, when
her data is more complete, "merge" her into your database? (having
backed it up first) (:>)
Perk
*_Family History - Without the Proofs & Sources, it's only Mythology_
Researching: Clawson, Ford, Rohrer, Jenkins, & Kibbey - in Ohio and beyond
And: Black, Nichol, Webb, Flynn, & Millar - in Canada, the UK and Ireland.
Wait! Wait ! There's still more - Also: Hallsberg, Lundberg, & Laine, in
Sweden & Finland *
**
On 2/26/2016 12:01 PM, Boyd Miller wrote:
Jane,
There is no reason why you can't have her as an unlinked individual,
with all her own data, within your main database. She will show in the
name list, and can be linked when you find a connection but will
generally not show in any other lists or reports.
If you go to View > Trees > Refresh that you may find you already have
some floating individuals.
Boyd
On 27/02/2016 7:39 a.m., Jane Sarles wrote:
I have a prospect for the wife of an ancestor. I am 95% sure that
she is the right one,but not 100%. I should like to have a mini-data
base of just this couple and their ancestors and descendants to use
for research purposes while I try to verify their relationship.
I don't want to add her to my main data base, since I don't have her
documented, but I need her in my dummy data base so I can see the
broader picture and how she fits in.
Alternatively, I could put her in the main db, but in some special
way (color type, different font?) or some such designation. Would
that work better? Then I wouldn't have to re-type all her facts in
when I verify her.
Can anyone suggest how I might do this?
Jane S.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
--
_______________________________________________
LegacyUserGroup mailing list
[email protected]
to manage your subscription and unsubscribe
http://legacyusers.com/mailman/listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com
