I don't wish to have just her standing alone. To research the
connection I will need her children's names and details, and her
husbands information. Sort of a total picture of everything I know about
the prospective family. Then I will be researching their children's
death records, obits, land, etc. so will need their information to be
all together so I don't have to keep looking back and forth . I guess a
family group report would give me everything to help the research, but
can't get one together unless I have her as wife to the family.
I am having a hard time making this clear. I like the idea of a new
mini-data base, but am not sure how to get there without re=inputting
everything on the husband and children. Perhaps do a focus group of the
husband, his parents, and the children of the father. Then I could just
put in the prospective wife by hand.
Jane S.
On 2/26/2016 5:46 PM, Perk Bingham wrote:
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 sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
--
_______________________________________________
LegacyUserGroup mailing list
[email protected]
to manage your subscription and unsubscribe
http://legacyusers.com/mailman/listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com
