GENBOX-L ArchivesArchiver > GENBOX > 2004-03 > 1078251947
From: Don Zochert <>
Subject: Re: [GENBOX] Places (again)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 12:25:58 -0600
References: <FFEBLNNBNENFDKOPJEBPKEEDEKAA.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4044C94A.email@example.com>
Don Zochert wrote:
> 1. Can you combine two of the variants? (If you delete a variant name,
> aren't the sub-records linked to that variant then linked to the
> standard name automatically?)
> 2. If you have a standard name (123 Graveney Road, with a higher level
> of Upper Tooting) and a variant name (123 Graveney Road, with no higher
> levels) and you combine them by deleting the variant name listing, will
> the place then appear with a higher level on event or source records
> formerly linked to the variant?
To partially answer my own questions...
It appears you can combine two variants:
1. Make the preferred variant the standard name by dragging it to
the top of the name list.
2. Delete the unwanted variant name. Records linked to that name
will now be linked to the standard name (the desired variant).
3. Restore the original standard name to its rightful place by
dragging it (it's currently a variant) back to the top of the
As for writing the preferred name back to the linked records, I seem to
have had mixed results.:
(a) I deleted a name variant, which redirected its linked records
to the standard name. When I then went to one of the linked
records, the place field was now empty. The contents were
deleted? I entered the name as I wanted it to appear, which
was neither as the standard name for this place nor any of
the variants. No cigar; it autofilled to the standard name. In
the place field of this record I then deleted the part of the
standard name I didn't want (all the high place info) and was
obliged to go through a confusing confirm dialogue. ("Add
marked places?" it asked. "What do you mean 'marked places'?"
I asked.) I finally answered "Yes" and the place field was
autofilled to the standard name. Not wanted.
(b) I combined variant names using the procedure above and the
preferred variant name appears to have been written to the
sub-records previously linked to the unwanted variant
name. Desired result.
I'm not sure I underrrrrrrstand it.