Strange double entry for father and mother?

Strange double entry for father and mother ??

I did have an accident in deleting a record, and I could not find an ‘undo’ or ‘go back’ function.

But I manually entered the data. But I find on one set of father and mother it gives a double entry. Rebuit indexes and cleared phanton records, but the problem is still there. See video attached.

Any ideas please.

If you want an UNDO function, you’ll have to use a different genealogy program. RM does not have one, at least one other program that I know of has one. I can’t mention its name in this forum because the administrator will consider that advertising for one of their competitors.

This is a common issue. A child may be linked to one or both parents more than once. A couple may be linked to each other more than once. Search Help and this site for the word “unlink” to see lots of examples and approaches. Make a backup before you unlink in case you get adverse results that need a different approach.

Hi - I understand, RM sure could do with a UNDO and REDO

Anyhow, just exported GEDCOM into the other un-named program, and it shows the family correctly. So i exported that GEDCOM. Created new database in RM and imported GEDCOM back into that empty database in RM.

It still shows double entry for father and mother ??

Tomh - I will try the unlink, have tried deleteing but that creates more problems.

Unlinking does work. But when you try to relink, it just pushes the double family problem to the next generation back in time.

Unlinked the next 3 generations back in time, then relinked them all and it works. But all the ‘notes’ have dissappeared. Luckily copy/paste them all from the other un-named program.

Yes, by unlinking a couple, that ‘family’ record with its Note is deleted; the remaining couple ‘family’ does not receive the Note nor the links with children . Therefore. you need to move any Notes and linked children to the ongoing couple ‘family’ if they do not exist with it before unlinking the duplicated couple.

@gray and @TomH --so my question is why did the relink push the double family problem to the next generation as that is NOT typical when I’ve used unlink to fix a problem–it also does NOT make sense that you exported the gedcom to another un-named program and there was no double entry in it BUT when you imported the same gedcom back into a empty database in RM the double entry showed up again…

As an FYI for you , when entering data manually, NEVER use the PEDIGREE VIEW to add a new child to an existing family as it always creates a new family ( double entry) even if you select existing person–I always do it in the FAMILY VIEW ( others use the DESCENDANT VIEW) BUT in the FAMILY VIEW always add a child to an existing family-- DO NOT USE THE ADD PARENTS BOX if the couple are in the file with other children already as the ADD PARENTS BOX will cause a double entry also even if you select an existing person…

As for the UNDO/REDO BUTTON as a feature request being added to RM, I suggested that and most of the people on here vetoed the idea–said there was no reason to have one-- glad to see somebody else thinks it would be a good idea…

I wonder if you may have construed observations about how the database operates as opposition to the idea, rather than an explanation as to why it cannot be done. Both are wrong. Undo/Redo is universally desired (who would not want it?) and other family tree applications that use the same database engine do have the feature. SQLite itself does not have an inherent undo/redo but the apps have built such capability on top of it.

1 Like

I would not want it! I think it is a pointless programming exercise especially when there are so many more features more deserving of the coding time. I am assuming in your archive of the old message board, you have then hundreds of feature requests that date back over the years, at least half of which would be far more useful and relevant.

As for other products using the same DB engine, to the best of my knowledge there is only one and it is not a classical UNDO button but is instead more along the lines of Windows checkpoints where you select one and everything that happened after that checkpoint gets rolled back. I can only imagine how many people will pooch that type of feature by not understanding what they will lose if the elect to rollback.

From a recent post by Renee, it would seem that future feature requests are in part guided by how many support tickets that feature would cause. If I were a betting man, I would bet on at least 5 digits worth.