web project card error: UNNAMED children

[John Yates]

I am using Reunion for Macintosh 12.0 (build 201114) to do a Reports -> Web Project. I have run into a problem where children show as UNNAMED on some of the web cards.

Is this a known issue?

Attached are screenshots of the family view for a person, and the web card showing children: UNNAMED.

The name should be: Duke of Lower Lorraine. It does get the year range for the child correct: 953-992.

The tree is from a GEDCOM export from Family Tree Maker, and I am struggling with finding a "proper" way to enter names and titles for Royalty. I suspect there is some issue with that tripping things up, but nonetheless, it seems the code should be more resilient. The child name is correct in the .familyfile but something is confusing the creation of the web card.

Thanks,
John

[John Yates]

More information. I just looked in FTM and the child's name is "Charles". I see his title is what came through the GEDCOM to Reunion "Duke of Lower Lorraine". So it didn't get the name "Charles". So maybe this is a GEDCOM export problem. I'll see if I can find the GECOM entry for this person in the file and post back.

[John Yates]

The GEDCOM has this for the two people in question (I added the = = = = = delimiters):

0 @I163@ INDI
1 NAME Louis // IV
2 SOUR @S9@
3 PAGE p. xxx.
3 DATA
4 TEXT A five volume set.
2 SOUR @S10@
3 PAGE p. yyy.
3 DATA
4 TEXT A two volume set.
1 SEX M
1 BIRT
2 DATE SEP 921
2 PLAC Reims, France
1 NAME Louis IV
2 TYPE aka
1 TITL King of France
1 DEAT
2 DATE 10 SEP 954
2 PLAC Reims, France
1 NOTE @N6@
1 FAMS @F100@
= = = = =
0 @I201@ INDI
1 NAME /Charles/
1 SEX M
1 BIRT
2 DATE 953
2 PLAC Laon, France
1 TITL Duke of Lower Lorraine
1 DEAT
2 DATE AFT 992
2 PLAC Orléans, France
1 FAMS @F120@
1 FAMC @F100@
= = = = =

So it seems that Reunion should have gotten "Charles"? It is in the GEDCOM.

[John Yates]

And anticipating the next question, here are the fields in FTM on how I ended up entering "Louis IV".

[Blaise A. Darveaux]

It might be useful to look in your GEDCOM again and search for the line 0 @F100@ FAM and see if there is a line under it that says 1 CHIL @I201@. If you don't see that line, that would indicate that Charles isn't linked to his father Louis in the GEDCOM.

[John Yates]

It might be useful to look in your GEDCOM again and search for the line 0 @F100@ FAM and see if there is a line under it that says 1 CHIL @I201@. If you don't see that line, that would indicate that Charles isn't linked to his father Louis in the GEDCOM.

It is there. See attachment.

[John Yates]

More testing. Since it seems to be // surnames that may be confusing the code, I tried this (fortunately, I am fluent with Unix scripting):

1. I found 19 entries in the GEDCOM that have surname of //
2. I wrote a script to replace all 19 with /BOGUS/
3. I imported this GEDCOM into Reunion 12.
4. I saved it as a web project.
5. I looked at Louis IV (Family Card - Person Sheet)
It has: Children UNNAMED (953->992)
Same error as before. But with:
Name King of France Louis BOGUS IV
6. So I counted the html files in ps01 that have UNNAMED in them:
10 html files with UNNAMED in them.
(so, as before, not all of the // surnames have the children
UNNAMED problem.

Attached are screen shots of:
1. the 19 now with surname BOGUS
2. the Louis IV UNNAMED result

Any clarity on where the bug is and how to fix this is welcome.

[Gregg]

Hi John,

Here is what I think is happening...

From your GEDCOM snippet...

0 @I201@ INDI
1 NAME /Charles/
1 SEX M
1 BIRT
2 DATE 953
2 PLAC Laon, France
1 TITL Duke of Lower Lorraine

Last name is "Charles"
Prefix title is "Duke of Lower Lorraine"
There is no given name for this person.

The person sheet report only reports the given name when listing children and since there is no given name for this child "Unnamed" appears.

Children on the family view in Reunion show as: prefix title / given name / suffix title.

For some reason, "Charles" which should be the given name was exported to the GEDCOM as the last name.

I hope that helps.

[Blaise A. Darveaux]

I just saw something that might be the cause. In the first bit of GEDCOM you presented the father was 1 NAME Louis // IV which is correct coding and it is correct on the web card. But for Charles it is 1 NAME /Charles/ which is someone with no first name and a last name of Charles. Why it was coded that way I have no idea. This is another avenue to explore.

Check to make sure Charles was put into the first name field and not in the last name field of the FTM file.

Edit: Greg beat me to it. I hadn't refreshed my screen to see his response. lol.

[John Yates]

Ah, these one name Royals do present a data entry dilemma. In FTM, if you just enter "Charles" in the name field, it becomes the surname. Apparently I overrode this in some cases, not all. One of my pet peeves of data entry is one field of data entry being parsed by an algorithm under the hood. It took me years to learn how to see the fields used after data entry for Name in FTM. (click in field, click on pencil icon that appears). Anyway, this "Charles" is in the surname part of the name. I can control that at its source in FTM. I'll write a script to parse all the NAME fields in the GEDCOM for given name and /surname/ and SUFFIX (any field after the /SURNAME/. And throw in any TITL. Analyzing this may lead me to a bulletproof practice of how to enter these for Royals that will be acceptable in Web Projects. Looks like I'd better collect TYPE aka (following some NAME fields) as well. (this may slip to a back burner, I've got some pressing deadlines looming).

[John Yates]

I wrote a script to find all GEDCOM entries that had a Surname and no GivenName. There were 14. I moved their Surnames to their GivenNames in FTM (they now have a null Surname). Exported to GEDCOM. Imported to Reunion 12. Generated a Web Project. Things look ok for Louis IV and Charles. I ran my script to find UNNAMED in the ps01 html files in the web tree. It found none. Am now deciding whether to make null surnames _____, [--?--], or leave them null. Anyway, Reunion's Web Project behavior seems to be fully understood now. Thanks.