Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

moving sources

Expand Messages
  • Margaret Thompson
    I love the option to be able to move sources to FT. Does anyone know (Gaylon?) if/when we will be able to move sources for marriages and sources from the
    Message 1 of 9 , Sep 26, 2013
      I love the option to be able to move sources to FT. Does anyone know (Gaylon?) if/when we will be able to move sources for marriages and sources from the ”record”? I have saved the large majority of my sources (census, books, general sources) to the individual, not the event. I would love to be able to move those to FT.
       
      Thank you for all your help.
       
      Margaret
    • Peter
      Hi, just reserved several families for temple ordinances and noticed that all the Baptism and Endowment date fields are properly marked as Sub 26 Sep 2013
      Message 2 of 9 , Sep 26, 2013
        Hi,
        just reserved several families for temple ordinances and noticed that all the Baptism and Endowment date fields are properly marked as "Sub 26 Sep 2013"
        However all the reserved sealings have not been updated.  Right click on each reserved name and selecting the "Review with FamilySearch" option brings up the FT ordinances and all show "Reserved" as it supposed to do.

        AQ however failed to update the sealing date fields with  "Sub 26 Sep 2013"
        Anybody else see the same thing?

         Peter


      • Gaylon Findlay
        Margaret: We re working on these now. It shouldn t be much longer. Gaylon ... From: Margaret Thompson To: AQ_NFS
        Message 3 of 9 , Sep 26, 2013
          Margaret:

          We're working on these now. It shouldn't be much longer.

          Gaylon




          From: "Margaret Thompson" <megann-fh@...>
          To: "AQ_NFS" <AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 4:12:37 PM
          Subject: [AQ_NFS] moving sources



          I love the option to be able to move sources to FT. Does anyone know (Gaylon?) if/when we will be able to move sources for marriages and sources from the ”record”? I have saved the large majority of my sources (census, books, general sources) to the individual, not the event. I would love to be able to move those to FT.
           
          Thank you for all your help.
           
          Margaret



        • thomas_nevin_huber
          This may be a bug, since I haven t reserved any names under the latest update, the names. But in checking my batch files, there appear to be some changes in
          Message 4 of 9 , Sep 26, 2013
            This may be a bug, since I haven't reserved any names under the latest
            update, the names. But in checking my batch files, there appear to be
            some changes in the way the system is marking names.

            Under "Update LDS Temple Ordinances" in the ORTS (Ordinance
            Reservation and Tracking System), make sure the "Update from
            "Submitted (with date)" to "In Progress" is checked. Then rerun the
            Update Ordinances.

            Note that until the temple picks up the names (for those submitted to
            the temple), they show as Reserved. Once the temple picks up the
            names, they show as In Process. This allows you to "unreserve" a name
            and then reserve it for you to do the work.

            Right now, it appears that all names that you have reserved for you,
            and printed a FOR for, are now marked as "In Progress". Previously
            these, were marked as "Reserved" only. If you have not printed the
            FOR, but have reserved the name, it should appear as "Reserved".

            I suspect that I need to check Gaylon's notes on this release to see
            what is actually happening.

            Tom

            On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:27:48 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:

            >Hi,
            >just reserved several families for temple ordinances and noticed that all the Baptism and Endowment date fields are properly marked as "Sub 26 Sep 2013"
            >However all the reserved sealings have not been updated.  Right click on each reserved name and selecting the "Review with FamilySearch" option brings up the FT ordinances and all show "Reserved" as it supposed to do.
            >
            >AQ however failed to update the sealing date fields with  "Sub 26 Sep 2013"
            >Anybody else see the same thing?
            >
            >
            > Peter
          • Peter
            Tom, I totally am lost on the reply you posted.  Why would you presume things if I clearly stated that I only reserved the names? No FOR was printed and No
            Message 5 of 9 , Sep 26, 2013
              Tom, I totally am lost on the reply you posted.  Why would you presume things if I clearly stated that I only reserved the names?
              No FOR was printed and No names where assigned to the temple.


              From: "tomhuber.yah@..." <tomhuber.yah@...>
              To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:38:41 PM
              Subject: Re: [AQ_NFS] Failed to update Sub date

               
              >This may be a bug, since I haven't reserved any names under the latest
              >update, the names. But in checking my batch files, there appear to be
              >some changes in the way the system is marking names.

              >Under "Update LDS Temple Ordinances" in the ORTS (Ordinance
              >Reservation and Tracking System), make sure the "Update from
              "Submitted (with date)" to "In Progress" is checked. Then rerun the
              >Update Ordinances.
              If that is so why would the Baptism and Endowments have the proper "Sub 26 Sep 2013" added, but this date has not been added to the sealing fields? The sealing fields are totally blank in my AQ data but all show "Reserved" in FT

              >Note that until the temple picks up the names (for those submitted to
              >the temple), they show as Reserved. Once the temple picks up the
              >names, they show as In Process. This allows you to "unreserve" a name
              >and then reserve it for you to do the work.
              At no time did I say I assigned the names to the temple file.  All are reserved in my name.  Even so, if this was thru why would the Baptism and Endowment have the proper "Sub 26 Sep 2013" added to the AQ data and have "Reserved" showing on FT?

              >Right now, it appears that all names that you have reserved for you,
              >and printed a FOR for, are now marked as "In Progress". Previously
              >these, were marked as "Reserved" only. If you have not printed the
              >FOR, but have reserved the name, it should appear as "Reserved".
              At no time did I say I printed the FOR.  Like I made clear in my original post I only reserved the names with AQ and did nothing else.  If I had printed the FOR and ran the update the "Sub 26 Sep 2013" in B and E would have changed to "In Progress"  too.  It did not.


              On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:27:48 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:

              >Hi,
              >just reserved several families for temple ordinances and noticed that all the Baptism and Endowment date fields are properly marked as "Sub 26 Sep 2013"
              >However all the reserved sealings have not been updated.  Right click on each reserved name and selecting the "Review with FamilySearch" option brings up the FT ordinances and all show "Reserved" as it supposed to do.
              >
              >AQ however failed to update the sealing date fields with  "Sub 26 Sep 2013"
              >Anybody else see the same thing?
              >
              >
              > Peter


            • thomas_nevin_huber
              Appears to be a bug, then. (You did not state that you had only reserved the names, just that you had reserved them. You did not indicate that you had done
              Message 6 of 9 , Sep 27, 2013
                Appears to be a bug, then.

                (You did not state that you had "only" reserved the names, just that
                you had reserved them. You did not indicate that you had done nothing
                else with them.)

                In rereading what you wrote, there appears to be a difference in what
                happens with the Baptism and Endowment, as compared to sealings, when
                you first reserve them.

                Gaylon needs to look at this.

                Tom

                On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 20:30:59 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:

                >Tom, I totally am lost on the reply you posted.  Why would you presume things if I clearly stated that I only reserved the names?
                >No FOR was printed and No names where assigned to the temple.
                >
                >
                >
                >________________________________
                > From: "tomhuber.yah@..." <tomhuber.yah@...>
                >To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com
                >Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:38:41 PM
                >Subject: Re: [AQ_NFS] Failed to update Sub date
                >
                >
                >

                >>This may be a bug, since I haven't reserved any names under the latest
                >>update, the names. But in checking my batch files, there appear to be
                >>some changes in the way the system is marking names.
                >
                >>Under "Update LDS Temple Ordinances" in the ORTS (Ordinance
                >>Reservation and Tracking System), make sure the "Update from
                >"Submitted (with date)" to "In Progress" is checked. Then rerun the
                >>Update Ordinances.
                >If that is so why would the Baptism and Endowments have the proper "Sub 26 Sep 2013" added, but this date has not been added to the sealing fields? The sealing fields are totally blank in my AQ data but all show "Reserved" in FT
                >
                >
                >>Note that until the temple picks up the names (for those submitted to
                >>the temple), they show as Reserved. Once the temple picks up the
                >>names, they show as In Process. This allows you to "unreserve" a name
                >>and then reserve it for you to do the work.
                >At no time did I say I assigned the names to the temple file.  All are reserved in my name.  Even so, if this was thru why would the Baptism and Endowment have the proper "Sub 26 Sep 2013" added to the AQ data and have "Reserved" showing on FT?
                >
                >>Right now, it appears that all names that you have reserved for you,
                >>and printed a FOR for, are now marked as "In Progress". Previously
                >>these, were marked as "Reserved" only. If you have not printed the
                >>FOR, but have reserved the name, it should appear as "Reserved".
                >At no time did I say I printed the FOR.  Like I made clear in my original post I only reserved the names with AQ and did nothing else.  If I had printed the FOR and ran the update the "Sub 26 Sep 2013" in B and E would have changed to "In Progress"  too.  It did not.
                >
                >
                >
                >On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:27:48 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
                >
                >>Hi,
                >>just reserved several families for temple ordinances and noticed that all the Baptism and Endowment date fields are properly marked as "Sub 26 Sep 2013"
                >>However all the reserved sealings have not been updated.  Right click on each reserved name and selecting the "Review with FamilySearch" option brings up the FT ordinances and all show "Reserved" as it supposed to do.
                >>
                >>AQ however failed to update the sealing date fields with  "Sub 26 Sep 2013"
                >>Anybody else see the same thing?
                >>
                >>
                >> Peter
                >
                >
              • thomas_nevin_huber
                I just reserved (only) two names for temple work for myself. In checking the names, they show Sub 3 Oct 2013 in all fields (including the sealings to both
                Message 7 of 9 , Oct 3, 2013
                  I just reserved (only) two names for temple work for myself. In
                  checking the names, they show Sub 3 Oct 2013 in all fields (including
                  the sealings to both parents and spouse) on the AQ side and Reserved
                  on the FT side. No FOR has been printed at this point. In FT, all the
                  fields (including the sealings) show "Not Printed" and "Reserved by
                  Tom Huber". This is as it should be, so I'm not sure what you are
                  seeing.

                  You may want to try rebuilding your AQ database if you are still
                  seeing a discrepancy. I was doing some checking for other quirks and
                  had just rebuilt the AQ database before reserving the names and
                  ordinances.

                  Tom

                  On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 20:30:59 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:

                  >Tom, I totally am lost on the reply you posted.  Why would you presume things if I clearly stated that I only reserved the names?
                  >No FOR was printed and No names where assigned to the temple.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >________________________________
                  > From: "tomhuber.yah@..." <tomhuber.yah@...>
                  >To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com
                  >Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:38:41 PM
                  >Subject: Re: [AQ_NFS] Failed to update Sub date
                  >
                  >
                  >

                  >>This may be a bug, since I haven't reserved any names under the latest
                  >>update, the names. But in checking my batch files, there appear to be
                  >>some changes in the way the system is marking names.
                  >
                  >>Under "Update LDS Temple Ordinances" in the ORTS (Ordinance
                  >>Reservation and Tracking System), make sure the "Update from
                  >"Submitted (with date)" to "In Progress" is checked. Then rerun the
                  >>Update Ordinances.
                  >If that is so why would the Baptism and Endowments have the proper "Sub 26 Sep 2013" added, but this date has not been added to the sealing fields? The sealing fields are totally blank in my AQ data but all show "Reserved" in FT
                  >
                  >
                  >>Note that until the temple picks up the names (for those submitted to
                  >>the temple), they show as Reserved. Once the temple picks up the
                  >>names, they show as In Process. This allows you to "unreserve" a name
                  >>and then reserve it for you to do the work.
                  >At no time did I say I assigned the names to the temple file.  All are reserved in my name.  Even so, if this was thru why would the Baptism and Endowment have the proper "Sub 26 Sep 2013" added to the AQ data and have "Reserved" showing on FT?
                  >
                  >>Right now, it appears that all names that you have reserved for you,
                  >>and printed a FOR for, are now marked as "In Progress". Previously
                  >>these, were marked as "Reserved" only. If you have not printed the
                  >>FOR, but have reserved the name, it should appear as "Reserved".
                  >At no time did I say I printed the FOR.  Like I made clear in my original post I only reserved the names with AQ and did nothing else.  If I had printed the FOR and ran the update the "Sub 26 Sep 2013" in B and E would have changed to "In Progress"  too.  It did not.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:27:48 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
                  >
                  >>Hi,
                  >>just reserved several families for temple ordinances and noticed that all the Baptism and Endowment date fields are properly marked as "Sub 26 Sep 2013"
                  >>However all the reserved sealings have not been updated.  Right click on each reserved name and selecting the "Review with FamilySearch" option brings up the FT ordinances and all show "Reserved" as it supposed to do.
                  >>
                  >>AQ however failed to update the sealing date fields with  "Sub 26 Sep 2013"
                  >>Anybody else see the same thing?
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> Peter
                  >
                  >
                • ghfindlay
                  Let me provide an explanation for what you are seeing. After AQ finishes reserving the ordinances in FamilySearch, it then attempts to update your file with
                  Message 8 of 9 , Dec 11, 2013
                    Let me provide an explanation for what you are seeing.

                    After AQ finishes reserving the ordinances in FamilySearch, it then attempts to update your file with the new ordinance information.

                    For individual ordinances such as Baptism and Endowment, there is never any question, so these are always updated.

                    However, AQ will only update sealing ordinances when it is sure that it is updating the proper relationship.

                    If you have first matched and linked the spouse or parents of a person to the corresponding records in Family Tree, and then you reserve a sealing ordinance between the person and his spouse or parents, then the sealing field in AQ will be updated as you expect, with "Sub DD MMM YYYY". However, if you reserve a sealing for a different spouse, or to different parents, AQ will not put erroneous sealing information into your file.

                    Similarly, if you have not yet linked the spouse or parents, yet you reserve a sealing ordinance, AQ will not update your file, because it can't be sure of which relationship is being affected.

                    Bottom line:

                    If a sealing is reserved, and you have properly linked all parties to the relationship, then AQ will record the ordinance information in your file. If you have note properly linked all parties to the relationship, AQ will not record the ordinance information in your file.

                    Gaylon



                    --- In AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com, Peter <peters_genealogy@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Hi,
                    > just reserved several families for temple ordinances and noticed that all the Baptism and Endowment date fields are properly marked as "Sub 26 Sep 2013"
                    > However all the reserved sealings have not been updated.  Right click on each reserved name and selecting the "Review with FamilySearch" option brings up the FT ordinances and all show "Reserved" as it supposed to do.
                    >
                    > AQ however failed to update the sealing date fields with  "Sub 26 Sep 2013"
                    > Anybody else see the same thing?
                    >
                    >
                    >  Peter
                    >
                  • Peter
                    Thanks Gaylon, that makes sense.  I might not like it, but I can understand why a computer program does not presume there is a relationship if it has (through
                    Message 9 of 9 , Dec 11, 2013
                      Thanks Gaylon, that makes sense.  I might not like it, but I can understand why a computer program does not presume there is a relationship if it has (through syncing) been told there is one.

                      So if I understand correctly the way around this is either sync the records, or when updating don't click on  "Update all" and manually put check marks one by one in all the proper sealing ordinance fields to have them update my own data.

                      Appreciate you taking time to answer. 
                      Thank you very much.
                       
                      Peter


                      On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:18:01 AM, "gfindlay@..." <gfindlay@...> wrote:
                       
                      Let me provide an explanation for what you are seeing.

                      After AQ finishes reserving the ordinances in FamilySearch, it then attempts to update your file with the new ordinance information.

                      For individual ordinances such as Baptism and Endowment, there is never any question, so these are always updated.

                      However, AQ will only update sealing ordinances when it is sure that it is updating the proper relationship.

                      If you have first matched and linked the spouse or parents of a person to the corresponding records in Family Tree, and then you reserve a sealing ordinance between the person and his spouse or parents, then the sealing field in AQ will be updated as you expect, with "Sub DD MMM YYYY". However, if you reserve a sealing for a different spouse, or to different parents, AQ will not put erroneous sealing information into your file.

                      Similarly, if you have not yet linked the spouse or parents, yet you reserve a sealing ordinance, AQ will not update your file, because it can't be sure of which relationship is being affected.

                      Bottom line:

                      If a sealing is reserved, and you have properly linked all parties to the relationship, then AQ will record the ordinance information in your file. If you have note properly linked all parties to the relationship, AQ will not record the ordinance information in your file.

                      Gaylon

                      --- In AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com, Peter <peters_genealogy@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Hi,
                      > just reserved several families for temple ordinances and noticed that all the Baptism and Endowment date fields are properly marked as "Sub 26 Sep 2013"
                      > However all the reserved sealings have not been updated.  Right click on each reserved name and selecting the "Review with FamilySearch" option brings up the FT ordinances and all show "Reserved" as it supposed to do.
                      >
                      > AQ however failed to update the sealing date fields with  "Sub 26 Sep 2013"
                      > Anybody else see the same thing?
                      >
                      >
                      >  Peter
                      >



                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.