Multiple witnesses

[benwbrum]

Andy reports:

Where there are more than two witnesses to a marriage the instruction is to repeat the entry and change the witness names. This currently results in more than one result eg

 # Record Type Marriage Date Surname Forename County Place Name Found As
 1 Marriages 03 Mar 1853 ROYNON Thomas Somerset Churchill Groom Father Surname, Groom Surname
 2 Marriages 03 Mar 1853 ROYNON Thomas Somerset Churchill Groom Father Surname, Groom Surname
 3 Marriages 03 Mar 1853 ROYNON Thomas Somerset Churchill Groom Father Surname, Groom Surname

The details on each are the same except for thw witnesses and Notes eg

Search Record Details
County Somerset
Place Churchill
Church St John the Baptist
RegisterNumber 52
MarriageDate 03 Mar 1853
GroomForename Thomas
GroomSurname ROYNON
GroomAge 36
GroomParish
GroomCondition Bachelor
GroomOccupation Farmer
GroomAbode Churchill
BrideForename Mary
BrideSurname SHORLAND
BrideAge 30
BrideParish
BrideCondition Spinster
BrideOccupation Servant
BrideAbode Churchill
GroomFatherForename John
GroomFatherSurname ROYNON
GroomFatherOccupation Farmer
BrideFatherForename John
BrideFatherSurname SHORLAND
BrideFatherOccupation Labourer
WitnessOneForename Ann
WitnessOneSurname JENKINS
WitnessTwoForename James
WitnessTwoSurname CLEGGE?
Notes Duplicate entry, 6 witnesses. Bride and Groom sign X
FileNumber 12946

In such situations could the additional entries be combined so that just one record is displayed with all the witnesses shown?

[benwbrum]

I respond:
Oof. I had no idea about this convention. It'll take some chewing on
to figure out the appropriate way to consolidate the witnesses within
the transcript database. Kirk, do you have any ideas?

[benwbrum]

Kirk replies:

The double/triple entry was a means of getting round a limitation within REG1. The correct process should have been tp modify REG1.

REG2 displays the records as they are entered. In this regard it is behaving in the same manner as REG1. So in my opinion it is not a priority problem.

The correct fix in REG2 is to permit as many witness entries as there are in the register. This will require changes to the CSV layout for off-line input

Perhaps REG2 should be extended to attempt to combine records but we could end up combining more records than should be combined.

If we were to combine we would have combine only those records in a file where all fields except witness names were identical. This is not impossible but would involve additional code.

[benwbrum]

Andy observes:
Whatever we do regarding existing records we shall need to fix the test file so that there are records with more than two witnesses so that we can test this aspect.

[benwbrum]

Andy adds:

Also exclude Notes content which (should) always be different.

[PatReynolds]

Is this still open?

[Captainkirkdawson]

Yes to a degree.

While FR2 handles the storing of multiple witnesses there are a number of issues that need addressing as to how this is implemented in CSV files

[Captainkirkdawson]

System already supports multiple collection with on_line entry and edit capability. Need

1. Display multiple witnesses, See 570
2. Download multiple witnesses in current csv format See 741
3. Combine current csv multiple records See 813 and 811
4. Search on witnesses See 810
5. Use new format csv to input. See 813
6. Download in new csv format, See 814

[edickens]

5.  Do we have a definition of the new format csv?  It is needed to
handle more than two witnesses.  Mike might like to know and is it
being built into WinFREEREG?  TY  E

[Captainkirkdawson]

With respect to 813 we do have a concept for a new format of which Mike is aware

[Captainkirkdawson]

I believe we have written the stories required for this epic