Judy M.

That was easy enough. <G> Thanks! Quick question: What does "Log only" mean? Was I supposed to leave that checked?

My narrative reports include sources embedded within parentheses. Here's an example of the output -- note the double periods: (XYZ.). I would like to see options for dealing with this problem, my preference being to eliminate the period within the parentheses (except for when it's required--e.g., "Ibid." -- which can be "hard wired" anyhow). I realize that there may be times where one might prefer having the period only outside the parens, but more often than not, I want it inside. As far as I have been able to determine, there is no way to accomplish this currently. If there is--please advise!

Oh, well. Terry Reigel had pretty much told me the same thing awhile ago. My hope is that further discussion may result in results. After the global search you have suggested, I would have to replace "(Ibid)" with "(Ibid.)" and hope that there aren't any other abbreviations within parentheses. <sigh> I do appreciate your response.

Sorry. Okay, as I mentioned I'm talking about narrative reports. Under Options|Sources, I have chosen Sources:Embedded with parentheses. Here's an example of the output in which I would like to eliminate the period within the parentheses: Judith Barbara Koblintz (1) (Judy Koblintz Madnick personal knowledge.). The source title and Informant are "Judy Koblintz Madnick" where "[iNFORMANT] personal knowledge" is the output form for full footnote and short footnote. The period is within the parentheses in every footnote, regardless of whether there's additional text such as above ("personal knowledge") or [TITLE]<, [CD]>, which is my usual format. There are no periods within any of the source information. I hope I'm explaining this adequately, as I may not be using the correct terminology.

I guess I missed the specific-source-number part -- but running the report as I described gave me all the sources, which is what I actually wanted. It's nice to know this can be done for a specific source though. (I didn't save the original explanation, which is why I described what I ended up doing.)

I asked this question the other day on an elist and was told to go to Report | List of Citations and to click on Create Report. This gave me a list of Sources with every single tag (not just individual people) to which they related!

Jim: As of this morning, I am having the same problem. I am about to try the "fix" that has been suggested. You're not alone. Nope, it didn't work. I am unable to use TMG at all. Hmmmm, maybe I didn't do the "fix" properly. I have a wireless connection to the Internet. So while I wasn't "on" the Internet when I tried opening TMG -- i.e., Internet Explorer was closed -- I'm always "connected." I'll have to play with this some more.) Okay. I disabled my wireless connection. The Progress window went to 100% and I was then able to change my preferences and use TMG. WHEW!

I would like to receive e-mail notifications of new topics. I can't seem to determine how to set this up. Is there a way to select a particular forum and receive e-mail notification of new messages? Thanks!

Virginia: Thank you for your reply. I'm glad I asked -- since there are other forums with similar capabilities (e.g., notification of new messages) in which you can reply straight from your email (and I don't mean Yahoo or Google -- forums set up similarly to this one). Hope I don't forget that this forum is different!!

Gosh, that was easy. Next question: If I respond via email to a message that is emailed to me, will it end up on the board properly (as it does with some other groups), or do I have to return to the website to post my reply? Thanks!

Hope you don't mind my grouping these questions together. 1. Is there a way to add "County of . . ." (or add "County" after the county name) in reports that now read "Gloversville, Fulton, New York, United States (where "Fulton" is the county)? 2. Apparently the "mar." for "married" appears in just one spouse's box in, for example, a descendent chart. What controls in which person's box it appears? I would like to be consistent. 3. What controls the order of marriages if a person has more than one marriage and I don't have the actual marriage dates? IOW, can I do something so that in reports the correct marriage appears first? Thanks!

Good idea -- and don't worry about backups. I'm paranoid about backing up data!

I'm going to need a filing cabinet for all these great tips!

Great solution! I was "putting up with" the duplicate sentences. Thanks for the tip (and I should have known that Terry had an answer somewhere ).

If the focus person has a daughter who was married twice, the first husband appears with her name under Children. Can that be changed? Thanks!

Terry: That was easy! I wonder if I will remember it for next time this happens. Thanks for your quick response.

I'm still having a problem with this. Looking at my grandfather on the top of a descendent box chart, all the Marriage designations show up on the spouses of blood relatives, not the actual blood relatives. Should I care that this is occurring this way? Thanks!

Ah, okay. Do most people just leave it that way? For some reason I thought it was weird. I'm glad you mentioned that screen though. I had been wondering how to change "at" to "in" for the Place preposition. I was born *in* a city, not *at* a city. Thanks for your input.

Marianne, My main concern is consistency, and I haven't checked thoroughly to determine a pattern. I'm learning so much too fast! I appreciate your input and will keep your info handy once I do some checking. Thanks!

I guess I wasn't so far off when I began re-entering all my data. I like the idea of the side-by-side screens and entering the data according to TMG "rules." Thanks for the link!

Terry: Thanks for your quick reply. I haven't done a lot of investigating into public records, for example, so perhaps at some point I will be able to find more dates. Is there a way to limit what I import from a gedcom? Do you have any recommendations regarding importing into an existing project? (I'll be offline for a while, so . . . no rush!)

If I've gone from the present to the past, though, everyone is an ancestor, are they not? And if there aren't multiple marriages, it will depend upon whom I enter first?? Did I make a big boo-boo starting with the present and working back? My database is still small and I could begin again if it will clean things up. The other problem as I see it is if I have one big project incorporating both sides of every family -- or shouldn't I do that? IOW, I have my parents and my husband's parents and then all of their siblings and their "kids" with the same scenario when I reach our grandparents. I have no clue as to dates for some, so I'll have to do as you suggested -- even though it makes me uncomfortable. Thanks!

1. That was easy using "Replace." Why didn't I think of that? 2. Am I understanding correctly, then, that this will depend upon which spouse I enter first? Should I be consistent -- or am I going to run into inconsistencies no matter what? Perhaps part of the problem is that I chose to begin with our granddaughter and work my way back. Should I have gone in the other direction? 3. Would I use the sort date on an as-needed basis? More important, if I don't have a marriage date for either of the two marriages, do I just make one up to keep the order accurate? Thanks!

The main reason I switched genealogy programs is because we have a daughter with a same-sex partner and a child. The child is the biological daughter of our daughter's partner. All the tags are set up appropriately (dau-bio and dau-ado), but apparently because both parents are female and/or there's an adoption involved, our granddaughter shows up as the daughter of our daughter-in-law but not of our daughter. While I understand to some extent why this is happening, I'm wondering if there's a way around it so that both women show up as parents. I don't even mind changing the dau-ado if necessary and using a memo (or something!). What's really sad is that the former program, Roots Magic, actually does show both parents in the charts; however, that's because one of the women shows up as a male. RM has made it clear that they will not recognize same-sex unions, period. I'm pleased that TMG does at least that. Just so you know, I'm not looking for a lecture on the definition of genealogy as it relates to blood lines -- just want to know if there's a work around to handle this and will accomplish my goal. Thanks!

I don't mind hand-editing -- once I learn what I have to do to make everything work. I've been using TMG for only about ten days, so I guess I have time. And I hope this message doesn't attach itself to my previous one -- which somehow ended up being three messages in one even though I replied to separate messages.