Terry Reigel

You're welcome.

I glad you got this one figured out.

Terry

Now how do I get around this?  I only want the primary name in the index, but I want the variant names to be displayed in the narative.

 

Is there a way to do this?

All name tags will appear in the Picklist and Project Explorer. As Paul says, if you leave the given and surnames blank, they will be inferred from the primary name tag. You could place exclusion marks in those fields to inhibit the inference, but then you would get -,- as the name in the Picklist and Project Explorer.

Since you don't want the alternate names to be listed, I'd suggest you create a tag in the Other Events group, rather than in the Name group, and use that to report the alternate names. Such a tag would not create a listed name, as it's not a name tag.

REPLY, for Terry Riegel:  Many thanks for the help; I get it now.  And thanks for the lead to your web site. 

You're welcome, George. Glad it helped.

Terry

I'm translating TMG 5.15 to Swedish and Italian and I got a minor problem.

All kinds of report using abbreviations like b.(born), m.(married) etc will remain the same on every language.

Of course I modified the "abbreviation" on  "Master Tag Type List" for every language but unsuccessfully.

Every language, not only mine, will use b., m. etc.

Any suggestion?

The usual cause of this is duplicate name tags, generally after merging two people. You have looked in the tag box for another name tag, and there was none?

The other cause is the creation of two similar data sets, either by merging two similar projects, or by creating a second data set containing some or all of the people in the first. But in that case, the ID#s would be preceeded with a data set number, such as 1:80 and 2:80.

Have you done any of these operations?

Yes, your answer is very clear, and to the point.

I can't figure out a way to include a tag not in existence in a List of People filter directly. So I'd suggest a more roundabout approach.

You could create a custom flag, say CEN1881, with values of N,Y. Then, use the List of People report, with a filter of:

Census... Year Is exactly 1881

and set the secondary output to change the CEN1881 flag to Y for those people in the list. Now you have a flag that marks who you have found in this census.

Now, use your existing filter for identifying those alive at that time, and add this term, connected with AND:

CEN1881 = equals N

That should exclude everyone who you have already found from the results.

If you need more details on any of this, just ask.

Flags are available in the List of Names reports, but you have to look for them.

Names don't have flags - people do. So... the flag is accessed relative to the "subject" of the name tag. Or, in English, use a filter like:

  Field      Subfield    Operator  Value  ConnectSubject...   FAMILY     = Equals    A       ORSubject...   FAMILY     = Equals    B       END

if "A" and "B" are the two values you are trying to filter on.

I would like to create a Report under "List of People/Persons" who would have been alive and hence likely to be included in a Census return but to be able to exclude those for whom I already have a Citation linked to that specific Census date.

I have already a system for finding those alive but cannot seem to link-in the criteria for those persons that have a Census citation.

 

Is this possible.

Yes, probably. But to be sure, we need to know how you have census records recorded. Is there a census tag for people you have found in the census? If so, the standard one or a custom one? If custom, what is the "Label" of the census tag?

If there is no tag, is the census cited on one or more tags? Always on the Name tag? How is the census source identified?

With this sort of information we can suggest filter terms to solve the problem.

You're welcome.

Terry

I have NO  sentence structure entered for the custom roles in the Master Tag Type List  - I have the defaults sentences for the Principals & Witness on the initial page.

It's actually quite hard to have no sentences - did you delete them on purpose?

To my mind the custom sentences are not overwriting the default sentences - is this something I can toggle  if so I can't find where ?    (Using V 6.07)

The most likely reason is that you have one Language set for the program itself (File >Languages menu) and a different language set on the report Definition (General tab of report Options). The Language setting for the program controls the default language for Sentences - if that's different than the languages used for reports, the sentences you entered will not be used.

Are you using the UK edition, and perhaps using a mixture of English(US) and English(UK)?

The son is entered as a witness to the head of the household's 1901 Census tag and the sentence for the son is entered on the head of households 1901 census tag as " [RP:son] was listed as a son of [R:Head of Household] in the 1901 Census , "

 

However , if I then do an Individual narrative report this is processed as " They was listed as a son of Henry Feltham in the 1901 census at xxxxxx"

Only [W] and [R:rolename] return just the one person when you have several with that role. All the other Role variables give all the people with that Role, or in the collective "they" in the case of [RP:rolename]

The easiest way to do what you want is to simply enter "He was listed..." in the sentence. Then create a female sentence with "She was listed..."

Oops. sorry about the blank message.

I have no quarrel with custom tags, unless a standard tag will serve the purpose as well or better. 

 

To confine this opinion to the original subject of this thread, a suspected father, with no evidence to support his paternity, is better served by the low-key NOTE tag linking the participants together.  Theories with no proof, do not need to be shouted, just usefully recorded.

Sorry, Mike, but I couldn't disagree more. In my view this case is a perfect example of when a standard tag does not serve as well. I think of at least two reasons:

- It is difficult to exclude a Note tag from reports, since generally you have lots of them, and you wouldn't want exclude them all just to exclude one bit of questionable information. And, unsupported speculation is exactly the sort of thing you might want to exclude from a report, say if you are only including information about which you are confident.

- A Note tag begs to be missed when you are searching for your notes about this unsupported tidbit - say when you find another bit of information that supports or contradicts it. You don't want it to hide in your Person View, or in a report format that lists tag labels - you want it to be easy to find.

At least, my 2 cents worth.

I disagree about custom tags unless you use GEDCOM.  The benefits of custom tags are many.

I very much agree with Teresa on the benefits of custom tags, when not carried to excess. They are particularly useful for sensitive information because you can choose to include or exclude a particular custom tag type in any reports you run, depending on the intended use of the report.

I even disagree with Teresa's caution against using them if you intend to export to GEDCOM. But if you do intend to export you do need to use a bit of care in setting them up to assure they will export as you expect. But then you need to take care in using standard tags as well if you want them to export. <_>

The most-used authority for citing sources is the book Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian by Elizabeth Shown Mills. My 1997 edition of this book does not do a very good job with online sources, but later editions might.

This is the book that the default source types in TMG are based on, and I'd strongly recommend getting a copy - it makes it much easier to understand how the default source types are intended to work. It's offered in the WG store for $13.95, and is widely available elsewhere as well. I'm quite sure the 1997 edition is the latest (only) one available.

However, there is now an additional reference sheet available that is just for online sources. It is available in the TMG store.

This is Ms. Mills' current "update" on the subject - QuickSheet: Citing Online Historical Resources - as Hugh says, it's also avaliable at the WG store, at $4.50, and elsewhere.

You're welcome, Ken.

I'm a strong believer in keeping everyone in a single Data Set unless there is a compelling reason to keep them separate. Not only does this allow you to link people together (if only with a "candidate" or memo tag saying they might be related) but also it's much easier if you use any custom tag types, source types, or styles. And, if any sources are common to both, you only have to enter them once.

I've got some people in my main data set with a surname of interest, but with no known connection, for example that I've entered "just in case" I find a connection, or just to keep track in case I find them again.

Flags and Accents are good ways to identify people not known to connect - see my article on Accents (link below) for details on how to set that up.

I am wondering why can't we tie a person from one data set to another; I have one line separated in its own dataset, but would like to connect one end of the line ancestor from one dataset to the beginning of line ancestor in another dataset.

I suppose that's because, by it's very definition, data sets are totally independent. They cannot share tag types, sources, source types, styles, nor can people in different data sets be linked in any way. The whole idea of Data Sets is to allow you to enter compare and analyze them in a Project without compromising their independence.

If you want to link the people, why don't you merge the data sets? That's the way connected lines are intended to be managed.

You're welcome. Do come back when you have further questions.

I need to split my database of over 2200 names so that I can gedcom the relevant part to a family member.  Is there a way to do this?  Thanks.

First, I'd point out that there is no need to actually split the data set. Rather, you would just export some selected people from the whole data set.

Glen has pointed you to my article on getting the right people. There are several methods outlined there to choose the people to be exported. You would choose one depending on how complex your specification is for the people to be included.

Including a person and all his ancestors, or all his descendants, takes only a few seconds with the Focus Group. If you want to include the spouses of descendants it's only a few seconds more.

Things get a tad more complicated if you want to add parents of spouses, siblings, etc., but there are tools to create any sort of grouping you might devise.

I am rather new to genealogy and The Master Geneologist, so please excuse my ignorance.

Welcome! We were each new once, some just longer ago than others.

I have come across a wealth of information through the online transcriptions of vital records, specifically through Texas RootsWeb. These records are on file in microfilm form at the state capitol, and have been compiled by hand by volunteers.

 

My question is: how do I cite these records in The Master Genealogist? Should I use the source type "Vitals (filmed)" or another type? So far I have kept track of the transcriber/contributor, contribution date, website of the record, and exact title of the record. Am I missing anything important?

Yes, I think so. You didn't see the films, so they are not your source. What you saw was a transcription on a website, so that's what you should cite.

You could use an electrionic website source type, or create a modified one. If you need some help with that just ask, or check out the notes on sources on my website (link below).

The difference being that you are looking at someone else's reading of those films. Ideally, you would want to someday see them for yourself, assuming the subjects of the records are people who actually matter to you. You would want to verify that the transcriber read them correctly, and then typed that information correctly. But also you would want to see if they contain any other useful information not recorded by the transciber - they commonly do. Sometimes just seeing the records in their original context provides information not apparent from a transcription.

Where exactly is the 'short place' utilized anyway?

Most reports have an option, on the Places tab, to use the "short place." The idea is you can enter a full place name in tags, but get short places in reports, especially for those reports with little space, like charts.

The short places come from two places. One is the short place field you have found in the Master Place List. That field is used for each place that has an entry there.

For places with no entry in the short place field, there is a "Short Place Template" on the Project Options > Other page of Preferences. It constructs short places for those places "on the fly," using whichever fields are specified in that template.

The "List of ..." reports are designed for that purpose - to allow you to find people, events, sources, or whatever that meet most any criteria you might devise.

For your task, you could use the List of People report, set it to use a Filtered Group, then construct this filter:

 Field        Subfield  Operator    ValueAny Event...     Memo    Contains    WITCH   END

This should identify everyone with the word "witch" in the memo of any event tag.

Or, you could search for the tag itself, with the List of Events report and a filter like:

 Field      Subfield   Operator    Value Memo                   Contains    WITCH   END

Thanks, Martin. I'd been wondering.

Terry

Does anyone who uses a system with dymanic pages know if the pages can be searched by Google and the like? I've been thinking not, but don't know.

If the purpose of posting it to attract contacts with others, as it is for me, I've found that searches from Google et al is a primary means of making those contacts. Thus "searchability" is a vital requirement.

I want a database-driven tool, but one which knows and uses the extra features in TMG, such as witnesses. Popular presentation tools like phpGedView and TNG use GEDCOM as input.

There are very few genealogy programs that allow the use of Witnesses as TMG does, so I'd not expect to find web tools other than Second Site that can accomodate them. If there were, they would have to read TMG's files directly, as there is no way to output in a format that includes witnesses. I don't know of a web generation program other than Second Site that can read TMG files.

My user ID is not my current email address and I don't know how to change it. 

After you re-install as Paul described, you unlock with your existing code. You must enter the same e-mail address that you used when you got that code, as they are linked. But, that e-mail only shows in the Help > About screen, so it's not really a big deal.

If you want your e-mail to appear in the "prepared by" section of reports, enter you current e-mail in Preferences > Current Project Options > General.