Michael Hannah

Depending upon what age variable you intend to use in other sentences, then yes, that might be an issue. Remember [AE] will still get you years. As an added issue with the sentence you were hoping to construct, there do exist sentence variables to compute age for a unique witness with a specific role (i.e. [RA:role] or [RE:role]) but using the parent variables (which some people have mistakenly considered to be roles) of MOTH as [RA:MOTH] will not work since this is is a variable not a role. So if you want the parents' ages in the birth sentence you either need to directly enter them as text like I did in my example or link both of the parents as witnesses with specific custom roles to the birth tag as I believe Teresa does. The added advantage of entering the parents as witnesses in the child's birth tag is that the witness sentence can generate text about the child's birth in the parents' narrative which some people find useful. Something to think about as you customize your standard Birth tag. Aw... Gosh... Thanks. Glad I could help. And glad John caught my error, once again reminding me that I am human and very fallible.

Glad I could give you an idea that worked!

Gosh, I doubt that it can be internal to TMG or SS as I am using Mozilla/FF as my default. When I "Search the Web" or open SS html files they launch Mozilla/FF. When you say that you "browse the SS newly created html files they are launched in IE" what do you mean? Are you double clicking on the files in Windows Explorer? or what? If double clicking opens IE, then the folder type extensions must still be set to IE. You want to be sure that both the ".htm" and the ".html" file types are set to Mozilla.

Of course, whether to change this or not is probably a matter of taste. For some of my records I prefer to cite the repository that I visited to see that record, even if that repository is now closed. You might consider a Repository Memo (which could be included in Bibliography templates as the element [RM]) that described its years of operation and where its records were transferred. I would be especially inclined to take this approach if some of its records went one place and others another.

Hi Jane, Well, yes you could just change the sentence, but that would still make all the sentences the same (and still boring ). However, if you are willing to go back and add memos to those births that you want a little bit different, then adding a memo to your standard birth sentence would be valuable. I don't know of a variable to count prior children. I think the only way would be to have it in the memo. Whether TMG can calculate an age is dependent upon what is entered as the date (not sort date) in both the primary tag in the Birth group and the tag with the age variable in the sentence. The [A] variable produces output in years only when both the primary tag in the Birth group and the tag that contains the [A] variable contain the full (day, month, year) dates, and the age is over one year. It returns no value when the age can not be precisely calculated (e.g. incomplete dates that have only the year). If the [A] is bound by conditional brackets “” then the sentence variable is ignored for incomplete dates or an age less than one year and no age is output. An unconditional use of the variable will return “at an unknown age” for incomplete dates. The [AE] variable will produce an exact age (years, months, and days) if both dates are complete. It will still produce output even if only approximate dates are known, but it will be only years. The TMG documentation calls [AE] an exact age variable, I choose to call it an exact or estimated age variable. I don't think this will qualify as "really rocks" but you might consider:[P] was born <[M1]><[D]><[L]>.<[M2]> The split memo allows a lot of different report output with this same standard sentence, and since both parts are conditional you can use either or both parts for variety. For example the [M1] part could be "as the fourth child and second son" to provide the count of prior children you wanted, or maybe describe the birth with "after 12 hours of painful labor" or whatever would read well at this point in the sentence. The [M2] part is designed to be a complete additional sentence, perhaps "He was welcomed as the first son, finally providing an heir to the title and lands." Also note that sentence variables can be entered inside the memo, so you don't have to predefine them in this standard sentence. For example, [M1] could be as simple as "[PAR]", or you could add a Witness and have [M1] be as complicated as "with the aid of the 73 year old local midwife [W], the 300th child she delivered, the third child of [FATH] (age 40) and [MOTH] (age 27)" Hope this gives you ideas.

Glad my ideas were helpful. Yes, the same is true of places. As for places changing names, this has been discussed and is one of the reasons there is an optional date range to a date so TMG can remind you if you are using a place name inappropriate for the date of the event. As for linking to another place, you can add a Comment to the place as a reminder/aid to yourself of other names for this place. Those are the standard tools. For some of my more complex places that are in lots of my data and changed names in a complicated way I have a more complex method. I create a "pseudo" person that is a location. A single location "person" can be used to link together multiple “place entries” in the Master Place List that actually referred to the same location by using multiple Name-Var tags with possible date ranges to reflect when the location was known by each name. Name indices would link all these locations to this one “person”. The primary name could be the Name-Var that is the “current” name, or could be a name identifying the latitude and longitude. A true event tag on a "real" person could have the actual name of the location as of the time of the event entered as a place from the Master Place List, but the location “person” could be linked as a witness, either using the actual Name-Var for that time or the “current” name with a possible witness sentence of “This location is currently named [W]”. If a larger area was identified by a single name for a period of time and then subdivided, the larger area “person” could be the “mother” of the multiple subdivided “daughters” who were created/born at the time of the subdivision. This can be complex, and I only do this for a few locations, but this might give you ideas.

Hi Joop, You have identified one of the reasons that TMG has the feature of Name Styles!! These allow you to assign labels to the name parts to be consistent in your data entry. Those users who do not wish to learn and use this feature make use of the Suffix field since that field is included in the "standard" Name Style and the OtherName field is not. I haven't reviewed all the links that Virginia gave you, but believe some of them make various proposals for a Name Style to use for patronymics. As for the "right" way to do this, what is right is what will cause you to be consistent in data entry, to be easy for you to search, and to ensure that your report output looks the way you want. The labels and data entry and NameStyle you choose will only be seen by someone looking at your data in TMG, and ususally that is nobody except yourself, which is why it only matters to you. If you decide to use Name Styles, check GTMOTMG and Terry's Primer, as well as TMG Help. However, last time I tested (in version 6) the various Name Style fields each affected the following output and use: Output -- Used in report output and in most displays where names are displayed as spoken, e.g., Person View, Family View, Tree View, Tag Entry screen, etc. Surname sort -- Used to sort the Simple Picklist, Expanded Picklist, and Project Explorer (when sorted by Surname), and in indexes. Surname display -- Used in the Picklist and Project Explorer (when sorted by Surname), to display parents and spouses in the Expanded Picklist, and used in indexes. Given sort -- Used to sort the Simple Picklist, Expanded Picklist, and Project Explorer (when sorted by GivenName). Given display -- Used in the Picklist and Project Explorer (when sorted by GivenName). Children/Sibling display -- Used in the Children window and the Siblings window. Just my thoughts for your consideration,

A more serious reply to your post is that I would cite this as follows: - Repository: ARC, include general website address -- (same as yours) - Source: My source would be the actual URL that I was viewing. I would customize the output template of the Full Footnote to include both a Citation Detail [CD] and also have a Citation Memo [CM] that was preceded with the text "Transcribed from:". But I would probably not include the [CM] on the Short Footnote. And I would select under Ibid: "Requires same source and [CD]". This forces a full footnote if the [CM] is different for a different citation of the same source. My Bibliography template would include the [COMMENTS] source element from the Supplemental tab. Example: TITLE-- ARC Query Result SUBJECT--van Beek, Jacobus Job Johannes RECORD NUMBER-- the complete URL of the query result output page which would probably start with "www.arc.xxx/yyy" COMMENTS-- Query entered: 23 Nov 2008- Jacobus Job Johannes van Beek - Citation Detail and Citation Memo: In all cases I would put the database's transcription source(s) for the data on the output page in the Citation Memo, but if there were more than one source referenced on this page only include the source(s) relevant to this specific citation. CM-- Koudekerk register, volume 1813-1822, Inventory D3, page fol. 5v, certificate #26 My citation detail would depend on the tag I was citing. For example, if I was making a citation to the father/son relationship tag I would have: CD-- Jacobus Job Johannes van Beek son of Gerrit van Beek and for the mother/son relationship tag: CD-- Jacobus Job Johannes van Beek son of Margrieta Boelhouwer If I were citing the Birth tag I would have: CD-- Jacobus Job Johannes van Beek born in Koudekerk on 12-10-1821 So a full footnote might be: ARC Query Result; Jacobus Job Johannes van Beek; www.arc.xxx/yyy: Jacobus Job Johannes van Beek son of Gerrit van Beek. Transcribed from: Koudekerk register, volume 1813-1822, Inventory D3, page fol. 5v, certificate #26. A short footnote might be: ARC Query Result; van Beek; www.arc.xxx/yyy: Jacobus Job Johannes van Beek son of Margrieta Boelhouwer. And the bibliography entry might be: van Beek, Jacobus Job Johannes; ARC Query Result: www.arc.xxx/yyy. Query entered: 23 Nov 2008- Jacobus Job Johannes van Beek. ARC on-line web archives; www.arc.xxx. This should give you a starting point for the general concept of "my way" of citing this database. Further details are left to the student's individual taste.

Yep, there are people known as the splumpers

Glad we could help. Sorry, Irene, but you cannot use TMG's color accents feature to highlight tag types (although that has been "wished" for by users in the past). Accents only apply to people. However, you could set a flag for all people that have a "*-Can" relationship tag or a Duplicate tag, and base the accent color for the person on that flag. Not the same, but might be helpful? Hope this gives you (further) ideas, ======== Added: Gee, Terry and I must have been typing responses at the same time.

The issue you are seeing is due to the fact that an exhibit can be attached to a variety of TMG entities: Person, Event, Source, Repository, Place, Citation. You have attached your exhibit to the Death Event tag. But the Person View only displays the primary exhibit attached to the Person. If you want to see the photo there, simply click on the Exhibit Log (Camera icon) button when viewing the person and add your exhibit as you did, but with the Focus being the Person.

In various replies Joop asked: These are great questions, Joop, and as you already know are very much a matter of personal taste. Terry will probably have some great suggestions as he covers sources very well in his Primer and in his on-line Tips. As for standards for publication formats for citing sources in genealogical works, including electronic sources, I believe the most currently accepted is Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace by Elizabeth Shown Mills, available from various sites (I think including the Wholly Genes store). However, you should realize that multiple different ways of entering and storing source data in TMG can actually produce the identical report output source citations in your reports, so this adds to personal preference. The major issue is often called "lumping" or "splitting". You can 'lump" sources into a single TMG source in the Master Source List and have the citations differ by what you put in the Citation Details and/or Citation Memo. Or you can "split" each source citation into a separate TMG source in the Master Source List, putting more into each source definition and less in the CD and CM. The same is true of what you put as the Repository versus what you put in the Source Definition. This is purely a matter of taste. As an example, "my way" is generally to "lump" TMG sources, and to identify TMG repositories as "places" other researchers are likely to know where to go to get the same source, e.g. libraries or institutions. In your case I might cite the organization that transcribed and published the web site as the repository, but would include as that repository address the main URL. I would cite a specific URL web page resulting from a query as a single source, but would include in the Source Comments the search terms that caused that page to be retrieved. I would have separate citations to this single source in each of the tags (possibly for multiple people) that referred to information on that one web page. Each of these specific citations would provide only the details needed for that tag (e.g. the CD on the Birth tag recording only the date and location of birth even though there was marriage and death data also on that page). If I captured the entire page (e.g. copy/paste) or downloaded the photocopy, I would have the URL of the page or photocopy as the source (still including the search terms that got me there) and link what I captured as an exhibit to the source. My actual way of doing this linkage is a bit more complicated than most, but that is the concept. As these appear to be reputable national sites I would have no problem citing them as sources. But I would cite the transcription page as the source, not the original certificate(s) or source(s) of which it a transcription. On the other hand, I might cite the original certificate if I captured the photocopy, but would note how I got the photocopy in the Source Comments. However, as for the transcriptions, since transcribers can and do make errors, I would do two additional things. First, I would probably include in my Source or Repository information the nature of the data, i.e. transcriptions of certain original sources. Second, I would include in the citation (either in the CD or in the Source depending upon whether I "lumped" or "split") the original source reference of which this information is claimed to be a transcription. At least for my main-line ancestors I would still want to go back to the original sources to verify the transcription and to see what other useful data might be there that was not transcribed. I think I answered all your questions? Hope this gives you ideas,

Terry briefly discussed recording the data found, and possibly entering an extract. If your question is how to enter a source that cites other sources, that is different, and you will get a variety of replies. That was why Terry was asking what you were really seeing: an image of the original source or just citations or extracts concerning original sources. I prefer to always create a TMG source and enter citations to what I actually saw. So if the on-line source only contains citations to other sources, then I would cite the on-line URL as the source since that is what I saw. I would then put the source(s) cited on the web page as part of the data I entered in either the TMG Citation Detail or the TMG Citation Memo when I create a citation to the on-line source on the birth or marriage or other TMG event tag. To me that is more honest a citation, because my database and citations are saying this is where this on-line source that I viewed claims there is a record of this data, but I haven't seen it myself. I would then make myself some kind of research task to check those cited sources myself to verify that this is really about this person, to record exactly what that source said, and to be sure that the citation in the on-line record did not have a typo. On the other hand, if the on-line location shows you an image of the original source, and you trust that on-line location sufficiently to not have altered or "cleaned up" the image in any way, then I would feel I had "seen" that original source and would cite it directly, but I would still add a note that I saw it via an image on-line at this location. But if the on-line source simply claims that the person had this father, mother, spouse, and children, I would consider this to be a very unreliable source. I would record it, but only as a hint or possibility of the situation. I believe that original documents, such as government records, church registers, certificates, etc. should be considered definitive sources. Everything else, and especially on-line genealogies, I consider just possibilities and suggestions. Hope this gives you ideas,

Terry is absolutely right, and I should have expanded on that. I make sure these relationships are non-primary so that they do not show up anywhere but on-screen (and the ID report). I do the equivalent for my Duplicate tag in making sure that I "de-select" that tag type from printing in any "normal" report. Like a number of things that I find it convenient to record internal to my TMG data, I use both the "-Can" tags and the "Duplicate" tags as simply "reminders" to me internal to TMG about my current "guesses" about these relationships. I do not include these "reminders" in most reports. However, I like having them show in the ID report as I consider that report as intended for the maintainer of the data, i.e. me. But then, I think that is what you were asking for: how does one record the link in TMG so you can remember it, but without having it show as definite.

Happy to do so, Irene, There is much in the TMG help, in GTMOTMG, and Terry's Primer, about relationship tags, but the key point is that one relationship tag links one child to one parent. TMG automatically changes the displayed "name" of the tag for the benefit of the view of the user depending upon whether you are viewing the parent's Details or the child's Details, and depending upon the settings of the SEX flags for each person, but it is really just one tag. Therefore, you do not create a Father-Can tag type and a Son-Can tag type, and all the other variations. You only create a "-Can" tag type in the Relationship group. Under the TMG Menu "Tools" select "Master Tag Type List". On the screen that pops-up, click the "Add" button to add a new tag type. On the Tag Type Definition screen General tab on the right click the button to create this new tag type within the Parent/child relationship group. This will cause all boxes except Label: to be greyed out. In the Label put only "-Can". (I stick to the standard of having a leading '-' and initial capital letter, to match the standard tags of this type, but that is just my style.) Now just click on the "OK" button, as that is all you need to do to create the complete set of this new relationship tag type. Since relationship tags have no sentences, there is no default sentence to create. Now you can link a parent and a child using this tag type. Hope this is understandable,

You have two issues: 1) a possible relationship between two people in the dataset 2) two people in the dataset that are possibly the same person For issue 1) some people just use the Associatn tag type, or an equivalent specially created tag type, often customized to include the memo in the sentence. The memo would explain the relationship between the two Principals, or possibly between a Principal and a set of Witnesses. Custom roles can be helpful here. However, this does not cause automatic ancestor or descendant relationships to be created. For possible parent/child relationships I define a full set of “*-Can” relationship tag types for these “candidate” or potential parent/child relationships to be recognized, but there are pros and cons to doing that. For issue 2 ) you could do the same as above and explain the relationship as possibly duplicate people. An example of a custom tag type is my "Duplicate" tag that links two or more person entries in my dataset that I suspect may actually be the same person, but have not yet chosen to merge their records. Its sentence "[P1] is possibly a duplicate of [P2]" permits as many people to be linked as necessary. I try to put the person whose record I think I am likely to keep, when/if I merge, as P1, the second as P2, and any others as Witnesses with the role Duplicate, but the sentence works regardless. The memo records why I suspect they are the same, and having the separate tag allows linking Research Tasks that might resolve the question to that tag. I also have a similar "DupNil" tag to record my conclusions that two (or more) person entries are not the same individual even though they might appear to be. This keeps me from revisiting this issue for these entries.

Glad to help!

Note that to use Sort Dates you must be in Advanced data entry mode, not Beginner. For multiple events on the same date where you want to “force” a particular order, most users simply put a Sort Date for the “other” events one day earlier or later. However, I prefer to keep the “real” or “event” date as part of what I enter for the "other" Sort Dates, and use a date modifier on the sort date in the "other" events to force the order. For example, all of the following Sort Dates contain the “real” date of 21 July, will sort event tags in the order below, and these tags will sort between any tags with similarly constructed 20 July and 22 July Sort Dates: before 21 Jul 2006 before 21 Jul 2006? say 21 Jul 2006 say 21 Jul 2006? circa 21 Jul 2006 circa 21 Jul 2006? 21 Jul 2006 21 Jul 2006? after 21 Jul 2006 after 21 Jul 2006? 21 Jul 2006-22 Jul 2006 21 Jul 2006-22 Jul 2006? 21 Jul 2006-23 Jul 2006 [etc.] 21 Jul 2006 or 22 Jul 2006 21 Jul 2006 or 22 Jul 2006? 21 Jul 2006 or 23 Jul 2006 [etc.] 21 Jul 2006 to 22 Jul 2006 21 Jul 2006 to 22 Jul 2006? 21 Jul 2006 to 23 Jul 2006 [etc.] Thus you can specify the order of an unlimited number of tags that are all associated with the same date. And these "other" sort dates will remind you of the "real" date, e.g. 21 Jul 2006. Hope this gives you ideas,

You will get a variety of replies, but my method both includes some of the e-mail in the citation, plus stores the full e-mail for future reference. I include the smallest possible understandable extract of the e-mail in the Citation Memo [CM] that is relevant to that one specific citation. Different citations to the same e-mail will likely have different CM extracts. My custom source templates include the CM in both the FF and SF. That way I don't wonder why I cited this e-mail to this tag. Then I make "My Files" as a Repository which I link to all these e-mail sources. Finally, I put in the Repository Reference (on the Source Definition Attachments tab) where I have stored my copy of the e-mail. If electronic it could be a filename and point to the pathname on either the hard-drive or the CD where the file is stored. If you wish to keep your e-mails electronic, I recommend exporting the e-mail as ASCII text files and storing them on CD. A specific program (like Outlook) may come and go, but ASCII has always been readable. My most significant e-mails I print out and the Repository Reference is to the file where that paper copy is stored. My custom Bibliography template for e-mail sources includes the Repository Reference element so I can find the full e-mail if I need to. If I move where I store a particular e-mail, then I only have to change the Repository Reference for the source. Hope this gives you ideas,

Welcome Dorothy Louise, I am not sure what exact steps you took to get this error? What files did you e-mail to yourself? How did you try to "Open" the project. What works best is to do a backup of your project within TMG (don't do a Windows backup of the dozens of files that constitute a project). That TMG backup action produces a single file with an extension of ".sqz". Move that one file from your old computer to the main hard drive on your new one. Then, do not "open" this file, but "restore" this one project file. That should work just fine (unless you have lots of external exhibits in a structure of subfolders). If you still have problems, ask. One of us users will be happy to try to help. P.S. You posted this to the Version 6 forum. Are you still on Version 6? There are many new valuable features in Version 7. You should consider upgrading?

Hi Debbie, You have hit on a major topic of considerable discussion. I would suggest that you start by reviewing the many examples of custom tags for census data that users have suggested in the Sentence Structures forum. The one I use is my CensusEnum tag. You might search within that forum for the keyword "census" to see the many relevant postings. The “good news” and the “bad news” of census data is that there is so much (some have even suggested “too much”) information provided by an enumeration entry that a genealogist may want to record. The “good news” and the “bad news” of TMG is that there are so many different ways that the program can be used and customized to record that data. It is confusing to decide how to approach recording census data. It is both a source record that can be cited as the documentation for various types of event tags (names, residence, birth based on recorded age and location, parent/child/sibling/other relationships, occupations, etc.), and the act of enumeration is an event unto itself deserving of its own event tag. As such, recording census data needs to follow your standards both for sources and for events. Because of this, it is important to carefully decide upon your own methodology for census data entry: what data is recorded, where, and how. It should be clear that there is no “right” way to do this. While some may urge recording everything, others may find it easier to only record what is of interest to them while ensuring a good reference pointer to the original source if others want to find more. However, the method must make sense to you, and encourage you to record all the data you wish to record in a manner that allows you to find it and report it easily. You are very wise to consider now what should be your data entry standard for this data before you have too much entered and need to change.

Hi Roadrunner! [since I live in New Mexico I like your username ] To echo what Jan said, the beauty of TMG is that you use tags like the Residence tag however you want to! For example, you could have multiple Residence tags and use a date “range” in the tag date with an explanation in the memo. TMG has two modifiers to a date to indicate a range: “Between”, and “From...To”. Or make your own custom tags to do it “your way”, which is what I do. My way to record changing residence information is to use two customized tags. I don't use the standard Residence tag. I renamed as “ResideOrig” and inactivated the standard Residence tag type in the “Other” group and made a custom tag type named ResidedAddress in the Address group. My custom sentences expect an “Address” tag to indicate where they are now or associated with a single particular date. My custom “ResidedAddress” tag records where they once lived for a defined period of time with a beginning and end, or with a prefix like “before” or “after” associated with a known beginning or ending date range. Having these two tag types in the same group allows a “now” or “single date” to very simply be changed to “then” or a date “range”, by changing the tag type. Due to my usage, I made Location and Date required entries for these tag types, and my sentences reflect that. For both of these tags I use a split memo to fit further information in my custom sentences. The real question is, what do you want to record about residences? Then make your tags do that.

I feel sure Terry is right but for future reference, the text "unknown" almost always comes from a tag sentence with an unconditional variable where that variable has no value. In your case, you are probably using a default Occupation tag with a sentence something like: [P] [M] Notice that there are no '' marks around the [M] memo variable. That makes that variable unconditional, where the date and location variables are conditional. But you probably have no text in the tag memo, so TMG will output the phrase "an unknown value" at that spot in the sentence. Terry's guess about it being entered in the Place field comes from experience of imports and the presence of the word "at" in front. That word is usually added by TMG by default at the beginning of locations. Hope this helps to further understand what is going on,

You can do that, but beware that the GEDCOM 5.5 standard has a max length of 248 characters for a single line TITL field, so whatever program ultimately accepts this GEDCOM is allowed to truncate at that length. It may not truncate, but then again it may. Just a heads-up.

There are probably many ways to do this but to find the people involved Project Explorer [PE] can do that easily by using the Primary check box in front of a filter condition that refers to tags. For example, to find people that have at least one of any type of tag in the Marriage group, but none of them are marked Primary, try the following PE filter: Marriage Group... # of Tags > Is greater than 0 ANDX Marriage Group... # of Tags = Equals 0 END Or to find those where there *is* a primary tag but also there are other non-primary tags try: X Marriage Group... # of Tags = Equals 1 AND Marriage Group... # of Tags > Is greater than 1 END If you then want to work through these people to clean up their tags, I would suggest selecting all the people shown on the filtered PE then creating and saving a Focus Group from these people. Now you can unfilter the PE and work on these people as you get time. Hope this gives you ideas,