Michael Hannah

I am sure you will find as many answers as there are users of TMG . I have something similar with poets among my ancestors and the desire to record their poems. As formatting is often important in poetry (as it can be in recipes) you might consider my method. I create TMG text exhibits (your choice of internal or external) and attach them to custom tags which I named POETRY. The exhibit can be one or more poems/recipes, and report options can be used to determine where they will print. Most of my reports choose to not print the POETRY tag (which is why I have a separate custom tag type). I can also set a working flag based on the presence of this tag and then print a specially formatted report for those people based on that flag that does print this tag and its text exhibits. Hope this gives you ideas,

My testing shows that this produces a date between the 23 day of an unknown month in 1643 and the ninth day of an unknown month in 1643. This unexpected behavior occurs with parens '()', braces '{}', or brackets '[]', so choosing another character will not work. Further, Terry's idea of the non-breaking space only works if it is a leading or trailing space, you get the same "between" behavior if it is an interior space. Another option you might consider would be to enclose the date in quotes (e.g. "23 (9) 1643") which will be recognized as an irregular date. However, just as with Terry's non-breaking space, this will cause the quotes to print for this date in all reports. Yet, you might find this more acceptable as a clear indicator that this is "as recorded". Hope this gives you ideas,

Randy, Thanks to the flexibility of TMG there are multiple ways to do the same thing. If you want sentences describing the relationships, like Mike proposes, you might also consider my custom "Related" tag type. Added to the Other group, the extremely generic sentences of this custom tag type provides a way to describe either a reciprocal relationship between the two Principals or a non-reciprocal relationship using roles. If the relationship is reciprocal, I use [P1] and [P2] and[M1] is required to specify the relationship (e.g. “is a first cousin of”), with [M2] optionally providing details associated with the Date and Location, and [M3] for optional comments. The three parts of the memo allow the template sentence to be used for a variety of reciprocal relationship circumstances. If the relationship is non-reciprocal, I use the Principal role “Target” for one or two people on one side of the relationship, and all other people use the witness role “related”. Since the main memo parts and the witness memo parts can be different, this allows for non-reciprocal wording, e.g. [M1] = “were godparents of” and [WM1] = “was a godchild of”. My custom sentences are: Principal "[P] [M1] [PO] ." Target "[R:Target] [M1] [R:related] ." related "[W] [WM1] [R:Target] ." Witness "--Not defined" Mike's proposal does not link the target person to his tag, only the related person as the Principal, but has the advantage of allowing multiple target people using a single tag by using roles named for each target person. My Related tag could also be used for this purpose, but requires one tag for each target which is the Principal and multiple witnesses related to that one target. My tag's advantage is that the target person shows on the Person View of the witness and that provides the ability to easily jump to that target person. Hope this gives you even more ideas. Isn't genealogy and the flexibility of TMG fun!!

Some of us do this with a custom Flag with appropriate values. One of the advantages of using a flag is that accent colors can be set for flag values. The disadvantage is that the flag values are not set automatically. However, since this relationship is a static value which can be calculated once using secondary report outputs, it is not burdensome. And since you can have multiple flags, you can define multiple relationships to different target people. I define a Flag called 'MAIN' (on my main line of ancestors) with the following possible values: N = no (default) people that have some linkage to me, but are not on my main line 0 = me 1-9 = 1-9 generations A-K = 10-20 X = >20 U = unknown/unlinked to me in any way ? = other To use reports to set everyone in an existing dataset to the appropriate number requires running a pair of custom List of People reports once for each generation. The first focuses on all people with the MAIN flag set to the highest generation number so far set, and includes one generation of ancestors, and sets a INTERIM flag as secondary output. This identifies both the people at that generation based on the MAIN flag and their parents. The second report focuses on all people with that INTERIM flag set and who do NOT already have the MAIN flag set to the highest generation number so far set (so we only get the parents), and now sets the MAIN flag to the next highest number for those parents as secondary output. Remember to reset the INTERIM flag after each generational step. You know to stop when the second of the two reports finds no people in its focus. Hope this gives you ideas.

Good question, Teresa, I also wish there was more control to Place Styles. As you note on the Master Style List, when you edit a Name Style there are six different templates for different situations, but only one possible template for Places. I wish there were additional template options for the Place Style. At least the Name Style uses the single "Output" template for both report output and views such as the Detail view (even though I wish the template for reports was a separate template from views). But the Place Style template seems to only be used for report output. I suspect this is all part of the complexity of places and the fact that few enhancements to places have been added since earlier versions. But I also have an inquiring mind, and inquiring minds want to know .

I am just a user like you, and cannot give the "official" word, but yes, that is what my experimentation seems to show. Michael P.S. Note that because you left emoticons enabled (which I typically do not) the text '' (the label for the second possibility) was interpreted as an emoticon. Makes for funny reading

I agree that this is confusing. In the Help file, under "Tag Type Definition: Roles and Sentences" scroll down to "Rebuild All Sentence Structures" and you get However, this description could make you think of two possibilities. Let us say that you had modified a Tag Type Definition and exited TMG. Now you bring up that Tag Type Definition in a later session. While it is up you modify a sentence. When you click "Rebuild All Sentence Structures" does itA) "return them to the defaults that existed when you opened the Tag Type Definition window" which reflect your earlier modifications, or does "default sentence structures for all roles in the current language in this tag type will be restored" imply restoring them to the TMG defaults for this tag definition before you modified them in your earlier session. My testing shows that A) is true, not .

This has been posted by one other user. See the forum topic: http://www.whollygenes.com/forums201/index...ic=6216&hl= I suggest you contact Wholly Genes directly for help as this seems to be an unusual problem with a system. That other user ultimately reinstalled Windows which cleared the problem.

For various reasons I like to store data in the Place fields for a tag but not have that field print. I use the Exclusion markers (the dash '-') as provided by TMG, both single and double markers depending upon whether I sometimes will want to print the field (and use single) or never want to print the field in any reports (and use double). The problem is with the Master Place List (MPL). The fields with single exclusion markers do display in the MPL (with the leading dash). But the fields with double exclusion markers do not display at all in the list, you have to open the place entry to see them. Does anyone know if this is by design?? I also note that any data in a place field that has double exclusion markers is ignored even when that field is specified for sorting. If it IS by design, it would be a big wish of mine to have such data display in the MPL. I don't want to change its behavior anywhere else, just want to *see* it in the MPL so I can quickly tell that I have entered such data in that field.

Yes, I knew that, and in my original post mentioned that I do see single excluded data in the MPL with its leading '-' (because I have that option set). However, the title of this option implies it only affects the display of the tag boxes, even though it also affects the master lists. Further, there is no (separate) option for double excluded. My issue is about the display in the master lists, not the display of tag details. Your earlier comment of is really the point. I consider all the master lists similar to an edit screen. For example, when I put my cursor in an empty L1 field of a tag and press F2, I get all entries showing all data, including both the single excluded and double excluded data. I believe that the MPL should have a similar display for searching its entries. While my preference would be to display all data in all master lists, my wish would be granted with new Program Options controlling the display just in the master lists of sensitive data, single excluded data and double excluded data.

I have not used John's OTD, but he writes such useful programs I expected there would be a way. I note from the version history of OTD that from version 1.1 he included "Added filtering based on flag field values" Therefore, I would suggest that you create a custom flag that would indicate what people you wanted to include, and create the calendar filtering on that flag. Since TMG allows setting flags as secondary output from various reports, this should be pretty easy.

Wow!! I am constantly amazed and overwhelmed by the power of John's TMG Utility. This sounds like a much better method than my pseudo person. Also, I neglected to mention that if you do go down the road of creating pseudo people, you should create a flag (e.g. PSEUDO) with default of 'N' for normal people and other values for your various types of pseudo people, and add a filter using that flag for most reports.

Jim said: "I don't advocate displaying double-excluded data in the MPL..." Well, I do! or at least an option to do so. Simply including a marker that indicates there is "some" excluded data in this field without displaying the data is not helpful to me. And what about it being ignored for the sort? "The design rule has always been that double-excluded data only show on the edit screens -- Tag Entry and Edit Place." I would claim that screens, such as the MPL, that are only viewable within TMG by the database owner should have some ability, perhaps a Preferences option, to show single and double excluded, and sensitive data. Actually, for the way I am using Place fields I would personally not need this if Place Styles provided a method similar to Name Styles to specify multiple output templates, so long as I could have a different template for the Person/Family/Tree View from the report output template (which Name Styles do not currently permit). So, thanks Jim, you did answer my specific question. Yes, it is by design. Well, shucks.

Another option you might consider is to use what is often called a "pseudo" person. This is a person that is really just a dummy entry to be used for various purposes with some kind of dummy name to make it clear it is not a "real" person. You could create such a person, then enter one or more tags (e.g. Note) and create one dummy citation to the tag for every one of your sources. Multiple tags give you the opportunity to group your citations, and perhaps add something meaningful to either the tag memo or the citation detail. Now an Individual Narrative report for just this one pseudo person, with the options set to print a Bibliography, will print all your sources. It is a bit of a chore to set up to begin with, but might do what you want. Hope this gives you an idea.

You are most welcome. Glad to be able to provide an idea that helps.

The construct is already an "if" command which can be used for what you want. If you use [P] and this is the first variable in the TMG sentence, an appropriate pronoun is used for all sentences after the first within that same person’s text narrative grouping unless this substitution is suppressed by the ’+’. However, rather than relying on this automated behavior for [P] I can think of a way to 'force' the sentence to He/She, but you will need to do this to the global Tag Type Definition for that tag, not for a single instantiation of a tag. For a custom tag, say Settlers, in the Tag Type Definition on the Roles and Sentences tab, select the role Principal. You will see two possible sentence structures, one for Male and one for Female. Try these two sentences: In Male: that founded [L] In Female: that founded [L] The key is that the construct uses “part1” when there is one Principal and “part2” when there are two Principals assigned to this tag even if there are no sentence variables like [P] or [PO] inside the conditional construct. A very nice feature.

Well, I am one that likes to find ways to customize TMG, but I think you are fighting a losing battle with the inherent design of TMG. First, the [CD] and [CM] variables cannot be included in a bibliography template, only in the full or short footnote templates. The TMG design seems to favor multiple entries in the Master Source List. TMG is designed to collapse the bibliographic output from multiple sources in the Master Source List to a single bibliography entry if the resultant template for each of such multiple source would produce identical text. You can customize the TMG templates and the resulting footnote and bibligraphy ouput quite a bit, but this is usually at the expense of the Master Source List (which only you can see) being larger than you would prefer. I think you have to pick one or the other: limiting the number of entries in the internal TMG Master Source List, or limiting/structuring the source output. Personally, I care more about how the output looks, and am quite willing to live with whatever the internal lists need to be to accomplish that.

Alan, Welcome to TMG. In my experience one of the greatest aspects TMG is its great flexibilty and multiple ways to customize it to do similar things. You don't have to get "clever" and use its many advanced features, but they might come in handy sometimes. As you are just beginning, much of the following may be more than you want to tackle right now, but you may be interested in having an idea of how TMG can be used in more unusual ways. My preference is to include transcriptions of portions of the source directly within TMG as exhibits. There is currently no way in TMG to print internal (or external) text exhibits attached to sources, but exhibits attached to tags can print. Alternatives to link a transcription to a source that is entered as an exhibit (especially as an external exhibit) are a) as an embedded citation to that source in the caption field, as a custom tag (e.g. “Exhibit”) with a citation to the source, or c) as a exhibit on a tag linked to a pseudo Source person. To print exhibits, the report output must be to a file or printer, and must specify under the Exhibits Tab to print “images”. My sentences for tags that expect attached exhibits assume that the printing options for narratives that want to print these exhibits will be set to Embedded, and will Include internal and Include events. I choose to create Source pseudo “people” as I use them for tracking, transcriptions, and recording other information about the source. Not all sources in my Master Source List will also have a corresponding Source pseudo "person". I use my Source abbreviation as the Given name, and the Repository abbreviation as the Surname. I use a custom Created tag I defined in the “Birth” group with Role “Source” to record the publication date and location, and cite the source to this one tag with CD “source pseudo person (ID#) created” for clear linkage on any List of Citations. Then one or more custom Transcript tags I defined in the "Other" group are linked to this Source Person with the Role “Extract” to attach transcriptions as an exhibit. The advantage of a separate custom tag is that I can choose whether it is included in various reports. Normally P1 is my source pseudo person for the custom Transcript tag and is assigned the role “Extract”, and all other people associated with this portion of the source are linked as witnesses using the role “mentioned”. I extensively use split memos in my sentences. M1 duplicates the CD from the source citation, M2 is the topic covered by the extract or the nature of the transcription (e.g. details of the wedding ceremony), and M3 is the transcriber. WM1 is how this one person is mentioned, WM2 is the quote or a paraphrase about this person in the extract, and WM3 is a comment unique to this witness. This method allows multiple Transcript tags linked to a single source person, each focusing on a particular topic or portion of the source with its set of people as witnesses, and the citation detail of each tag referencing the specific location of this portion of the source for this transcription. My sentences for this custom tag are: For a Principal assigned the role Extract: [:CR:][:CR:][bOLD:]Extract[:BOLD] transcribed For a Witness assigned the role mentioned: [W] is mentioned in an extract of ([P1G]). Thanks to the flexibility of roles, I also use this custom tag without the Source pseudo person if the transcription only referred to one Principal, and the data that would have been put in the Witness memo is put in the main memo with the sentence: [P] is mentioned in an extract of M1. Hope this give you ideas,

You seem to want Birth and Christening data to be separate. One way (there are probably others) would be to create a custom tag in the Other group, possibly named "ChrisOther", and put your Christening information in that tag. You might still create a Birth tag, possibly without a date or place, but having this custom tag in a different group would prevent its dates or locations from being grouped with Birth events. With TMG instead of asking why the default behavior is a particular way, I ask whether I can customize it to do it MY way. Usually the answer is yes.

Well said, Laura. Your paper filing system should be obvious to you and anyone else that does (or may have to) use it. And isn't it nice that TMG provides an easy way to link the TMG source to your filing system with the Repository Reference field on the Source Attachments tag. However, I would share a lesson learned from my mother's files that I obtained upon her death. Due to the need for other siblings to deal with her effects, I received her data shipped in boxes and removed from her folders and binders. I would urge people, whatever the paper filing system they use, to write something on the document to reflect your filing and sorting. Getting a nice TMG printout, with "Drawer 4" or "Martin Binder" as the Repository Reference may not be enough to find it if you have not also written that on the paper copy, as the copy may no longer be in that drawer or binder. Of course, TMG also can produce a complete bibliography as a list of sources in a particular repository, which I make a point of printing out regularly and including in my file cabinet to let others know where an item can be found. So TMG helps me utilize the organizational structure I have for my paper files. Michael

I second the comments about the two opinions. I would also suggest that the software packages to display your TMG database might not be that important if you are willing to have your TMG data as read-only on your handheld. I prefer to use SecondSite to create web pages of my data, then download the webpages to the handheld using whatever program is appropriate to that OS (e.g. iSilo). I find the convenience of the hypertext links in the web pages to be very convenient, and with the options of SecondSite I can create a set of web pages on the fly before heading off to the library that focuses on the research of the day. I then just take notes from the research and use TMG back home to do the real data entry. Michael

Yep, like Terry just said, the option checked in preferences for where undated tags sort works ONLY for the Person View, and does NOT affect reports. This is why I always set that option to sort first, as that is the way they will show in reports. This helps to remind me that if I want them to apper in some other order I need to add a Sort Date to those tags. If you have lots of tags that have no Sort Dates and you want them to sort in a particular order, one way to force a sort date on tags to ensure that tag sort by the TYPE of tag would be using TMG Utility. See its feature of "set sort dates", but carefully read its help file that explains what it will and will not do. This utility does NOT have an option to force all undated tags to sort last. Michael

My wife the Librarian agrees with the KISS (keep it simple, stupid) principle. Especially with TMG as your tool for searching for documents, a system that simply numbers all the documents in a sequencial order, usually called the accession number, seems easy. I then use assign the Source to a Repository called "my files" or something similar, and use the Repository Reference field on the Source Attachments tag when I link that Repository to enter the accession number of that source. However, this does not help with a system to group like physical documents together in your file cabinet. You could choose some physical grouping system, maybe surname. or year of publication of the source, etc. then have sequential accession numbers within that grouping, e.g. SMITH-104. Hope this gives you ideas, Michael

I agree that there should be an option to completely eliminate this sentence. And echoing Donald Schulteis' comment about the two phases of a project, for the "gatherine facts" phase I feel a sentence like "no children separately entered in this database" would at least be more accurate.

I agree that there should be an option to completely eliminate this sentence. And echoing Donald Schulteis' comment about the two phases of a project, for the "gatherine facts" phase I feel a sentence like "no children separately entered in this database" would at least be more accurate. Oops! posted to the wrong thread. Please ignore.