Michael Hannah

Peter,

 

If you had not noticed, there is a separate forum just for users to describe their custom tags and custom sentences. I have just posted my custom way of dealing with Adoption which you may find you can adapt to your situation.

 

Hope this gives you ideas,

Since I am adopted, and there are other adoptions in my various lines, I have given considerable thought on how to record this situation in TMG. I deactivate and do not use the standard "Adoption" tag type to avoid confusion. I defined four custom tag types in the Other group for this situation: Adoptee, AdoptGive, Adopted, and AdoptLink. I also created two tag types in the Name group: Name-Adopted and Name-Birth.

When much of the data, including the parents, is unknown I use the Adoptee tag type, and have the child as the Principal. The child is set to one of two roles depending on the two possible situations. If I only know the birth name and the fact of adoption and have no information from that point, I set the role to "Ward". If I only know the adopted name and the fact of adoption and have no information before that point, I set the role to "Adoptee".
Adoptee Tag Type

Adoptee: "[P] was adopted<[D]><[L]><[M]>"
Ward: "[P] was given up for adoption<[D]><[L]><[M]>"
Witness: "[W] witnessed the adoption of [P] <[D]><[L]><[M0]><[WM]>"

When the parents are known, for the two separate events of disconnection from the birth parents and connection to the adopting parents I use the separate AdoptGive and Adopted tag types respectively with the parents as the Principals and the child(ren) as Witness(es). The disadvantage of the child as a Witness is that one is required to set the Preference for "Show witnessed events" to see these adoption events in the child’s Person View. As I always have that display preference set, it is not an issue for me. By having two separate tags it allows for the typical passage of time between these two events, which may even occur in separate locations. Further it decouples the two events, as either one may occur without the other. The children may be adopted as a result of being orphaned rather than due to a release of parental rights. Alternatively the parental rights may be released and the child put in an adoption home but never adopted.

The child would be a Witness using the role "child" on my AdoptGive event tag type, where the birth parents are the Principals using the roles "BirthMother" as P1 and "BirthFather" as P2. The tag has any source citations and gives details of the release of parental rights using a split memo. [M1] provides adoption details, [M2] an optional comment specific to the BirthMother, and [M3] an optional comment specific to the BirthFather. Each child’s sentence uses the [M1] adoption details and its own specific optional [WM]. This allows a single AdoptGive tag to be used when multiple children are given up for adoption at the same time. It even allows for linking others using the standard Witness role with their separate witness memos to this release of parental rights.
AdoptGive Tag Type

BirthMother (P1):
Male: "--BirthMother must be female"
Female: "[P]< and [PO]> gave [RG:child] up for adoption<[M1]><[D]><[L]>.< [M2]>"

BirthFather (P2):
Male: "[P]< and [PO]> gave [RG:child] up for adoption<[M1]><[D]><[L]>.< [M3]>"
Female: "--BirthFather must be male"

child: "[W] was given up for adoption by [P]< and [PO]><[M1]><[D]><[L]>.< [WM]>"

Witness: "[W] witnessed [P] <and [PO]> giving [R:child] up for adoption<[M1]><[D]><[L]>.< [WM]>"

On my Adopted event tag the child would also be a Witness but using the role "adoptee", with the adopting parents as the two Principals using their role "Adoptor". I usually set the father to P1 and the mother to P2. This tag includes any citations such as court records and uses an unsplit memo for any details about the adoption. A single Adopted tag can be used when multiple children are adopted at the same time as a single event, each with their own unique [WM], regardless of whether they share birth parents, and even allows for linking others using the standard Witness role with their separate witness memos to this single adoption event.
Adopted Tag Type

Adoptor: "[P1] <and [P2]> adopted [R:Adoptee]<[D]><[L]><[M]>"
adoptee: "[W] was adopted by [P1] <and [P2]><[D]><[L]><[M0]><[WM]>"
Witness: "[W] witnessed the adoption of [R:Adoptee] by [P1] <and [P2]><[D]><[L]><[M0]><[WM]>"

Assuming a name change, the child could be assigned either or both of my two custom Name-Var tag types: Name-Birth and Name-Adopted. This allows either Name-Var tag to be marked Primary, and either name to be used as appropriate in events.
Name-Birth Tag Type

Principal: "[PP] birth name was [N] <[M]>"

Name-Adopted Tag Type

Male: "Upon adoption he was named [N] <[M]>"
Female: "Upon adoption she was named [N] <[M]>"

Either or both Name-Var tags could be created depending upon the information available. If I only create one TMG "person" for the child I might link both sets of parents, one using the "-bio" relationship tags and the other using "-ado", and then set whichever I prefer to Primary, accepting the consequences in various reports. Sometimes it is appropriate to create two separate TMG "persons" for this single child, where each "person" has only one set of parents linked and they are Primary. In addition to their "standard" Name-Var the "other" name can be noted with the appropriate Name-Var. These two TMG "persons" are linked with the custom AdoptLink tag type, P1 as the birth "person" using the role BirthName, and P2 as the adopted "person" using the role AdoptedName. The split memo uses [M1] as an optional memo for the BirthName sentence, and [M2] a separate optional memo for the AdoptedName.
AdoptLink Tag Type

BirthName (P1): "[P1] was named [P2+] following adoption<[D]><[L]>.< [M1]>"
AdoptedName (P2): "[P2] was named [P1+] prior to adoption<[D]><[L]>.< [M2]>"

Hope this gives people ideas,

For any kind of export, whether to GEDCOM or to anything else, in Step 4 of the Export Wizard you can select what people should be in the export. These can either be people on a (probably filtered) Project explorer, or people in the current Focus Group. So get one or the other of these set to the people you want (which excludes everyone else), and then do the export. If you plan on defining who you want multiple times, you may want to either save the filter in the PE, save the Focus Group, or set a flag to an appropriate value for the people you want and use that whenever you want to either filter the PE or create a Focus Group.

 

By the way, are you sure you want to use GEDCOM? It is a very old file structure and its definition does not permit including many of the newer and valuable features in TMG, Witnesses to name just one.

 

Hope this gives you ideas,

Yes, you can create custom tags and that is the power of TMG but ... custom tags have to be maintained over time in new releases by myself I fear.

Perhaps I can set your mind somewhat at ease. In the about 15 years I have been using TMG the company/author has made a point to do everything they can to avoid destroying user data, and to ensure that a new version will automatically bring forward both old data and customizations. There may be a requirement, like there was when going from Version 6 to Version 7, to take specific steps to automatically convert your dataset from the old version to the new. However, historically with this program I feel safe to say that any custom tags you create in a dataset will be retained in some manner in future versions. I certainly hope so, as I am someone who has created a lot of custom tags. In fact, I believe that there are very few tags that I use that are "standard" or with their default sentences/definitions. I don't find that odd or inappropriate because I firmly believe that the very essence of genealogy is personal, and the documentation and ultimate narration should be able to reflect that. In my opinion the "standard" tags are simply a way to get started and be used for the simple and basic data and events. But their real purpose is simply as "starting points" or "examples" for the user to customize the tags, sentences, and narratives that they personally need and want to use.

 

Just my opinion

See the TMG Help file under the topic "Suppressing Punctuation". As stated there: "The sentence code, [:NP:], causes the trailing punctuation for that tag to be suppressed."

BTW (trying to invoke a discussion here )

That is one of the purposes of this forum

am I the only one who thinks it is odd that we have standard tags for non-genealogy items like Military Begin and End but not for a (arguably) more important social item as in which social family children are growing up.

Not really odd when you consider how many years TMG has existed. To me the value of TMG is that you can create custom tags so very easily for all kinds of situations. The fact that they are not part of the limited set of legacy standard tags does not bother me, nor do I think it odd.

 

Glad it gave you ideas,

Hi Peter,

 

This topic has been discussed on many occasions, especially on the TMG e-mail list. You might search the archives of this list with a variety of appropriate terms for other ideas and comments.

 

There is an easy way to customize TMG to deal with these "non-standard" relationships. Many people create a custom tag in the MARRIAGE group that appropriately describes whatever the relationship may be. While TMG may "warn" you that the SEX flags for both are the same, it will allow you to do this. Next, you can create a custom set of relationship tags, such as '-Oth' relationships. You can then go to the child and link it as a child-oth to both parental individuals in the custom MARRIAGE-like tag above but leave/make the relationships of child to parent non-Primary. Thus the child can have two "Mother-Oth" or "Father-Oth" without any problem, and the Primary positions of Father and Mother can remain blank. That example was quick, so ask if it is unclear.

 

What most people have to decide with their TMG data in this circumstance is what the Ancestor/Descendant reports and charts will do, and how you (also?) link the child to the two biological parents that provided the genes. If one parent is a biological parent then you have at least one link and the other "parent" works somewhat like a step-parent. If not, then you have much the same issue as dealing with a child being adopted by a complete new set of parents right after birth, with all of the child's name and associations being with those parents and that family but none of its genes. You have to make choices, is your TMG data to reflect social relationships or genetic, or try to do both at once and therefore inevitably neither well? TMG is obviously designed for genetics, but is so flexible and customizable that it can (also) work for recording a social relationship. You simply have to recognize that there will be trade-offs.

 

Hope this gives you ideas,

Hi Dean,

 

I am just a user of TMG and have used one of these packages, but not the other. I am not sure what you mean by the "needs" of these two products? The basic difference between them is that they run on two different underlying operating systems for handheld devices. GedStar PRO works only on devices with the PalmOS system. Pocket Genealogist works only on devices with Windows Mobile. Both have software that runs on your Windows workstation to convert your TMG data files into files that their software can use and then to download those files on to the device.

 

These software packages are very useful to download a copy of your data on your handheld so that you can look things up when on the go. However, most comments I have heard are very favorable about these packages but indicate people do not generally use them for data entry. If you really want the full power of TMG while "out and about", then most people seem to want a full Windows portable computer running the full TMG software, and make a point of syncronizing data between the portable and their home desktop computer as needed.

 

If you have more specific questions then perhaps an active user of one or the other could answer.

I am just a user like yourself, but I know when errors are encountered the people that can help will need more information. They usually want at least the operating system you are using, the exact error message, and the exact sequence of actions you are performing in TMG that produces the error. If you could provide that information in advance you might you might get a quicker response.

I have so much to learn, and you seem to be a great teacher. Your instructions and explanation make perfect sense.

René, Glad they were understandable. I am sure once you learn TMG you will be able to help others yourself.

I will try both your method and adding a new tag Death-Spouse as well and see which one works best for me. Do you see disadvantages to the latter? How would the sentence read in a narrative?

I find the greatest disadvantage to be the double entry required. You already have to create the Death tag. Now you would have to add your separate tag and re-enter all the death data. A second possible disadvantage is that if you make the deceased a Principal, then this tag sentence also prints in the deceased's narrative not just in the spouse's narrative. And if you don't make them a Principal you have to change focus to the surviving spouse for the tag entry, and how do you indicate "which" spouse died if the survivor had multiple marriages? Advantages are that Reports can select which tags are output by tag type, so you could more easily "turn on or off" the inclusion of this information in the narratives. If I were to make such a tag I would probably use some variation of what I already use in the role sentences, but modified to be Principals. Probably make the deceased Principal1 and the surviving spouse Principal2. Something like:

Male: "[P2] became a widower when his wife [P1F] died."

Female: "[P2] became a widow when her husband [P1F] died."

Hmmm... I have not tried this, and as I look at this I may have the SEX backwards. The best advice in creating custom tags is to try a sentence structure, then produce an Individual Narrative, one of the deceased and one for the spouse, and see what you get and modify as necessary.

TMG thrills and challenges me. Other programs don't "cut the mustard." I really appreciate your helping me.

Glad to help. I also find TMG very useful and a delightful challenge.

Welcome, René,

 

You will learn that TMG is so flexible that there are many ways to do the same thing, each with advantages and disadvantages. While you could create a separate custom tag for "death of spouse" to show on the Family Group Sheet report, I don't recall anyone else doing that. Obviously the "Spouse" section of the report automatically includes that person's death, and most seem to find that sufficient.

 

However, many users, like myself, have chosen to add a custom Witness role to the standard Death tag which I called "widow(er)". For example, in the husband's Death tag I link the wife to this tag using that custom Witness role. If your Family Group Sheet report options under the Tags section has the Events set to "All events and witnessed events", then the wife's own section will (also) have the husband's Death tag (shown as non-primary by the absence of a trailing asterisk) and flagged with the notation "(w)" showing she was a Witness to this Death event (and thus not the person who died).

 

This custom Witness linkage shows the death of the spouse in chronological order on the surviving spouse's Details list of tags, which I find helpful. The linkage is also useful in Narrative type reports. If the report includes witnessed events, then the death of the spouse is mentioned in the appropriate chronological sequence in the surviving spouse's narrative. Since TMG allows defining different Witness sentences to be used in narratives automatically depending upon the SEX flag of the Witness, I have the two (male/female) sentences for this custom Witness role defined as:

Male: "[W] became a widower when his wife [PF] died."

Female: "[W] became a widow when her husband [PF] died."

 

Hope this gives you ideas, and Welcome to this Forum. I think you will find many helpful users with lots of ideas.

Thanks, Michael, I knew there had to be an easy answer, as with most things to do with TMG! To your suggested filters I also added "# of witnessed events" which covers attendants at marriages, etc., that I have named.

You are most welcome, and glad that helped. Sorry I forgot that the individual might also just be a Witness and glad you remembered.

Yes, this is a not-so-clear error from the underlying MS software that TMG is trying to interpret something you typed as one of its reserved variables (which also use the brackets). This is why the escape character was introduced in Version 7 of TMG. You can have the text you want by entering a backslash immediately in front of both brackets.

 

In future you should probably post any problems with TMG Version 7 on the forum reserved for that as you are more likely to get answers there.

As a second note, my preference is to leave in my dataset seemingly unrelated people that I have researched and encountered, especially as I often later discover that they are related. If for reports or other purposes you want to restrict output to only related people that is usually very easy in TMG. Both Ancestor and Descendency types of reports are designed to do this. Further, I have set a custom FLAG in my dataset to identify people with my definition of direct relationship so that I can restrict output based on this flag. I urge you to rethink your decision to delete these people as you may regret it later.

 

Hope this gives you (further) ideas,

Hi Daryl,

 

Yes, this is easy. Create a filter and use it either in a List of People report or the Project Explorer.

A filter something like this should work:

# of Children Equals 0 AND

# of Parents Equals 0 AND

# of Spouses Equals 0 END

 

Hope this gives you ideas,

Hi Liz,

 

If you have not done so it would be worth your time to review Terry Reigel's web page about

Merging Projects and Datasets. This will explain what you are seeing with what appear to be two or three sources that refer to your different datasets that are in the same project.

 

Not sure how you are "deleting" the "extra two sources". Again, it depends on which dataset in the project you are working on at the time. Rather than delete, have you looked in to the Merge capability on Master Source List. If these sources really are identical, that may be a better way to go. You may be deleting source references that you are actually using.

 

If you have also linked repositories to your sources you have an additional issue to clean up. If you merge two sources, each linked to the same repository, you will end up with the same repository linked twice (one marked primary and the other not if both were marked primary before the merge). It's up to you to also clean that up. While a source can be linked to multiple repositories, only one may be marked “primary”, and that is the only one that will appear in reports, so it may not cause you problems, but should be addressed.

 

Hope this gives you ideas,

Neil,

 

How are you changing your flags? If the change is made by using the Secondary Output of reports there is a Preferences setting under Program Options >> Reports to have such changes not update the Last Edited date.

Hi David,

 

Most people have not mentioned their color choice files, but have shared their favorite custom layout(s).

You might find the following Forum topics of interest. The most examples were posted for Version 6 but there are also some recent ones for Version 7.

 

Hope this gives you ideas,

Happy to help, glad that does the trick.

Your are probably trying to filter a List of Persons report or the Project Explorer. A marriage is an event, so a List of Events will probably be easier. Try a filter like:

Principal1 Given Last contains William Bloggs AND

Principal2 Given contains Mary END

 

This works if all your males were entered as Principal1 and all females Principal2. If you were not careful about that data entry, then try a double set of conditions with parentheses like:

( Principal1 Given Last contains William Bloggs AND

Principal2 Given contains Mary ) OR

( Principal2 Given Last contains William Bloggs AND

Principal1 Given contains Mary ) END

 

If you want to do some work on these people, then you could set a Flag on the Secondary Output and use the Flag to set the Project Explorer or create a Focus Group.

 

Hope this gives you ideas,

But again note they were the same people - exactly

TMG did not ask to assign them a new number

But Terry keeps telling you that you did not tell TMG that they were the same people - exactly. It cannot read your mind.

Erney,

 

You really need to read Terry's replies. TMG, like most computer software, will not read your mind. It will do exactly what you tell it to do, which it did. Terry has been most polite in telling you what you need to do to accomplish what you seem to want to do. It is not useful to simply continue to complain that the program is doing what you asked it to do and not what you wished it would do. If you really want to merge these exact people, then it would be wise to follow the directions for this program in how to merge exact people, and not continue to take the actions that you mistakenly think will do what you want.

You are most welcome, but the real thanks belong to John Cardinal for making the TMG Utility available. Thanks, John!

Hi Phil,

 

I think this is another case where John Cardinal's TMG Utility can help. Look in the Help documentation for TMGU under the topic "Change Citations". Partway down the page you will see the subtopic "Splitting Sources". I think this is exactly what you want to do. Note that first you must create all the new sources that you want to use. Then you can use the TMG Utility to change the existing citations to no longer point to your general "Website" source but instead point to one of your new sources.

 

Hope this gives you ideas,

I have not encountered this in my data (yet?) but agree with Pierce to focus on what you want to record and how you want it to output. I can think of two standard tag types that might be used as beginning templates for constructing new custom tags. Perhaps the military tag types for entering and leaving military service as ideas for tag types for entering slavery and maybe being emancipated? And then maybe some modification to an occupation or employment tag types for tag types to define who the person was owned by or worked under?

 

Hope this gives you ideas,