Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About tlc

  • Birthday 11/27/1964

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    Melbourne, Australia
  1. Thanks Jim. As the exhibits are internal, I didn't think I needed to update the links in Word, but based on your comments I did regenerate the report and try that - but the links option in Word was greyed out, so I couldn't do anything at all. I also tried the same thing after deleting the report configuration and resetting to the defaults as you suggested, but with the same results. I also deleted a couple of the exhibits and re-added them as external exhibits .....that DID work, and I did need to update the links in Word in this case as you noted, which was quite successful. I guess one solution would be to delete all my internal exhibits and make them external, but I have literally hundreds of images and it would be very time consuming.....so a last resort! I would be very grateful if you could have a look at my project, but with so many internal images it is very large - do you know if there is a way I can just package up the relevant bit to send you? The report I'm trying to generate only contains about 100 people/ Thanks again for your advice, Teresa
  2. When saving Customised Journal Reports as Word 2003 documents and Ancestor Reports in any format, the primary images are not appearing in the final report. The images are flagged as the primary image. They are all jpegs. They are all internal exhibits. I have the exhibit options in the report definition screen set to embedded, include internal images, centre person images and primary images. While I didn't try to print images in Version 6 Customised Journal Reports, I did do so with Ancestor Reports and had no trouble. Does anyone have any ideas what I may be missing here, or any suggestions to help? Thanks in advance, Teresa
  3. Thanks guys......it's a bit clearer now and I feel well equipped to solve my issue! Cheers, Teresa
  4. This seems such a basic question, but I can't find it clarified anywhere, so hopefully someone can advise me..... All the FAQ's and manuals talk about the fact that roles can be assigned to principals, but when I look at the tag entry screen it seems that you select EITHER prinicpal or a role. For example, in the Birth tag in the pull down menu you can choose principal OR child OR mother, etc. When creating a new birth tag, it appears that principal is the default.....which is fine but, probably because I have imported data from UFT, there is a mixture of roles in my birth tags. Some are principal and some are child (thankfully none are parent, which would be a real worry!!!). Anyway, the upshot is that these 2 roles have different sentence structures and therefore print differently in reports resulting in inconsistent reports. The solution is obviously to make a choice of which role to use and stick to it, but before I make this decision I'd like to understand if there are any reasons or pro's/con's for choosing principal over child (or any other role......this issue crops up in other tags as well). Humble apologies if this is clarified somewhere in the manual or on the forums......but I can't seem to find it anywhere. Thanks in advance for any advice you can give. Teresa
  5. When printing a journal report with the "child name" option set to "all small caps", the printed report shows three different formats of child names, although they are all in small caps. Some have a full stop (or period) after the name and then the sentence regarding their birth begins by repeating the name. For example: AMELIA. Amelia was born at Yorkshire...etc Some DO NOT have a full stop (or period) after the name and then the sentence regarding their birth begins by repeating the name. For example: HANNAH Hannah was born at Yorkshire...etc And some incorporate the name in all caps with the birth sentence. For example: EILEEN was born......etc I cannot find any difference between the name tags for these people that could make them appear differently in the report. Has anyone else seen this before? Any ideas what might be happening? I'm running the UK Gold Edition. Teresa
  6. The language was set to US for both Tage Type Definition and Tag Entry, but UK in the report options (I'm using the UK edition). So I changed everything to be all US, restarted TMG to ensure changes took effect, and the problem still exists. The histroy of my data is pretty chequered - I used UFT for years, then moved to TMG3 or TMG4 (can't remember now!), and when I upgraded to TMG7 I changed to the UK edition...perhaps all this importing and changing versions has corrupted my data?
  7. In the tag entry screen for the immigration tag, the sentence structure is marked as default, and is structured thus: [RF:Immigrant] immigrated to <[DETAIL]>, <[D]> aboard the ship <[M1]>. <[M2].> However when I look at the default sentence structure from the tag type window (Language = US English), the structure is thus: [P] <|and [PO]> immigrated <[D]> <to [L]> The structure in the tag entry screen is definitely marked as default, and if I do make a local change here, it changes to say custom - as you would expect. I don't understand why both of these structures are apparently defaults, but are so obviously different. In reports, the sentence reads as per the tag entry screen structure, however I want to change it and as I have over 50 different immigration events I would much rather change the sentence structure globally rather than change each one locally. Any ideas what's going on, and more importantly how I can fix it?? Thanks, Teresa
  8. Hi Terry & Peter, Yes - you are correct about the language. When I upgraded to v7, I chose the UK Gold edition because it suits my needs better.....so if the default language for this is English (UK) then I guess that could explain why things are different to v6. Anyway, you've solved my problem, so thanks very much for your help. Cheers, Teresa
  9. When I attempt to change the sentence structure of ANY tag type using the tag type definition screen, I find that there is nothing in the right hand box of the Roles & Sentences tab.....so there's nothing to edit. I made changes to sentences in version 6 without any problems, so I'm not sure if this is a version 7 issue or if there is something more sinister going on. Any advice would be appreciated. Cheers, Teresa
  10. I can live without a comma...... Thanks so much, it was fixed in less than 5 seconds! Teresa
  11. I have a source type for which I have modified the sentence structure of the 3 different ouput possibilities (biblio, full footnote and short footnote) to be exactly the same, however they read differently when previewed and printed. The sentence structure is: <[NAME OF INDEX],>< [PUBLISHER].> <[iTAL:] Ref #[REF #][:ITAL]> The outputs are: Full footnote: Deaths and Marriages Index Victorian Births. Short footnote: Victorian Births, Biblio: Victorian Births, Deaths and Marriages Index. (this is the way I want it to read!) I have tried deleting the sentences and re-entering them, both at the the source type and specific source level - but with no luck. Does anyone have any suggestions? Thanks.
  12. Thanks - sounds like it might be the problem. I've checked my CD (I've only got the CD for V6), but can't find the file you refer to. Is there anyone else out there who can suggest where i might find this file - also, whern I do find it, where should I save it on my PC?
  13. The journal report in V7 is throwing up some wierd codes after an event. For example, after a birth event the following is printing: <FHELVSS75> I haven't seen this in previous versions, despite using this report format in the past. Can anyone tell me why this is happening and how I can remove it? Thanks, Teresa
  14. Thanks Jim, but that's not what I'm after. It's Sources I'm after - not Citations, and I've used List of Sources but the report only lists them, it doesn't include any detail about them (such as whether it has an exhibit). I'm wanting to do an audit of my sources, and creating a nice spreadsheet of them with the relevant info would be great, but it seems the system can't do it. Never mind - maybe one for the wishlist! Cheers, Teresa