adding new tag 1911 census

[Lorraine1 0]

Hi Folks

 

Whats the best way of adding a new tag for the 1911 census , (would it be ok to copy the 1901 then edit it)

 

Sorry never had to add a new tag before

 

 

Thanks Lorraine

[Terry Reigel 0]

Lorraine,

 

Yes, if your new Tag Type will be similar to an existing one, as it would in this case, that's what I would suggest.

 

Note that you said "Tag" here, and I think you really mean "Tag Type." You add a Tag Type on the Master Tag Type list. Select the existing Tag Type and click Copy. Then select the copy, and click Edit. On the Tag Type Definition screen, edit the Label, and the Sentences as needed.

[Lorraine1 0]

Thanks Terry

 

 

Lorraine

[Terry Reigel 0]

You're welcome, Lorraine.

[Lorraine1 0]

You're welcome, Lorraine.

 

PS have been using TMG since version 5 and still get muddled

[gillibrandd 0]

When I copied the 1901 Tag Type to 1911 I had difficulty amending the sentances for each of the roles. Is there a quick and easy way of changing the sentances for each role so that it says 1911 instead of 1901. The sentances are typically like "[RP:sister] was listed as [R:Head Of Household]'s sister in the 1911 census <[L]>. <[M2].>"

 

Regards

 

Derek

[John Cardinal 0]

I don't have a suggestion for how to edit the text, but you could try this: change "1911" to "[Y]". When TMG sees [Y] in a sentence, it substitutes the year from the tag's date. if you put the date in census events, then the sentence can refer to that date. The next time you copy the Tag Type, you won't have to adjust the sentence.

[Terry Reigel 0]

I would say the same as John.

 

Also, I see you have the term "[R:Head Of Household]'s" in your sentence. That will work fine in TMG reports, but if you have the names set to be links will look strange in websites created with Second Site -- the " 's " will appear differently than the name. The solution is to change "[R:Head Of Household]'s" to [P1S].

[GenerationGoneBy 0]

The sentences will be copied exactly as they are in the 1901 tag. You will then need to edit them to read as you want for the 1911 tag as Terry and John have pointed out. Terry makes a good point about the Head of household's part of the sentence. If you ever use ID numbers (which I do not) in your output, you will get Teresa Elliott 234's household. That is why I do not use ID numbers in my output in TMG or SS. Terry, I don't know what you mean about the names looking strange though, I am pretty sure the apostrophe s would all be hyperlinked with the name. When I add the age as part of the name style it is hyperlinked and I am pretty sure adding the 's to the role does as well. I looked to see if I had an example on my website, but couldn't find an example of one.

[Terry Reigel 0]

Terry, I don't know what you mean about the names looking strange though, I am pretty sure the apostrophe s would all be hyperlinked with the name.

Teresa, that is the problem. When you construct the possessive yourself, as Derek did with the "[R:Head Of Household]'s" construct, only the name appears as part of the hyperlink. When you use a possessive variable like [P1S] the 's is also part of the link. That's why I suggested the change.

 

Just how it looks of course depends on how you have links appearing in your site. But generally they are made distinctive by underling, bolding, and/or use of a different color, so having the 's not displaying the same way seems odd to me.

[GenerationGoneBy 0]

Well, I can say, I had never noticed that. I have used that for years and never noticed that the 's wasn't hyperlinked. I did find an example where it wasn't hyperlinked. I guess because it's so small, it just never stood out enough to bother me. Now, of course, it will, thanks a lot Terry. I will have to deal with it for now, since I have no intention of editing thousand of roles just to fix that one small thing.

[Michael Hannah 0]

However, if the person with that role is a Witness, I believe the "[RS:Head Of Household]" construct only produces the Possessive Pronoun (his/her/their) and not the Possessive of the full name which you can get with "[P1S]". If you want to produce the Possessive of the full name for a Witness that has a role I believe your only choice is a construct like "[R:Head Of Household]'s". And of course there is the standard warning that when more than one person is assigned to that role it produces the full set of names rather than just one name. It might produce "John Smith and Mary Brown's". (Lee, would that still be correct punctuation?)

[GenerationGoneBy 0]

Micheal,

Can't say, only have one person per role, but wouldn't it be John Smith's and Mary Brown's households to be proper? Not that TMG would print it that way? Not sure?

[gillibrandd 0]

Thanks for all the suggestions. Does anyone know if it is possible to create the role dynamically e.g. [role]. If there was a possibity of this then I could use something like:-

 

"[RF:sister] was listed as [R:Head Of Household]'s [role] in the [Y] census <[L]>. <[M2].>"

 

Regards

 

Derek

 

Any suggestions

[Michael Hannah 0]

Nope. For cases like this I use a split memo part.

[gillibrandd 0]

I have decided to use the following for census roles.

 

 

Head of Household:-

 

[RP+:Head Of Household] was listed as head of household in the [Y] UK census <[L]>. <[M].>

 

I have used the “+” as I want to force the name to be used in each case. I have included the [M] so that all people at the household are listed once.

 

Wife

 

[RF:wife] was listed as [R:Head Of Household]'s wife in the UK [Y] census <[L]>.

 

I have used the role [RF] in this case as there can only be one wife and I want to include the first name. I have excluded the memo as this would be included in the Head Of Household entry.

 

Roles e.g. son, daughters etc.

 

[W] was listed as [R:Head Of Household]'s son in the [Y] UK census <[L]>.

 

I have not used [RF] as there may be several people in a role e.g. two sons, and you would get “John and Peter was listed as…”. I want some like “John was listed as Tom Parker’s son in the 1911 UK census ….”

 

[W] provides the full name. There does not seem to be a way of just getting the witness first name. The other problem with this is if the person is one of the principles, e.g. Head and son are the principles. I will need to modify the sentence in this case. In addition married daughters will be reported as their maiden name.

 

I have not found a way of including the name of the current person. If they are a principle you can use [P], if they are a witness you can use [W] but what if they could be either?

 

Suggested enhancements

 

Is there a way of requesting product enhancements to TMG. I would like to suggest the following enhancements.

 

[C] the current subject irrespective of whether they are a principle or a witness. Together with the full range of abbreviations e.g. [CF], [CG], [CGS] etc.

 

[ROLE] the role of current subject e.g. son, sister etc.

 

With these enhancements, it would be possible to generate a single sentence which related to many roles.

 

e.g. [CF] was listed as [R:Head Of Household]'s [role] in the [Y] UK census <[L]>.

 

Similar sentences could be constructed for wills, probates etc.

 

Regards

 

Derek

[Terry Reigel 0]

Roles e.g. son, daughters etc.

 

[W] was listed as [R:Head Of Household]'s son in the [Y] UK census .

[W] provides the full name. There does not seem to be a way of just getting the witness first name.

No, there is not unless you use the role variable, [RF:rolename], in which case you will get all of them if there is more than one person with that role as you have pointed out. My solution is to change the [W] to "He" (with a female sentence using She").

The other problem with this is if the person is one of the principles, e.g. Head and son are the principles. I will need to modify the sentence in this case.

Why would you do that? The solution is to always enter the children as witnesses.

In addition married daughters will be reported as their maiden name.

Many users think that is appropriate - something about long-standing convention in genealogy. But if you don't want, that create a married name tag and specify that name be used in this tag.

I have not found a way of including the name of the current person. If they are a principle you can use [P], if they are a witness you can use [W] but what if they could be either?

In general I think it's a bad idea to design roles that can be used for either Principals or for Witnesses. For the most part all my roles are designed to be one or the other. That solves the problem. In the few cases I don't observe that rule I use role name variables.

Is there a way of requesting product enhancements to TMG.

Yes - you just did.

[gillibrandd 0]

Thanks for the reply and the useful comments. On the role

 

"QUOTE

The other problem with this is if the person is one of the principles, e.g. Head and son are the principles. I will need to modify the sentence in this case.

 

Why would you do that? The solution is to always enter the children as witnesses."

 

There are several instances where I would enter a role in either a principle or a witness. For instance if two sisters are living together. I would have one as Head and the other principle as a sister. Widower and son etc.

 

I try and include two people in a Principle roles as I extract to Ancestry and Genesreunited via a Gedcom file. When producing the Gedcom file only the Principles are included in the Tag not the witnesses.

 

Regards

 

Derek