Old style dates

[John Snell 0]

For some of my people, when I open the birth tag, I get, for example, the message: "the age (-1) of Gideon Bradford (172) does not meet the expected minimum for a person in the Principal role of this tag (0). Proceed anyway?" I say yes. In this case, the birth date says May 30, 1751/52. The reason for the error message seems to be the double year date. In preferences, program options, I have old style date range 1583-1752. Apparently when I entered a date within this range, it entered a double year such as 1751/52. Many of my sources only gave a single date when in this date range, so I just entered a single date, but the program entered the double date. I wonder how people handle old style dates to keep from getting the error message indicated. As I understand it, the only time when a double date would be appropriate would be from January 1 to March 25, 1752.

 

I'm using TMG 6.12, advanced entry mode.

 

Any help would be appreciated.

 

John

[Terry Reigel 0]

For some of my people, when I open the birth tag, I get, for example, the message: "the age (-1) of Gideon Bradford (172) does not meet the expected minimum for a person in the Principal role of this tag (0). Proceed anyway?" I say yes. In this case, the birth date says May 30, 1751/52. The reason for the error message seems to be the double year date.

Yes, I see what you report. That seems like a bug to me. I've reported it.

 

In preferences, program options, I have old style date range 1583-1752. Apparently when I entered a date within this range, it entered a double year such as 1751/52. Many of my sources only gave a single date when in this date range, so I just entered a single date, but the program entered the double date.

TMG does not change the date you enter. If you enter it as a single year, it's recorded that way. If you enter it as a double date, and it's 1) within the date range specified in Options, and 2) one of the months to which double years apply, it's recorded as a old style date. If either of these two conditions do not apply, it's recorded as a date range.

[collybs 0]

Old style dates only apply to months of January, February, and March. Any date entered 1751/1752 for any other month is interperated as a from 1751 to 1752 date thus you will get the prompt as the range may be outside the input (in other words the age may be 1 year out).

[barbeww 0]

John,

 

I'm having the same issue, and am in the middle of manually correcting all of the double years from March 25 - December 31 before 1753, which promises to be a very long job! Interestingly, when I go to the original data source, it nearly always shows a single year, so there would have been no reason for me to enter the date as a double year in the first place. Something clearly happened within TMG, and I suspect it was some sort of database corruption. I have had occasional errors on startup, so I wonder if that had anything to do with it.

 

Barb

 

For some of my people, when I open the birth tag, I get, for example, the message: "the age (-1) of Gideon Bradford (172) does not meet the expected minimum for a person in the Principal role of this tag (0). Proceed anyway?" I say yes. In this case, the birth date says May 30, 1751/52. The reason for the error message seems to be the double year date. In preferences, program options, I have old style date range 1583-1752. Apparently when I entered a date within this range, it entered a double year such as 1751/52. Many of my sources only gave a single date when in this date range, so I just entered a single date, but the program entered the double date. I wonder how people handle old style dates to keep from getting the error message indicated. As I understand it, the only time when a double date would be appropriate would be from January 1 to March 25, 1752.

 

I'm using TMG 6.12, advanced entry mode.

 

Any help would be appreciated.

 

John

[collybs 0]

John,

 

I'm having the same issue, and am in the middle of manually correcting all of the double years from March 25 - December 31 before 1753, which promises to be a very long job! Interestingly, when I go to the original data source, it nearly always shows a single year, so there would have been no reason for me to enter the date as a double year in the first place. Something clearly happened within TMG, and I suspect it was some sort of database corruption. I have had occasional errors on startup, so I wonder if that had anything to do with it.

 

Barb

 

 

Barb

 

What are you trying to correct?

 

The dates between March 25 & December 31 do not need double dates and should only have a single year - double dating does not apply to these dates.

The dates between January 1 and March 24 can be input using double dates if you wish, if you do not use double dates you must ensure that you input the correct year.

TMG works on a year of 1st January - 31st December so that a date input as 3 February 1725 becomes a New style date of 3 February 1725, if it is input as an old style date 3 February 1725/26 TMG takes it to mean a new style date of 3 February 1726; giving a years difference.

 

Care must be taken as some records before 1752 were written up with January 1st as the start of the New Year and some were written using the Old Style (dates between 1st January and 24 March using the same year as the December records) and it is advisable to look in the records to see when the year was changed.

 

Transcriptions & OnLine databases are a problem as very often you have no idea whether the date given is Old Style or New Style (another reason to refer to the original).

[barbeww 0]

Peter,

 

Thank you for your reply. I understand the date issue, and am correcting the double years I found for days between March 25 and December 31.

 

I record dates exactly as I find them in the records, and when the day is between January 1 and March 24 in years before 1752, I record the double year if that is what the record says. Something happened to my TMG database, though, because I suddenly noticed that I had many double years for days between March 25 and December 31. As I began to correct them, checking the sources as I went, I found that nearly all of the sources had single year dates, so I would not have input them as double years. That is why I believe the database was corrupted somehow. I posted this issue so that the originator of this thread, John Snell, would consider that something happened to his database as well.

 

Fortunately, I'm nearly done with the corrections. I hope that more frequent backups will help me recover from any future issues a bit more quickly :-).

 

Best regards,

Barb

 

Barb

 

What are you trying to correct?

 

The dates between March 25 & December 31 do not need double dates and should only have a single year - double dating does not apply to these dates.

The dates between January 1 and March 24 can be input using double dates if you wish, if you do not use double dates you must ensure that you input the correct year.

TMG works on a year of 1st January - 31st December so that a date input as 3 February 1725 becomes a New style date of 3 February 1725, if it is input as an old style date 3 February 1725/26 TMG takes it to mean a new style date of 3 February 1726; giving a years difference.

 

Care must be taken as some records before 1752 were written up with January 1st as the start of the New Year and some were written using the Old Style (dates between 1st January and 24 March using the same year as the December records) and it is advisable to look in the records to see when the year was changed.

 

Transcriptions & OnLine databases are a problem as very often you have no idea whether the date given is Old Style or New Style (another reason to refer to the original).