I've used the Second Site [:SS-IGNORE:] code in the description field for many of my exhibits and initially didn't realise I should have used [HID:][:SS-IGNORE:][:HID] I've tried to use TMGU to change these [:SS-IGNORE:] codes .. Find and Replace Field to change: Exhibit Description Find what: [:SS-IGNORE:] Replace with: [HID:][:SS-IGNORE:][:HID] Then have ticked Contents must Find What exactly But the result is 0 Have also tried the other options - pattern matching, match case, whole word, but nothing seems to fit the bill. Can I use TMGU to change this [:SS-IGNORE:] code to [HID:][:SS-IGNORE:][:HID]? And if I can, is it possible to change the code in cases where it is the only text in the description field, and also where it is just part of the text in that description field? Thanks in advance Ann

Ann, Make sure that "Use Pattern Matching" is unchecked. The [ and ] characters are special. If it doesn't work, send me the log file from TMGU. Send it off-list. John

Hello. I am trying to restore a SQZ file onto TMG 9.05, and every time I try near the end of the restore cycle is come up with the error Dynazip error cannot extract file. I have tried numerous SQZ files in it happens each time. Thanks' to those who told me about 9.05version, and the problem with Gedcom exporting. Thank you Jeff

At 12/10/2017 07:59, Jeffrey Orford-Perkins wrote >I am trying to restore a SQZ file onto TMG 9.05, and every time I try near >the end of the restore cycle is come up with the error Dynazip error cannot >extract file. > > > >I have tried numerous SQZ files in it happens each time. I am guessing that your SQZ files are on thumbdrives or other external media. You need to copy the SQZ file to your hard drive and then do the Restore from there. Lee

At 12/8/2017 20:51, James Holcombe wrote >What is the purpose of this function? Will it reduce the full place name >in circumstances when the same place is used for BMDB? TMG has a default Short Place Name (which you can change if desired). But you can also create a specific Short Place Name for any particular places in the Master Place List. You can allow Short Place Names to be used in reports or not. If you allow Short Place Names, they will be used sfter the full place name has previously been used in whatever setting. Lee

What is the purpose of this function? Will it reduce the full place name in circumstances when the same place is used for BMDB?

One purpose of the 'Primary' marker is to take information where the may be multiple theories of what is true, and to mark which one is considered most likely so that a more limited report can be generated. It can also be used allow reporting multiple supporting events for one principle event (like an infant baptism being a possible substitute for a birth event). This method works well for key events in a persons life, they are born just once, die just once, normally buried just once (and the exceptions in reburials are really a different type of events), and have just a single biological mother and father (at least until science starts meddling in the process). It mostly works for a marriage, but you do have an occasional remarrage. This filtering work best on the more limited presentation forms, like charts, where you just don't have room for all the details (those would be in the related text reports (and such charts tend to not show the sort of event like census where having multiple instances are expected). On 12/8/17 12:54 PM, Michael J Hannah wrote: > robin lamacraft wrote: >> This question raises the need to rethink the nature of primary parents. > > Robin, > > I "think" we discussed this somewhat in the past.  But if not, my > opinion is that the entire concept of a "primary" parent is a really > *bad* idea.  (This assumes I understand your meaning of the term > "primary".  If not, see the last paragraph below.)  Primary has been a > problem in TMG and most other genealogy programs.  But I strongly hope > it will not be a problem in HRE. > > I believe there is no need for a "primary" designation when entering a > relationship tag.  That tag should simply indicate the nature of the > relationship (in each direction) between two database entities, e.g. > parent-bio, child-bio, parent-ado, child-ado, etc.  And the user > should be able to create and define any type of custom relationships.  > (Note that "location areas" as entities should be able to have > relationships as well.  Think of county formations where new counties > are created (as "children"?) from parts of old counties.) > > I believe what is needed instead of "primary" is the ability to > calculate and output "directed" graphs or trees or reports etc. of > *any* kinds of directional relationships which exist in the database.  > The definition of such an output should include which relationship(s) > are to be used for each direction in the calculation of that output. > > And yes, the plural of relationships for the output definition is > intentional.  As an analogy think of the TMG way to define multiple > people Accent conditions to come up with a single color accent for a > person.  Something similar should be able to be defined for selecting > amongst one or more relationships which may be exist in a given > direction between entities. > > For example, a strictly genetic relationship output could be defined > as requiring only parent-bio "up" the tree, and only child-bio "down" > the tree.  But an output which "also" included "Family" relationships > while focused on biology could be defined where "up" is parent-bio if > there is one, else parent-ado if there is one, else parent-social.  > Alternatively an output including "Family" relationships but focused > on social relationships could be defined where "up" is parent-social > if there is one, else parent-ado if there is one, else parent bio.  > Also the output definition should have options to specify other > criteria to use to choose a relationship among several in the same > direction or among several of the same relationship type, e.g. using > parent-social then use "last" based on the dates of these > relationships, or "then" based on the date range including a provided > date, or ... (use your imagination). > > I believe the relationship *output* should define what type of > relationship is "Primary" (or secondary, or ...) for the purposes of > that specific output.  "Primary" should not be an attribute of the > individual relationship itself.  The user needs to be able to choose > different relationships as "primary" for different output purposes. > > However, I do believe there would be a need for an attribute of > "default" for _each_ relationship type.  (Maybe that is what you were > thinking of when you used the term "primary"?  If so I think the > terminolgy of "default" more clearly reflects its purpose.) Only one > among multiple relationships for a person of the _same_ type would > have this attribute.  Thus each type would have its own default.  The > output would then only use that relationship among multiple > relationship tags of the _same_ type in the case where any defined > output criteria (e.g. date) does not make the choice among these > multiples clear.  Note that I don't believe there is a need for a > default type among multiple "types" of relationships. I believe that > always should be part of the definition for that output. > > Just my (strongly held) opinion <grin>, > > Michael > The TMG archive is found here: > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/TMG/ > Instructions on how to subscribe to TMG: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/other/Software/TMG.html > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Richard Damon

Actually, TMG does NOT consider primary parent-child relationships as 'Biological', but it considers them to be Genealogical. In the family section, where children are listed, the heading is NOT Biological Children of father and mother, but children of. Through the long history of man and his recording of genealogies, non-biological children that have been brought into a family have frequently been considered 'heirs' with all the rights and privileges of a true biological child, and at times a biological child (especially if born out of wed-lock) was cut off from those rights. The marking of a parent-child relationship as primary really just means to treat it as a Genealogical relationship. Biological Relationships (and before DNA testing the apparent/presumed biological relationships) established default relationships, but was in no way the sole determination of if a genealogical relationship was considered fully present. The classic standard formats don't deal well with unusual combinations, where a person may wish to indicate more than two parents (and even some minor difficulties if it isn't one father and one mother). There often are ways to actually deal with it, but the mostly mechanical methods used by software don't handle them well. What TMG doesn't do is apply any sort of formatting to indicate non-biological relationships, which sort of causes some of the thinking that it treats all relationships as biological, but such formatting was never 'required' even if it wasn't uncommon to do so when building charts by hand, and not fully standardized as to methods used. On 12/7/17 8:50 PM, Karla Huebner wrote: > Just curious--how do people handle this? I've been aware that TMG considers > any primary parent-child relationship as if it wee biological, and have > just put up with it knowing that adopted family members and their > descendants end up looking biologically related to me. I wouldn't want to > leave them out of family trees, but... > > I know we've gone over this in years past, but that may have been before > DNA testing was common. > > Karla Huebner > calypsospots AT gmail.com > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Terry Reigel <[email protected]> wrote: > >> So far as TMG is concerned, there is only one kind of parent/child >> relationship - a biological one. No matter what label you put on it -- >> adopted, step, god, etc. -- if you make it primary TMG considers it a >> biological relationship. >> >> Terry Reigel >> -- Richard Damon

James Holcombe wrote: > What is the purpose of this function? From TMG HELP: You can change the fields that will be included in the default Short Place. A Short Place is an additional way of referring to places. It does not include all of the place fields and is used primarily in charts and other places where the entire set of place fields will not fit. The default is [CITY], [COUNTY], [STATE]. On the Master Place List you can assign a Short Place to a specific place record, overriding the default specified here. In addition to charts, many reports have an option to use the Short Place template when printing place fields. > Will it reduce the full place name in circumstances > when the same place is used for BMDB? No. You specify the Places Report Option whether this report will use the Short Place field for *all* places reported. The option to "Group common birth places" is a separate Miscellaneous option on some reports. But that Place will output using the format chosen for all Places. Michael

This question raises the need to rethink the nature of primary parents. I resolve this into 3 cases (and argue for the use of 3 separate primary markers for type of parenting): (1) Setting a person as the primary *Biological **Father *of a child - implies to me that he provided the sperm and the primary *Biological* *Mother *that implies to me that she supplied the egg. This designation is based on genetics. (2) Setting a person as the primary *Legal **Father *of a child or *Legal **Mother *of a child**where these is some legal action (guardianship or adoption) involved (3) Setting a person as the primary *Social **Father *of a child or *Social****Mother *of a child where these is no some legal action is involved NOTE: In same sex marriages/partnerships there can be 2 Social and/or 2 Legal parents of the same gender. If there were 3 primary markers (Biological, Legal and Social) then for a normal biological situation the 3 primaries could be set to the same father or mother. HOWEVER, it is a bit like how a person's name can change, Legal and Social parentages can change over time, Legal and Social parentage may involve a number of parent persons for the one child. So who is the primary Social or Legal parent at the date of the Event? This implies that the Legal and Social primary setting are bound by the Event Dates that case the swap of person involved. So the question arises how does the user want to show these difference in an output, table, report or a chart? So in the report format that could only name one pair of parent would need an option to show which parents. In narrative reports, where there has been more than There will be good reasons for wanting to show the primary Legal or Social and not the primary Biological parents in some reports. There should be defined marker characters used to identify (when considered necessary) Legal and Social use of primary parents. There come privacy and a potential health/trauma problems if some relationship facts are exposed. Just my thoughts. I would be interested if others have alternative views of how to control the recording and display of these parenting relationships. RobinL On 08-Dec-17 01:07 PM, Lee Hoffman/KY wrote: > At 12/7/2017 20:50, Karla Huebner wrote >> Just curious--how do people handle this? I've been aware that TMG >> considers >> any primary parent-child relationship as if it wee biological, and have >> just put up with it knowing that adopted family members and their >> descendants end up looking biologically related to me. I wouldn't >> want to >> leave them out of family trees, but... >> >> I know we've gone over this in years past, but that may have been before >> DNA testing was common. > > TMG has not changed in this regard since before TMG v0.93.  TMG > considers the Primary Father and Primary Mother to be treated as > biological parents regardless of the actual relationship. > Unfortunately, non-Primary parents are just ignored.  I have long > thought that there should be some way for TMG to "automatically" > report that a non-Primary parent was an adoptive, step, foster or > whatever parent whether that parent was Primary or Non-Primary. When I > add an Adoption Tag, I always add the adopting parent(s) as witnesses > with the appropriate Tag and Witness Sentences.  For Step-, Foster-, > God-, and other parents, there is no equivalent Tag, so I just add a > Note Tag with Sentences similar to the Adoption Tag. > > As to whether parents are Primary or Non-Primary, I select Primary for > the adoptive  (whatever) parent(s) if the child should show there and > the biological parent(s) as Primary if the child should show there. In > either case, the Adoption/Note Tag pretty much explains the > situation.  It is really a case by case situation.  I had one adoption > whose Primary parents for years were always the adoptive parents until > the child was told that he was adopted. After that, I switched parents > based on the focus of the report. > > Interestingly, my grandfather's 1st cousin was adopted.  His son was > also adopted.  I have been in contact with his son, my 3rd cousin and > found that he was also adopted.  We have been working trying to find > the circumstances of the three adoptions.  My 2rde cousin has found > his birth parents, and will be meeting with them soon.  His adoptive > father is still living, but we have not found his birth parents and > odds are that we may not. > > Lee > > The TMG archive is found here: > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/TMG/ > Instructions on how to subscribe to TMG: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/other/Software/TMG.html > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Robin Lamacraft, Adelaide, Australia

Hello, I have been trying to export my database, so I can upload it to Ancestry. However, when I export my database, it is exporting everyone as an individual, no families no marriages etc. Everyone is an individual. I export as default set up, say yes to all the questions. When I did an export a year ago, my gedcom file was 45mb in size, today it was just 16mb, what has gone wrong. Any help please. Using Windows 10, TMG 9.04 Jeff

Jeffrey, This sounds suspicously to me like a case of an incomplete Gedcom file, which I have found to be quite a danger with TMG. I regularly export a gedcom and have learned to *always* check by opening the file in a text editor to make sure the last line is as follows: 0 TRLR John Cordes P.S. Why are you not using TMG v9.05? Strongly recommended. On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 04:09:49PM -0000, Jeffrey Orford-Perkins wrote: > Hello, > > I have been trying to export my database, so I can upload it to Ancestry. > > > > However, when I export my database, it is exporting everyone as an > individual, no families no marriages etc. Everyone is an individual. I > export as default set up, say yes to all the questions. When I did an > export a year ago, my gedcom file was 45mb in size, today it was just 16mb, > what has gone wrong. > > > > Any help please. > > > > Using Windows 10, TMG 9.04 > > > > Jeff > > > > The TMG archive is found here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/TMG/ > Instructions on how to subscribe to TMG: http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/other/Software/TMG.html > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On 12/7/2017 5:50 PM, Karla Huebner wrote: > Just curious--how do people handle this? I've been aware that TMG considers > any primary parent-child relationship as if it wee biological, and have > just put up with it knowing that adopted family members and their > descendants end up looking biologically related to me. I wouldn't want to > leave them out of family trees, but... Karla, My way of dealing with adoptions is based on how I want the particular situation to be described in Journal reports. I use roles in the NarrativeChildren tag to introduce a List of Children (LoC) in the parents' narrative with appropriate wording. The sentence structure for role Adopted(plural) is: [:TAB:]Adopted children of [P] <and [PO]><and [R:NonPrimaryParent]><, [M],> were as follows:[:NP:] Role Adopted(plural) is similar to the standard "children of" sentence, but is used when some or all of the children of a couple are adopted. If all are adopted both adoptive parents are set as the primary parents of each child and are assigned the Adopted(plural) role in the NarrativeChildren tag.  If only one of the couple has adopted the children P2 of the NarrativeChildren tag is left blank. In addition to its use in noting that the children in the LoC are adopted, this role produces a sentence in which an optional memo set off by commas precedes the ending text, such as: "Adopted children of John Doe, issue of his second wife Mary, are as follows:" followed by a LoC. This role can also be used when the couple has biological children of their own as well as adopted children or when the report-subject parent adopts children of his/her spouse from a prior marriage. To do this the adopted children must have the report-subject parent as primary but may not have the spouse as primary; the spouse is entered as P2 with the role of NonPrimaryParent. Role Adopted(single) is similar to Adopted(plural) but with different wording to be applicable to a single adopted child: [:TAB:][P] <and [PO]><and [R:NonPrimaryParent]> adopted the following child<, [M]>:[:NP:] In addition to the above use of the NarrativeChildren tag to introduce the LoC, I use custom sentence structures for roles in the Adoption tag to include a description of the adoption circumstances in the child's and parent's narratives. I also use several roles in an Issue tag to include groups of children within the narrative in cases where they do not fit the LoC format.

On 12/8/2017 11:09 AM, Jeffrey Orford-Perkins wrote: > I have been trying to export my database, so I can upload it to Ancestry. > > However, when I export my database, it is exporting everyone as an > individual, no families no marriages etc. Everyone is an individual. I > export as default set up, say yes to all the questions. When I did an > export a year ago, my gedcom file was 45mb in size, today it was just 16mb, > what has gone wrong. Jeff, It sounds like something is interrupting the creation of the GEDCOM. Common culprits are creating the file in a folder connected to an online backup or synch system, and mis-behaving anti-virus software. Terry Reigel

robin lamacraft wrote: > This question raises the need to rethink the nature of primary parents. Robin, I "think" we discussed this somewhat in the past. But if not, my opinion is that the entire concept of a "primary" parent is a really *bad* idea. (This assumes I understand your meaning of the term "primary". If not, see the last paragraph below.) Primary has been a problem in TMG and most other genealogy programs. But I strongly hope it will not be a problem in HRE. I believe there is no need for a "primary" designation when entering a relationship tag. That tag should simply indicate the nature of the relationship (in each direction) between two database entities, e.g. parent-bio, child-bio, parent-ado, child-ado, etc. And the user should be able to create and define any type of custom relationships. (Note that "location areas" as entities should be able to have relationships as well. Think of county formations where new counties are created (as "children"?) from parts of old counties.) I believe what is needed instead of "primary" is the ability to calculate and output "directed" graphs or trees or reports etc. of *any* kinds of directional relationships which exist in the database. The definition of such an output should include which relationship(s) are to be used for each direction in the calculation of that output. And yes, the plural of relationships for the output definition is intentional. As an analogy think of the TMG way to define multiple people Accent conditions to come up with a single color accent for a person. Something similar should be able to be defined for selecting amongst one or more relationships which may be exist in a given direction between entities. For example, a strictly genetic relationship output could be defined as requiring only parent-bio "up" the tree, and only child-bio "down" the tree. But an output which "also" included "Family" relationships while focused on biology could be defined where "up" is parent-bio if there is one, else parent-ado if there is one, else parent-social. Alternatively an output including "Family" relationships but focused on social relationships could be defined where "up" is parent-social if there is one, else parent-ado if there is one, else parent bio. Also the output definition should have options to specify other criteria to use to choose a relationship among several in the same direction or among several of the same relationship type, e.g. using parent-social then use "last" based on the dates of these relationships, or "then" based on the date range including a provided date, or ... (use your imagination). I believe the relationship *output* should define what type of relationship is "Primary" (or secondary, or ...) for the purposes of that specific output. "Primary" should not be an attribute of the individual relationship itself. The user needs to be able to choose different relationships as "primary" for different output purposes. However, I do believe there would be a need for an attribute of "default" for _each_ relationship type. (Maybe that is what you were thinking of when you used the term "primary"? If so I think the terminolgy of "default" more clearly reflects its purpose.) Only one among multiple relationships for a person of the _same_ type would have this attribute. Thus each type would have its own default. The output would then only use that relationship among multiple relationship tags of the _same_ type in the case where any defined output criteria (e.g. date) does not make the choice among these multiples clear. Note that I don't believe there is a need for a default type among multiple "types" of relationships. I believe that always should be part of the definition for that output. Just my (strongly held) opinion <grin>, Michael

Ron Chenier wrote: > I’ve just noticed that a child who I added to my database > with both Father as ADO and Mother as ADO parents > is still related to me according to TMG Relations. > Is there an explanation for this? Ron, Terry answered this question. All TMG output which calculates ancestor/descendant relationships *only* uses the Primary parent/child relationships no matter the name or title of those Relationship tags. Then Karla Huebner wondered: > Just curious--how do people handle this? Karla, The "short" answer is to make any Relationship tag which is not Bio a non-Primary tag. Then use Second Site for your output and be sure to _not_ check "Omit Non-Prmary Parents" in the Database options. That way family trees are strictly genetic, but a person's Second Site page will show and name their relationship to the "other" parents. The "much longer" answer is that it depends on what kind of relationships you want to see in TMG reports or in Second Site when it calculates family trees. Since I am adopted and have several adoptions in my projects I have thought about this a lot. My on-line book has a large separate section on dealing with adoptions in TMG. It goes into extensive detail about two separate methods for recording adoptions in TMG, along with descriptions of several custom tag types which I have found useful to fully document such events. See: http://www.mjh-nm.net/TAGCUSTM.HTML#Adoption Hope this gives you ideas, Michael

At 12/7/2017 20:50, Karla Huebner wrote >Just curious--how do people handle this? I've been aware that TMG considers >any primary parent-child relationship as if it wee biological, and have >just put up with it knowing that adopted family members and their >descendants end up looking biologically related to me. I wouldn't want to >leave them out of family trees, but... > >I know we've gone over this in years past, but that may have been before >DNA testing was common. TMG has not changed in this regard since before TMG v0.93. TMG considers the Primary Father and Primary Mother to be treated as biological parents regardless of the actual relationship. Unfortunately, non-Primary parents are just ignored. I have long thought that there should be some way for TMG to "automatically" report that a non-Primary parent was an adoptive, step, foster or whatever parent whether that parent was Primary or Non-Primary. When I add an Adoption Tag, I always add the adopting parent(s) as witnesses with the appropriate Tag and Witness Sentences. For Step-, Foster-, God-, and other parents, there is no equivalent Tag, so I just add a Note Tag with Sentences similar to the Adoption Tag. As to whether parents are Primary or Non-Primary, I select Primary for the adoptive (whatever) parent(s) if the child should show there and the biological parent(s) as Primary if the child should show there. In either case, the Adoption/Note Tag pretty much explains the situation. It is really a case by case situation. I had one adoption whose Primary parents for years were always the adoptive parents until the child was told that he was adopted. After that, I switched parents based on the focus of the report. Interestingly, my grandfather's 1st cousin was adopted. His son was also adopted. I have been in contact with his son, my 3rd cousin and found that he was also adopted. We have been working trying to find the circumstances of the three adoptions. My 2rde cousin has found his birth parents, and will be meeting with them soon. His adoptive father is still living, but we have not found his birth parents and odds are that we may not. Lee

Just curious--how do people handle this? I've been aware that TMG considers any primary parent-child relationship as if it wee biological, and have just put up with it knowing that adopted family members and their descendants end up looking biologically related to me. I wouldn't want to leave them out of family trees, but... I know we've gone over this in years past, but that may have been before DNA testing was common. Karla Huebner calypsospots AT gmail.com On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Terry Reigel <[email protected]> wrote: > So far as TMG is concerned, there is only one kind of parent/child > relationship - a biological one. No matter what label you put on it -- > adopted, step, god, etc. -- if you make it primary TMG considers it a > biological relationship. > > Terry Reigel > >

On 12/7/2017 7:23 PM, Ron Chenier wrote: > I’ve just noticed that a child who I added to my database with both Father > as ADO and Mother as ADO parents is still related to me according to TMG > Relations. > > I’ve refreshed the relationship in Preferences but it still indicates we’re > related. > > If the child is adopted how can it be related to me? > > Is there an explanation for this? Ron, Yes, there is. So far as TMG is concerned, there is only one kind of parent/child relationship - a biological one. No matter what label you put on it -- adopted, step, god, etc. -- if you make it primary TMG considers it a biological relationship. Terry Reigel

I’ve just noticed that a child who I added to my database with both Father as ADO and Mother as ADO parents is still related to me according to TMG Relations. I’ve refreshed the relationship in Preferences but it still indicates we’re related. If the child is adopted how can it be related to me? Is there an explanation for this? Ron Chénier <http://chesnay.homestead.com/> http://chesnay.homestead.com/ <http://www.bertrandchesnayfrancais.homestead.com/> http://www.bertrandchesnayfrancais.homestead.com