On 9/26/2015 2:56 PM, Lee Hoffman/KY via wrote: > Converting a Tag with names in the Memo field to > using those persons as Witnesses can be very easy > or a bit complex depending on the Tag. In many > cases, you will want to convert the Memo entry by > splitting the Memo. That is, remove the > person(s)' name(s) and replace it (them) with the > Split Memo Separator ,"||". After adding those > names as Witnesses, you would adjust the > Sentences to include the Split Memo Variables and > Role Variables such that the resulting sentence is as you wish. Lee, That's way too hard. There is no reason to break up the Memo and edit the Sentence. Just put the name Variables in the desired place in Memo itself, using the right-click menu provided for that purpose. It's easier than adding the index codes. Terry Reigel

On 9/26/2015 2:14 PM, Mark Norton wrote: > > Many thanks for the responses to my question. Lee is correct that I > don’t use roles, but I’ll explore that option, if it would simplify > the placement of indexing in memos. Terry, I would definitely be > interested in knowing whether variables referring to witnesses would > indeed generate the entry of indexing—it’s something I don’t have much > familiarity with, so it’s not easy for me to test it. > Mark, I assumed based on John's post that it works, but I just tested and find that name variables placed in the Memo do indeed create index entries. (They also create links to the person's page in Second Site, which is the main reason I use them.) If you have just one person to refer to in a Tag just enter that person as a Witness, with the default role of Witness. You can use the standard [WO] variable in the memo if you want the full name. If you want to name a list of people you can enter more than one Witness, and do the same. If you want to use a first name, given name or surname rather than the full name you have to use the Role variables. For people entered with the default Witness role that would be [RF:Witness], [RG:Witness], or [RL:Witness]. If you want to mention several people in the tag, but separately rather than as a list, you need to use other Roles. Roles are defined separately for each Tag Type. Some standard Tag Types have a number of Roles associated. If you are using one of those you can assign a suitable role to each person and use those. If the Tag Type doesn't have suitable Roles you can create some. I have Other, Other2, Other3, etc., or Role1, Role2, Role3, etc. defined for some common Tag Types, like Anecdote and Note, for that very purpose. Entering the Role Variables is simple. Just right-click in the Memo field, and choose the desired variable from the next to last section of the menu that then opens. If you click "Role" a sub-menu will open showing all the Roles available in that Tag Type, and when you click on one of them a list of all the variations opens on a second sub-menu. If you don't what the output of that Tag to appear in the narrative of the Witness, put an exclusion mark (hyphen) as the first character of the Sentence for that Witness. Terry Reigel

At 9/26/2015 14:14, you wrote: >Many thanks for the responses to my >question. Lee is correct that I don’t use >roles, but I’ll explore that option, if it would >simplify the placement of indexing in >memos. Terry, I would definitely be interested >in knowing whether variables referring to >witnesses would indeed generate the entry of >indexing—it’s something I don’t have much >familiarity with, so it’s not easy for me to test it. In reality, you are already using Roles. By default, your Principals are assigned the Principal Role, and any Witnesses are assigned the Witness Role. Thus, in your Sentences, you _could_ change _most_ of the Principal type Variables to the corresponding Principal Role Variable and the same with Witnesses which would use the Witness Role Variable. The downside of this is that the resulting sentence in a report may not quite turn out as you expect because there may be more than a single person assigned to the Roles. For this reason, you may want to have a Role that is used for each person to whom the Tag is attached as a Principal or a Witness. For example, in the Marriage Tag, the Principals might be assigned the Bride and Groom Roles, and Witnesses might be the Best Man, Maid (or Matron) of Honor, Bridesmaid, Groomsman, etc. Then the appropriate Role Variable would be used in the Tag and Witness Sentences. For Roles other than Principal and Witness, most Sentences already include the correct Role Variable. But, as you add Custom Roles, you will need to create/adjust Sentence to use the appropriate Role Variable. These Role Variables are not hard to use and mostly correspond to the or Principal/Witness Variables. >Lee’s suggestion of simply entering the name for >index coding is the most straightforward, and >it’s what I mentioned in my original >posting. But it would be necessary to also >enter the person’s dates (to get them to appear >in the index), as well as their multiple names, >in the case of women with multiple >marriages. This would too easily allow for the >introduction of errors: a single wrong digit in >a date (or even a wrong space somewhere?) could >result in other name entries in the index for >people who are intended to be the same. That’s >why giving just the person’s number in the >project seemed like such a good option, but >apparently no longer a viable one. I need to >index a quite substantial amount of material >this way, so I’m interested in whatever would be >easiest, and least subject to errors. Converting a Tag with names in the Memo field to using those persons as Witnesses can be very easy or a bit complex depending on the Tag. In many cases, you will want to convert the Memo entry by splitting the Memo. That is, remove the person(s)' name(s) and replace it (them) with the Split Memo Separator ,"||". After adding those names as Witnesses, you would adjust the Sentences to include the Split Memo Variables and Role Variables such that the resulting sentence is as you wish. As I noted, this conversion will be fairly easy and straightforward. Some others will be a little more complex. And, a few will be very challenging to get the output you want. In some cases, you may decided to split the Tag into multiple Tags (using the Sort Date to sequence them, and also using the Special Sentence Variables for use with Concatenating Sentences (see TMG Help). Lee

Mark Norton responded: > Many thanks for the responses to my question. Happy to try to help, Mark. > Lee is correct that I don’t use roles, but I’ll explore that option, > if it would simplify the placement of indexing in memos. It would not only simplify, it would make the use of the INDEX codes unnecessary as the indexing would be automatic. You link the person as a witness with some role (and as Terry notes the default role of "Witness" may be all you need). Then you use the appropriate role variable in the memo (e.g. "[WO]") in place of entering their name. > I would definitely be interested in knowing whether variables > referring to witnesses would indeed generate the entry of indexing... Yes, Mark, I specifically tested that it would before replying. > ... simply entering the name for index coding is the most > straightforward... But it would be necessary to also enter > the person’s dates By using the variables, the lifespan dates would be automatic and controlled by the Report Options. And if a witness' dates are changed as a result of further research, those changes will automatically be reflected in the index the next time the report is generated. > ... as well as their multiple names, in the case of women with > multiple marriages The TMG Name index is an index of the occurrances of specific "names", it is *not* an index of "people". Thus is will indicate every where a specific "name" is used. That was why I indicated (and tested) that >> If a person is mentioned in a memo field using a Role reference, >> they will automatically be included in the standard Name index >> based on whichever of their Name tags is referenced in assigning >> them to the role. So if you link a married woman as a witness, and specify the appropriate married Name tag when you link her as a witness, her mention in this tag text will show up on the index entry for that specific married name, and only that name. That is how the index works for all names. It lists every where that "name" occurs in the report. Using the variables instead of entering the name as text also means that if later research causes you to change that witness' name or its spelling, that change will automatically be reflected in the text of all the memos mentioning that person. I think you will find that using Roles is not difficult. I suggest you begin by reviewing Terry's excellent introduction on his web site: http://tmg.reigelridge.com/Roles.htm Hope this gives you ideas, Michael

At 9/26/2015 11:28, you wrote: >Note also that Excel does not do dates correctly if they're prior to 1 >Jan 1900. For earlier dates, one can enter them in the normal way, and >they'll appear correct, but they will be text entries, not values, and >calculations using them will produce an error. There are Extended Date Function add-ins for Excel that will provide for dates before 1 Jan 1900. These are almost as simple to use as regular date functions for most purposes. Lee

Many thanks for the responses to my question. Lee is correct that I don’t use roles, but I’ll explore that option, if it would simplify the placement of indexing in memos. Terry, I would definitely be interested in knowing whether variables referring to witnesses would indeed generate the entry of indexing—it’s something I don’t have much familiarity with, so it’s not easy for me to test it. Lee’s suggestion of simply entering the name for index coding is the most straightforward, and it’s what I mentioned in my original posting. But it would be necessary to also enter the person’s dates (to get them to appear in the index), as well as their multiple names, in the case of women with multiple marriages. This would too easily allow for the introduction of errors: a single wrong digit in a date (or even a wrong space somewhere?) could result in other name entries in the index for people who are intended to be the same. That’s why giving just the person’s number in the project seemed like such a good option, but apparently no longer a viable one. I need to index a quite substantial amount of material this way, so I’m interested in whatever would be easiest, and least subject to errors.

Good to know, Lee. Thanks. (I'm still relying on QuattroPro, which has a date function working back to about 1600.) Rick Van Dusen On 9/26/2015 9:36 AM, Lee Hoffman/KY wrote: > At 9/26/2015 11:28, you wrote: : : : > There are Extended Date Function add-ins for Excel that will provide for > dates before 1 Jan 1900. These are almost as simple to use as regular > date functions for most purposes. > > Lee

Note also that Excel does not do dates correctly if they're prior to 1 Jan 1900. For earlier dates, one can enter them in the normal way, and they'll appear correct, but they will be text entries, not values, and calculations using them will produce an error. Rick Van Dusen On 9/26/2015 3:31 AM, Graeme Simpson via wrote: : : : > As for using Microsoft products to calculate dates be aware that > Excel thinks 1900 was a leap year unless you use an add-in to correct > that. I can't comment on other their products as I haven't used them > for date calculations. > > Graeme Simpson

At 9/25/2015 13:20, you wrote: > I can't seem to find a way to get ONLY my Linville grandfather's > direct line ancestors and JUST the children from each of those > pairs from the Linville surname project into a data set that I can > then import into the Eichholz project. > What am I missing? >I know I could create a "Report" with these people but how do I get >it into an electronic format to combine into my Eichholz project? I suspect that you have not populated the Focus Group in the right sequence. 1. Add your grandfather. 2. He is highlighted, so Add Others -- selecting Ancestors for the desired number of generations. 3. This may add more than you want, so select the unwanted persons and delete them. 4. Now select the pairs for which you want their children (to get the siblings of each generation), and Add Others seleccting Descendants for one generation. 5. If you want spouses of the children/siblings, you will need to select them and Add Other selecting the Spouses option. Lee

At 9/25/2015 21:31, Michael J. Hannah wrote: >I am not sure why you need the explicit INDEX code? If a person is >mentioned in a memo field using a Role reference, they will >automatically be included in the standard Name index based on whichever >of their Name tags is referenced in assigning them to the role. But that may be the very reason why Mark wants to use the explicit Index Code - that the person is not mentioned using a Role Reference. I suspect the Memo field in this case is really a very simple reference and to use a Role Reference (assuming Mark is using Roles) may may things somewhat more complex. Role References are not that complex, but to someone that does not use them, it is to them. In this case, I would simply use the text explicit version of the Index Code, e.g., [INDEX:]People:Smith, Joe[:INDEX] Lee

On 9/25/2015 2:46 PM, Mark Norton via wrote: > I'm wondering if someone can help me with a problem placing indexing > codes. I'm trying to index people mentioned in memo fields. I'm using the > coding referencing the person's number in that family file, for example > (for the file's person number 392): "[INDEX:]People:#392[:INDEX]" > > When I then do a journal report in Word, and then generate the index, > instead of giving that person's name and dates, the index gives an entry of > : "People #392" followed by the page number the name occurs on—not > mentioning the person's name and dates in the index. > > I'm using TMG 8. Am I doing something wrong, or did this feature go > defunct with the passing of an earlier generation of TMG? If so, is there > some kind of workaround I could do to be able to use the person number for > this? Entering index coding with each person's name and dates directly > into the memo field would be a **lot* more work (especially for females > with multiple married names), and would definitely result in more errors. Mark, I've never used the index code feature, so I can't tell you whether it ever worked. As others have reported Help seems a bit unclear about whether it was supposed to or not. I can easily see that this might have been missed when the report generator was re-written for TMG 8 - I certainly didn't test this feature since I didn't know it existed, assuming it was supposed to. Does entering people as Witnesses and putting variables referring to them in the Memo make them appear in the index? I use variables like that in the Memo all the time, but have never tested whether they will then appear in the index. That might be an alternative approach. Terry Reigel

Mark Norton asked: > I'm trying to index people mentioned in memo fields. I'm using the > coding referencing the person's number in that family file, for example > (for the file's person number 392): "[INDEX:]People:#392[:INDEX]" That example was first introduced into the HELP topic "Available Format, Font and Ohter Codes" in Version 8, and remains in Version 9. I agree, Mark, that I can find no way to make that format work. It may have been a planned newfeature to be introduce with the newly written Version 8 report writer. But it does not seem to have been implemented. > Entering index coding with each person's name and dates directly > into the memo field would be a **lot* more work (especially for > females with multiple married names)... I am not sure why you need the explicit INDEX code? If a person is mentioned in a memo field using a Role reference, they will automatically be included in the standard Name index based on whichever of their Name tags is referenced in assigning them to the role. Michael

On 9/25/2015 4:18 PM, John Cardinal via wrote: > Paul, > > The TMG help includes an example under "Index Code" on the "Available > Format, Font, and Other Codes" page: > > [INDEX:]People:#123[:INDEX] > Thanks, I didn't see that. I did a search "memo index" that came up with the page I quoted.... -- Paul E. Lawrence lawrpaul@citlink.net My Genealogy web page is located at the following URL: http://lawrencefamhis.com/index.htm Created by John Cardinal's Second Site http://www.johncardinal.com/ss/ User of The Master Genealogist (TMG) http://www.whollygenes.com/index.htm

I have two large projects.  One is a surname (Linville) project of tens of thousands beginning with a progenitor in 1600.  It is maintained by two of us.  This Linville project includes my direct line in this surname and all of the siblings of each couple in that direct line.  I have added extensive notes in many of these generations. Then, project two is my own genealogy of all lines (Eichholz) -- not just this direct Linville surname lines that are in the other project.  But over the years, I have been adding extensive details to the Linville project that naturally includes details for my direct lines in this surname that I didn't duplicate into my Eichholz project.  Now I want to "copy and paste" (I wish!) the direct line ancestors, their children, and the extensive details from the Linville surname project into my own Eichholz genealogy project.  (I do NOT want to combine the entire projects!) I thought I had created a Focus Group with my Linville grandfather as the central person, his direct ancestors in the surname project and their children, but this didn't happen.  I got the direct lines, but not my grandfather's siblings or the children in each generation going back.   I can't seem to find a way to get ONLY my Linville grandfather's direct line ancestors and JUST the children from each of those pairs from the Linville surname project into a data set that I can then import into the Eichholz project.  What am I missing?  I know I could create a "Report" with these people but how do I get it into an electronic format to combine into my Eichholz project? Thanks!Alice Alice Eichholz, Ph.D., CG    

Paul, The TMG help includes an example under "Index Code" on the "Available Format, Font, and Other Codes" page: [INDEX:]People:#123[:INDEX] ... but that is a different help page than the "Creating Index Entries" page you quoted. The ID method does not appear on that page. So, I am not sure if referencing a person by ID is valid. If not, I can see how Mark was misled. John

On 9/25/2015 1:46 PM, Mark Norton via wrote: > I'm wondering if someone can help me with a problem placing indexing > codes. I'm trying to index people mentioned in memo fields. I'm using the > coding referencing the person's number in that family file, for example > (for the file's person number 392): "[INDEX:]People:#392[:INDEX]" Your format it incorrect... From TMG Help in v9 (I don't think this has changed from previous version) Creating Index Entries In addition to the entries created automatically by TMG, you can also add your own index entries. The most common reason to do this is because you have a name or place mentioned in a memo field that you want to include in the index. To add an entry to the index(es): Following the text that you want to index, type: [INDEX:]name-of-index:level1:level2[:INDEX] [INDEX:]name-of-index:level1;level2[:INDEX] or [INDEX:]name-of-index:level1,level2[:INDEX] For example: [INDEX:]People:Smith:John[:INDEX] [INDEX:]People:Smith;John[:INDEX] [INDEX:]Places:Alexandria,Virginia[:INDEX] If the index option is turned on, this code will send the designated value to the index. Because the index key value is not printed, you can use this method to create an index entry that is not a literal match to what appears in print. The following two examples are functionally equivalent. In both examples, the value "Smith,John" is sent to the index while the surname "Smith" is printed in bold. Example: Johnnie [INDEX:]Smith,John[:INDEX][BOLD:]Smith[:BOLD] was a big man. Example: Johnnie [BOLD:][INDEX:]Smith,John[:INDEX]Smith[:BOLD] was a big man. Up to three levels of an index may be delimited with commas or colons. Example: John Smith [INDEX:]People:Smith,John[:INDEX] was born in Alexandria, Virginia [INDEX:]Places:Alexandria,Virginia[:INDEX]. -- Paul E. Lawrence lawrpaul@citlink.net My Genealogy web page is located at the following URL: http://lawrencefamhis.com/index.htm Created by John Cardinal's Second Site http://www.johncardinal.com/ss/ User of The Master Genealogist (TMG) http://www.whollygenes.com/index.htm

I'm wondering if someone can help me with a problem placing indexing codes. I'm trying to index people mentioned in memo fields. I'm using the coding referencing the person's number in that family file, for example (for the file's person number 392): "[INDEX:]People:#392[:INDEX]" When I then do a journal report in Word, and then generate the index, instead of giving that person's name and dates, the index gives an entry of : "People #392" followed by the page number the name occurs on—not mentioning the person's name and dates in the index. I'm using TMG 8. Am I doing something wrong, or did this feature go defunct with the passing of an earlier generation of TMG? If so, is there some kind of workaround I could do to be able to use the person number for this? Entering index coding with each person's name and dates directly into the memo field would be a **lot* more work (especially for females with multiple married names), and would definitely result in more errors. I appreciate any help.

Karen, you mentioned her daughter was working with you? Did her daughter inherit? Sent from my iPad > On Sep 19, 2015, at 4:10 PM, Karen Isaacson Leverich via <tmg@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > First off, I do realize I'm late to the party and support for TMG has been discontinued. > > But I do need some help! I've been sent a Google drive with all of the genealogy files of a recently deceased genealogist ... Word files, image files, etc. Buried somewhere in this structure of folders and sub-folders MIGHT be her TMG database. The 1999 TMG manual says backups have the suffice .sqz, and I have found one such file. But 1999 was a long time ago. :-) If she were using a newer TMG, would .sqz still be the suffix? > > And what suffix(es) should I be looking for in order to find her most current (not backed up) database? > > Second ... assuming I find the files. Or the .sqz file is good stuff. I have a CD-ROM (hers) of TMG 6.x, and there is a long string written on it, presumably an access code. Is that all I need in order to install it? What version(s) of Windows would this work with? Or I've been told RootsMagic will import a TMG database ... the .sqz one? How much data is lost or does it do it all? Even if TMG is no longer supported, can I simply buy my own copy anyhow? > > Her daughter and I are trying to finish up a research project which was almost done, and while we have the written reports (the Word files), the sources are in her database (she was super careful about that), so we really need in. :-) > > Thanks for any help or advice! > > Karen > 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 TMG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > .

Thank you to everyone who replied on and off list. I have some good ideas now. Linda Towne On 9/23/2015 7:44 PM, Lee Hoffman/KY via wrote: > need to see what I had earlier, I can just open a file. > In line with this, especially for those lines which I have declared > "closed" to further research (other than ancillary research), I have > output the data in book form. That is, I have generated journal > reports to my word processor with a table of contents, footnotes, > endnotes, and index. I often also generate various chart type > reports that may also be included in the final book. After final > editing (to adjust the table of contents and index to any other > included reports), I print the result to a duplex printer and bind > the result -- sometimes in hard back and other times in soft > cover. Some of the chart type reports are printed separately and > then added separately in the appropriate places in the main text > block. This usually mean that these are charts printed on larger > format paper and after pasting in place are folded to the size of the > main text block. > > Self binding is actually a lot easier than many might expect and is a > lot of fun. I can no print a 200 page book (50 sheets of paper) in > booklets form, fold it, press and glue it, add (by gluing) a heavy > paper cover) and be able to hand it to someone to read in just a > couple of hours. A larger book (say 800 pages) usually means that I > will want to sew the pages together (and usually use hard covers) and > this takes a bit more time and effort, but isn't hard -- though it > can be a bit tedious. > > Most of the time, I print using standard letter sized > paper. Printing in booklet style means that four pages can be > printed on one sheet of paper which is then folded to make the > booklet. When doing this, I usually generate reports using a > somewhat larger font size as the software scales down the printing > to fit the page. That is, a normal 8-1/2 x 11 letter-size page would > now be printed on a 5-1/2 x 8-1/2 half page. Using normal font size > would make the print fairly small and (for old eyes like mine) a bit > harder to read. > > Now, self-binding is not something one would want to do for more than > a few copies -- especially for the larger hard back books. But, for > small press runs of less than about 10 or 12, it isn't bad at all. > > The nice thing about the bound books is that you can give them to > family and thus preserve your research in this way. You can also do > a few extra copies and donate them to libraries, historical and > genealogical societies, etc. Thus, your research will > remain long after you are gone and won't just be thrown out. >

Comb binding is another option for books to give out. It's easily done at a copy shop or, if you buy a comb binder machine, at home. The big advantage with comb binding is that the books lie open flat easily, which is more important with genealogy materials than with some types of books. On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Lee Hoffman/KY <azchief@bellsouth.net> wrote: > At 9/23/2015 18:13, you wrote: > >> Some of the past discussions of how to ensure our work gets to future >> generations have included periodically running reports for EVERYONE in the >> database to PDF, which can either be printed and filed now and then or >> just >> stored as PDF. >> >> This is my strategy of choice, although I admit I haven't yet done it. >> However, I do something similar for manuscripts I'm working >> on--periodically save them to PDF with the date in the file name so that >> if >> I ever need to see what I had earlier, I can just open a file. >> > > In line with this, especially for those lines which I have declared > "closed" to further research (other than ancillary research), I have output > the data in book form. That is, I have generated journal reports to my > word processor with a table of contents, footnotes, endnotes, and index. I > often also generate various chart type reports that may also be included in > the final book. After final editing (to adjust the table of contents and > index to any other included reports), I print the result to a duplex > printer and bind the result -- sometimes in hard back and other times in > soft cover. Some of the chart type reports are printed separately and > then added separately in the appropriate places in the main text block. > This usually mean that these are charts printed on larger format paper and > after pasting in place are folded to the size of the main text block. > > Self binding is actually a lot easier than many might expect and is a lot > of fun. I can no print a 200 page book (50 sheets of paper) in booklets > form, fold it, press and glue it, add (by gluing) a heavy paper cover) and > be able to hand it to someone to read in just a couple of hours. A larger > book (say 800 pages) usually means that I will want to sew the pages > together (and usually use hard covers) and this takes a bit more time and > effort, but isn't hard -- though it can be a bit tedious. > > Most of the time, I print using standard letter sized paper. Printing in > booklet style means that four pages can be printed on one sheet of paper > which is then folded to make the booklet. When doing this, I usually > generate reports using a somewhat larger font size as the software scales > down the printing to fit the page. That is, a normal 8-1/2 x 11 > letter-size page would now be printed on a 5-1/2 x 8-1/2 half page. Using > normal font size would make the print fairly small and (for old eyes like > mine) a bit harder to read. > > Now, self-binding is not something one would want to do for more than a > few copies -- especially for the larger hard back books. But, for small > press runs of less than about 10 or 12, it isn't bad at all. > > The nice thing about the bound books is that you can give them to family > and thus preserve your research in this way. You can also do a few extra > copies and donate them to libraries, historical and genealogical societies, > etc. Thus, your research will > remain long after you are gone and won't just be thrown out. > > Lee > > -- Karla Huebner calypsospots AT gmail.com