Even in the churches that baptized infants, that baptism date does not always come soon after birth. Think of the cases of colonists who lived far from churches, towns, and ministers. I found one family in which the wife and four children were all baptized on the same day, and had been taken to town at considerable inconvenience for the very purpose of having them baptized. ....Betty On 9/9/2015 3:27 PM, Rick Van Dusen via wrote: > Notice there are essentially two different kinds of baptism, and IMO > they deserve being treated differently in genealogy: > > Very common in Christianity is the infant baptism. Where this was common > practice (Roman Catholicism, most "Reformed" Protestant denominations, > Episcopal), it might have been the only record of a "new little one" > coming into the world. (Definitely the case with my Dutch Reformed > farmers in New York's Hudson-Mohawk area, where there were no land > records because of the Patroon System of feudalism, no government > records, and very few were prominent enough to make the newspapers.) > Thus, in these cases, a baptism is the nearest we'll ever get to a birth > record, and it's right to have a Baptism Tag Type in the Birth Group, as > the baptism is almost always within a week or two of the birth. > > However, those who practiced "believer baptism" did not leave us a > record from which we could infer birth. These denominations defined > baptism as an act which demonstrated one's willful commitment to God, > and therefore seldom occurred for a young child (five or older), let > alone an infant. IMO, these baptisms are a lot closer to, say, a > marriage in their value to the genealogist; they note a particular time > and place in a person's life, but not any predictable relationship to > BMD. For genealogists whose family has believer baptisms, seems to me a > different Tag Type is appropriate, one which is in the Other Group. > > Rick Van Dusen > > > > > On 9/9/2015 11:33 AM, John and Lee Wood via wrote: >> Is the any way to get both Birth and Baptism tags to be marked as >> Primary so that they both will print in reports? Most times it doesn't >> matter which one is Primary but, I have a situation where a person was >> born in 1702 but was baptized as a Baptist in 1785. He had been a >> Quaker, but was baptized as a Baptist and it is important to his history >> to have that noted in reports. Do I have to create a special tag for >> this one situation? >> >> Thanks for any suggestions. >> John Wood > 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 >

I've heard of such events, but haven't seen any in my line. What I have a lot of is baptisms by circuit-riders, and other researchers who weren't up on that institution assumed these families moved around a lot (said assumption being debunked by Census and other records which put family in the same place for 100 years). I've seen, IIRC, one woman getting baptized as an adult, and this right before her wedding. I presume that had something to do with her status in the church where she wanted to get married and/or the church of her fiance. The difference, though, between infant-baptism traditions and Anabaptist is that with the Anabaptists one can't predict at all any connection between birth and baptism, whereas with the infant-baptism one can presume unless/until there's other evidence. In any case, though, a birthdate determined solely by baptism date is never more than a presumption. We stick with it, however, because it's often all we have or ever will get. The nice thing about TMG's Baptism-Tag-in-the-Birth-Group is that we can specify that all we have is the baptism and still have a "birth" date showing up instead of a blank. Rick Van Dusen On 9/9/2015 7:35 PM, Betty Clay wrote: > Even in the churches that baptized infants, that baptism date does not > always come soon after birth. Think of the cases of colonists who lived > far from churches, towns, and ministers. I found one family in which > the wife and four children were all baptized on the same day, and had > been taken to town at considerable inconvenience for the very purpose of > having them baptized. > > > ....Betty

I just made a custom tag.  Having lots of French ancestors, I need both from the church. From: John and Lee Wood via <tmg@rootsweb.com> To: TMG <TMG@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 2:33 PM Subject: [TMG] Birth and Baptism Tags Marked as Primary Is the any way to get both Birth and Baptism tags to be marked as Primary so that they both will print in reports?  Most times it doesn't matter which one is Primary but, I have a situation where a person was born in 1702 but was baptized as a Baptist in 1785.  He had been a Quaker, but was baptized as a Baptist and it is important to his history to have that noted in reports.  Do I have to create a special tag for this one situation? Thanks for any suggestions. John Wood 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

On 9/9/2015 3:01 PM, Terry Reigel via wrote: > On 9/9/2015 2:33 PM, John and Lee Wood via wrote: >> Is the any way to get both Birth and Baptism tags to be marked as >> Primary so that they both will print in reports? Most times it doesn't >> matter which one is Primary but, I have a situation where a person was >> born in 1702 but was baptized as a Baptist in 1785. He had been a >> Quaker, but was baptized as a Baptist and it is important to his history >> to have that noted in reports. Do I have to create a special tag for >> this one situation? > John, > > The short is no, you cannot make both the Birth and Baptism tag primary > as long as you are using the standard Baptism Tag, which is in the Birth > Group. Only one Tag in that group can be made Primary for each person. > But that's no reason both can't print in reports, unless you are talking > about on of the very brief chart formats. > > Just uncheck "Primary Tags only" in the Report Definition. > > Terry Reigel > 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 > Thanks Terry. I hadn't thought of that. John

On 9/9/2015 2:33 PM, John and Lee Wood via wrote: > Is the any way to get both Birth and Baptism tags to be marked as > Primary so that they both will print in reports? Most times it doesn't > matter which one is Primary but, I have a situation where a person was > born in 1702 but was baptized as a Baptist in 1785. He had been a > Quaker, but was baptized as a Baptist and it is important to his history > to have that noted in reports. Do I have to create a special tag for > this one situation? John, The short is no, you cannot make both the Birth and Baptism tag primary as long as you are using the standard Baptism Tag, which is in the Birth Group. Only one Tag in that group can be made Primary for each person. But that's no reason both can't print in reports, unless you are talking about on of the very brief chart formats. Just uncheck "Primary Tags only" in the Report Definition. Terry Reigel

Is the any way to get both Birth and Baptism tags to be marked as Primary so that they both will print in reports? Most times it doesn't matter which one is Primary but, I have a situation where a person was born in 1702 but was baptized as a Baptist in 1785. He had been a Quaker, but was baptized as a Baptist and it is important to his history to have that noted in reports. Do I have to create a special tag for this one situation? Thanks for any suggestions. John Wood

Notice there are essentially two different kinds of baptism, and IMO they deserve being treated differently in genealogy: Very common in Christianity is the infant baptism. Where this was common practice (Roman Catholicism, most "Reformed" Protestant denominations, Episcopal), it might have been the only record of a "new little one" coming into the world. (Definitely the case with my Dutch Reformed farmers in New York's Hudson-Mohawk area, where there were no land records because of the Patroon System of feudalism, no government records, and very few were prominent enough to make the newspapers.) Thus, in these cases, a baptism is the nearest we'll ever get to a birth record, and it's right to have a Baptism Tag Type in the Birth Group, as the baptism is almost always within a week or two of the birth. However, those who practiced "believer baptism" did not leave us a record from which we could infer birth. These denominations defined baptism as an act which demonstrated one's willful commitment to God, and therefore seldom occurred for a young child (five or older), let alone an infant. IMO, these baptisms are a lot closer to, say, a marriage in their value to the genealogist; they note a particular time and place in a person's life, but not any predictable relationship to BMD. For genealogists whose family has believer baptisms, seems to me a different Tag Type is appropriate, one which is in the Other Group. Rick Van Dusen On 9/9/2015 11:33 AM, John and Lee Wood via wrote: > Is the any way to get both Birth and Baptism tags to be marked as > Primary so that they both will print in reports? Most times it doesn't > matter which one is Primary but, I have a situation where a person was > born in 1702 but was baptized as a Baptist in 1785. He had been a > Quaker, but was baptized as a Baptist and it is important to his history > to have that noted in reports. Do I have to create a special tag for > this one situation? > > Thanks for any suggestions. > John Wood

Toby Turner wrote: > In the U. S., I always enter counties (same as in Great Britain) > for the same reason. I may not always be crazy about how it reads, > but it saves me a lot of time when researching/visiting/or > demonstrating ancestral location spread. Toby, If you want, you can have the county in the SS place index but omit it from the person page entry (narrative). Enter the county as a single-excluded value as shown on the SS help page here: http://ss.johncardinal.com/placeindex.htm#fieldexclusion The main purpose of the Show Excluded Place Data property of the SS Place Index is to allow the index to include counties while the narrative may or may not. As Terry Reigel described, you can also control what appears in the person page entry by customizing the sentence for an event to include only selected place levels, i.e., rather than always using [L], use variables for the individual parts [L3], [L5], etc. Lastly, you can use the SS "Full, then Short" feature to show the full place on the first reference in a person page entry, but the short place for all subsequent references in the same person page entry. Full, then Short only works with a single TMG place record, and so the results are affected by how you record places. Using those features in some combination may help you improve the flow of the person page entry narrative without sacrificing the utility of the SS place index. John

I really love the Place Index in SS because when I'm in a given area, be it country, state, county or city, I can quickly see how many ancestors lived there. With several thousand direct ancestors, I cannot possibly remember where they lived. When I was in the Czech Republic several months ago, I could quickly look at my iPad and see how many had lived in this country . . . by area. This index also helped me visit some burial locations in Hungary. In the U. S., I always enter counties (same as in Great Britain) for the same reason. I may not always be crazy about how it reads, but it saves me a lot of time when researching/visiting/or demonstrating ancestral location spread. Regards, Toby

The Roots Users Group "RUG" of Arlington, Virginia (the Washington, DC area TMG Users group) will meet on Saturday, September 12, 2015, from 9:00 am to 12:00 am (Eastern Daylight Time). 9:00 AM Session I: “Working with Czech Records in TMG” Presenter: John Frank 9:40-10:00 Break 10:00-10:40 Session II: “Finding Records in the Czech Republic, A Special Case of Sudetenland” Presenter: Carol Traxler 10:40-11:00 Break 11:00-11:40 Session III: “Finding Your Czech Ancestors: Presenter: Stephen Ullrich 11:40 Questions - Persons who are unable to attend onsite may send their questions in advance to Paul Blackburn at programs@rootsusers.org<mailto:programs@rootsusers.org> All are invited to attend the meeting in person or join us online via Join.Me. Note: Our online meeting is open to everyone, not just members! JOIN.ME<http://join.me/> INSTRUCTIONS: Download the Join.Me App from the Join.Me website, https://www.join.me/apps by clicking the applicable mobile or desktop app. [NOTE: You do not need to pay & download the software or download the free trial to join the meeting! Just download one of the apps.] There is a Q&A page on the Join.Me site which can help if you are having difficulties. http://help.join.me/knowledgebase?_ga=1.36103592.986824069.1386516973. MEETING LOCATION: We still meet 'in person' in Northern Virginia near Tyson's Corner, about 2 miles inside the beltway (I-495) on Route 123. Members and guests are welcome! We meet in the newer building on the lower level. Trinity United Methodist Church (UMC) 1205 Dolley Madison Boulevard McLean, VA 22101-3019 For directions see our website: http://www.rootsusers.org/TrinityUMCLocation.html. Regards, Jan Janis Parkison Rodriguez VP Arlington RUG

Michael Thanks for your following advice. Two important points to realize. First, defined Flags exist for all people in a given dataset. When you define a new Flag in a dataset every person gets that Flag, and its value is set to the default value. Next, once you have defined a new Flag, you can run a filtered List of People report and have the Secondary Output Option set this Flag to a specific value for all the people who qualify for that filter. Once I realized that ALL the people received a new flag with my default value of ?, then I was able to change each of my sister in law's complete "families" to Y in her COLLEEN's flag and, therefore, when we go out for lunch tomorrow I will be able to give her the DVD with all her family tree for which she had asked. While I was checking various individuals to ensure that I had done it correctly, I was also able to make a few other minor corrections that made it look as I wanted it to look Thanks again Michael

On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 11:24:41AM -0400, John Cardinal via wrote: > Terry, > If you have place records where you leave L4 (county) blank, and some where > you do not, then the place index in SS would have an entry for a place in > that county in two places: one under the county, one not. However, you can > get around that. If you single-exclude the county name, the place index > feature in SS will collapse the two entries and treat them as the same > place. See: http://ss.johncardinal.com/placeindex.htm#fieldexclusion > > As I am sure you know, I am not trying to convince you to use the place > index feature in SS. My main goal is to make sure other SS users reading > this thread understand how it works. John, Your field exclusion Help page has this sentence: "If Show Excluded Place Data is checked, the Place Index feature will treat place #1 and place #2 as the same place." For some reason I had never before appreciated the significance of that statement (possibly I never even read it?!). That is an excellent feature which I have just turned on in my various SDF files. John Cordes

I want to print a report of all the people in a project. I can open it on the screen in print preview but it will not print. When I click on print it goes back to the person view. I brought it up on the screen again and printed the first page, but when I went to the next page the screen went back to the person view. What am I doing wrong? Using winXP and TMG 7.05 Nancy

On 9/8/2015 11:24 AM, John Cardinal via wrote: > If you have place records where you leave L4 (county) blank, and some where > you do not, then the place index in SS would have an entry for a place in > that county in two places: one under the county, one not. However, you can > get around that. If you single-exclude the county name, the place index > feature in SS will collapse the two entries and treat them as the same > place. See: http://ss.johncardinal.com/placeindex.htm#fieldexclusion > > As I am sure you know, I am not trying to convince you to use the place > index feature in SS. My main goal is to make sure other SS users reading > this thread understand how it works. Thanks for the clarification, John. It is now more clear that I've never used the place index. :-) I didn't know of that feature. That's a good solution to the issue I was envisioning. Terry

Terry Reigel wrote: > The reason I suggested my practices with place would adversely > impact the index is my frequent omission of L4 to improve > readability. As I understand the resulting index it would produce > separate listings of most cities, one with and the other without > the county, which I see as undesireable. I don't regard that as any > fault with the index but rather an incompatibility between my > method and any automatically produced index. Terry, If you have place records where you leave L4 (county) blank, and some where you do not, then the place index in SS would have an entry for a place in that county in two places: one under the county, one not. However, you can get around that. If you single-exclude the county name, the place index feature in SS will collapse the two entries and treat them as the same place. See: http://ss.johncardinal.com/placeindex.htm#fieldexclusion As I am sure you know, I am not trying to convince you to use the place index feature in SS. My main goal is to make sure other SS users reading this thread understand how it works. John

On 9/7/2015 7:28 PM, John Cardinal via wrote: > The "Full, then Short" option in SS applies to a single place record in the > TMG database. If there are two place records with the same (or similar) > data, but still recorded in two TMG place records, then the "Full, then > Short" applies to each place record separately. If both places are used in > tags for a single person, both full places will appear in the person entry. John, Yes, that one I understand. So if there are two or more different details, each is treated separately. Or, if L4 is omitted in some cases and included in others, they are treated separately. Both of these occur often in my data, producing results I don't care for if I use the Full, then Short option. So I manage my place levels manually to get them to appear in narratives as I prefer. > For the Master Place Index in SS, SS collapses all places that have the same > values in the place levels that appear in the index. So, if the index is > limited to L2, L3, L4, and L6, then _all_ TMG places records that have the > same set of values in L2, L3, L4, and L6 will be collapsed into a single > entry in the master place index. > > If I understand how you are using place records, then I think the SS master > place index would not be adversely affected by the way you record places. To tell the truth I've not tried the place index, mainly because I've not though it is useful. Others of course obviously disagree on that. The reason I suggested my practices with place would adversely impact the index is my frequent omission of L4 to improve readability. As I understand the resulting index it would produce separate listings of most cities, one with and the other without the county, which I see as undesireable. I don't regard that as any fault with the index but rather an incompatibility between my method and any automatically produced index. Terry

On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 09:18:17PM -0400, John Cardinal via wrote: > Rick Van Dusen wrote: > > John, if I'm understanding this correctly, John Cordes' problem > > can be handled in SS by limiting the index to L3, L4, L5, and L6, > > say? He'd be able to "hide" his Detail field entries so SS would > > see the place without Detail as the same as the same place with a > > Detail? > > Rick, > > No, I don't think so, but perhaps I have misread this thread. > > The subject refers to the place index, but John's question was about Second > Site's "Full, then Short" place formatting option. That option applies to > place formatting when SS is processing names and events as part of creating > person page entries, and the option only affects multiple use of the _exact > place record_ used by one or more events. > > The place index is different. SS adds a place index to the site if the user > adds a Master Place Index User Item to the site configuration. The places > shown in the index are collapsed the way I (briefly) described in my last > reply: places that have the same values in the place levels included in the > index (configurable) will be indexed as a single place. > > See: > > Full, then Short: http://ss.johncardinal.com/secplaces.htm#placeformat > > Place Index: http://ss.johncardinal.com/placeindex.htm#grouping John - You are right, I did mix things up with the Subject header not matching my actual question. It came about because of my recent focus on the MPL, and SS's Place Index, which then led me to look more closely at how place levels were being handled in the page entries. John Cordes

That's what I thought too, Rick. I tried it but it doesn't seem to be working. But it's been a long day and I may have goofed somewhere along the line. It would also miss those cases where I actually want the L2 [Detail] field shown. (unless things are done differently just for the place index) John Cordes On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 05:47:53PM -0700, Rick Van Dusen via wrote: > John, if I'm understanding this correctly, John Cordes' problem can be > handled in SS by limiting the index to L3, L4, L5, and L6, say? He'd be > able to "hide" his Detail field entries so SS would see the place > without Detail as the same as the same place with a Detail? > > Rick Van Dusen > > On 9/7/2015 4:28 PM, John Cardinal via wrote: > : > : > : > > The "Full, then Short" option in SS applies to a single place record in the > > TMG database. If there are two place records with the same (or similar) > > data, but still recorded in two TMG place records, then the "Full, then > > Short" applies to each place record separately. If both places are used in > > tags for a single person, both full places will appear in the person entry. > > > > For the Master Place Index in SS, SS collapses all places that have the same > > values in the place levels that appear in the index. So, if the index is > > limited to L2, L3, L4, and L6, then _all_ TMG places records that have the > > same set of values in L2, L3, L4, and L6 will be collapsed into a single > > entry in the master place index. > > > > If I understand how you are using place records, then I think the SS master > > place index would not be adversely affected by the way you record places. > > > > John

Rick Van Dusen wrote: > John, if I'm understanding this correctly, John Cordes' problem > can be handled in SS by limiting the index to L3, L4, L5, and L6, > say? He'd be able to "hide" his Detail field entries so SS would > see the place without Detail as the same as the same place with a > Detail? Rick, No, I don't think so, but perhaps I have misread this thread. The subject refers to the place index, but John's question was about Second Site's "Full, then Short" place formatting option. That option applies to place formatting when SS is processing names and events as part of creating person page entries, and the option only affects multiple use of the _exact place record_ used by one or more events. The place index is different. SS adds a place index to the site if the user adds a Master Place Index User Item to the site configuration. The places shown in the index are collapsed the way I (briefly) described in my last reply: places that have the same values in the place levels included in the index (configurable) will be indexed as a single place. See: Full, then Short: http://ss.johncardinal.com/secplaces.htm#placeformat Place Index: http://ss.johncardinal.com/placeindex.htm#grouping John

Terry Reigel wrote, in part: > I suspect this practice raises havoc with the place index, which is one reason > I don't use it. Terry, The "Full, then Short" option in SS applies to a single place record in the TMG database. If there are two place records with the same (or similar) data, but still recorded in two TMG place records, then the "Full, then Short" applies to each place record separately. If both places are used in tags for a single person, both full places will appear in the person entry. For the Master Place Index in SS, SS collapses all places that have the same values in the place levels that appear in the index. So, if the index is limited to L2, L3, L4, and L6, then _all_ TMG places records that have the same set of values in L2, L3, L4, and L6 will be collapsed into a single entry in the master place index. If I understand how you are using place records, then I think the SS master place index would not be adversely affected by the way you record places. John