On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 05:20:51PM -0400, Terry Reigel via wrote: > On 9/7/2015 4:47 PM, John Cordes via wrote: > > > I'll have to give serious thought to your approach. I'm > > not instantly coming to grips with 'using level-specific > > place variables' -- could you please elaborate on that a > > wee bit? > Sure, John. > > Instead of using [L], use [L2], [L3] to output just the detail and city, > or [L3], [L5] to output the city and state, for example. > > I also use them to rearrange the order of the fields. For example, when > I know a family moved to a new state (maybe because I find them in a > city directory) but I don't know just when, I use in a Moved tag: > ...moved to [L5] <by [Y]>, when they were living at [L2], [L3] > > so I'm saying they moved to the state by the time I found them, and say > they were at that address at that time even though they might have lived > elsewhere in the new state before that. > > Or, in a Census Tag I use: > ...in the [Y] census of <[L3]>, [L5], <enumerated [D]><at [L2]> > > where I'm attributing the county and state as modifiers of the census, > and stating the detail where known separately. Terry, Ah yes, I get it now. Thanks very much, John Cordes

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

On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 04:25:28PM -0400, Terry Reigel via wrote: > On 9/7/2015 4:11 PM, John Cordes via wrote: > > I have used split Memos, though rarely. I was just > > wondering if there might be some practical way of > > eliminating the appearance of the L6 [COUNTRY] place level > > field in certain circumstances. So far it appears there is > > none. The requirement that the entire set of place level > > field entries be a perfect match, in order for the Short > > Place Format to kick in, is understandable, but a killer > > for me. > John, > > That's one of the reasons I don't use the Short Place option. The other > is I don't think it produces output that reads well anyway. Instead I > edit each tag depending on the other tags surrounding it. So I exclude > place levels (not necessarily the highest ranking ones) either by > omitting them from the tag or using level-specific place variables. I > most commonly do this with the variables in the Memo field rather than > in the Sentence. > > I suspect this practice raises havoc with the place index, which is one > reason I don't use it. Terry, This enquiry was started because of a recently resumed interest on my part in improving the mess which was (and is!) my place index. A lot of the problems are due to an old import of data from my sister-in-law (from an FTM file), but some of it, such as these excluded [Detail] fields, is of my own making. Of course even if those fields were not excluded the Short Place Format option still wouldn't come into play. I'll have to give serious thought to your approach. I'm not instantly coming to grips with 'using level-specific place variables' -- could you please elaborate on that a wee bit? Thanks, John Cordes

On 9/7/2015 4:47 PM, John Cordes via wrote: > I'll have to give serious thought to your approach. I'm > not instantly coming to grips with 'using level-specific > place variables' -- could you please elaborate on that a > wee bit? Sure, John. Instead of using [L], use [L2], [L3] to output just the detail and city, or [L3], [L5] to output the city and state, for example. I also use them to rearrange the order of the fields. For example, when I know a family moved to a new state (maybe because I find them in a city directory) but I don't know just when, I use in a Moved tag: ...moved to [L5] <by [Y]>, when they were living at [L2], [L3] so I'm saying they moved to the state by the time I found them, and say they were at that address at that time even though they might have lived elsewhere in the new state before that. Or, in a Census Tag I use: ...in the [Y] census of <[L3]>, [L5], <enumerated [D]><at [L2]> where I'm attributing the county and state as modifiers of the census, and stating the detail where known separately. Terry Reigel

Rick, I have used split Memos, though rarely. I was just wondering if there might be some practical way of eliminating the appearance of the L6 [COUNTRY] place level field in certain circumstances. So far it appears there is none. The requirement that the entire set of place level field entries be a perfect match, in order for the Short Place Format to kick in, is understandable, but a killer for me. John On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 12:52:09PM -0700, Rick Van Dusen via wrote: > I'd guess that you'd need to manually move any details anyway because > you'd have to evaluate each one as to whether it fits the problem we're > discussing. > > As for Memo empty or not, you'd probably need to make the Place Detail > entry as something like M9 so that whatever else you ever have in a Memo > will come before this Detail entry. > > Note that I'm assuming use of Split Memos. (Anyone unfamiliar with these > should read TMG Help>Memo.) Of course, that means you might have to > restructure many of your sentences to replace "[M]" with "[M1]" to allow > for this possibility. > > I did say I think it's a clunky way to do what you wish.<g> > > Rick Van Dusen > > > > > On 9/7/2015 12:09 PM, John Cordes via wrote: > > Rick, > > > > I had thought about putting my excluded [DETAIL] field > > into the Memo, but there a couple of problems (at least). > > > > As far as I know TMGU can't move a place part into a memo > > field, unless perhaps the all purpose Find / Replace in > > the Other section could somehow do that. > > The other issue is that I would only want to do that > > if the Memo was otherwise empty. It often would be, but > > certainly not always. > > > > Thanks for your thoughts. > > > > John > 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 9/7/2015 4:11 PM, John Cordes via wrote: > I have used split Memos, though rarely. I was just > wondering if there might be some practical way of > eliminating the appearance of the L6 [COUNTRY] place level > field in certain circumstances. So far it appears there is > none. The requirement that the entire set of place level > field entries be a perfect match, in order for the Short > Place Format to kick in, is understandable, but a killer > for me. John, That's one of the reasons I don't use the Short Place option. The other is I don't think it produces output that reads well anyway. Instead I edit each tag depending on the other tags surrounding it. So I exclude place levels (not necessarily the highest ranking ones) either by omitting them from the tag or using level-specific place variables. I most commonly do this with the variables in the Memo field rather than in the Sentence. I suspect this practice raises havoc with the place index, which is one reason I don't use it. Terry Reigel

Rick, I had thought about putting my excluded [DETAIL] field into the Memo, but there a couple of problems (at least). As far as I know TMGU can't move a place part into a memo field, unless perhaps the all purpose Find / Replace in the Other section could somehow do that. The other issue is that I would only want to do that if the Memo was otherwise empty. It often would be, but certainly not always. Thanks for your thoughts. John On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 09:49:25AM -0700, Rick Van Dusen via wrote: > As I understand what Lee is saying, the Short Place Format is applied > Place-by-Place. If that's true, logically two facts: > > 1. Any difference that creates two Places which "look alike" but are > different means that the Short Place Format will need to be entered for > each of these Places. > > 2. If Place1 is used, then later Place2 is used, these are both "first > appearances" of the respective Places, and therefore there's no way to > shorten the "second appearance" because there is no "second appearance". > > I can think of one quite "clunky" possible way of doing what you want: > > Instead of putting the detail, excluded, in the Place, put it in a Memo > segment, and make sure it's excluded from printing. That will make your > Place the same as other Places (e.g. church of baptism and cemetery of > burial will be same city, state). > > Not at all sure I like this idea, but I do think it would work. > > Rick Van Dusen > > > > On 9/7/2015 8:57 AM, John Cordes via wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 11:45:24AM -0400, Lee Hoffman/KY wrote: > : > : > : > >> If you wish to have the Short Place to be something else, such as: > >> [DETAIL], [CITY], [STATE] > >> or maybe > >> [CITY] [DETAIL] > >> then you would go to the Master Place List, find the desired place and > >> enter that template into the Short Place field. This then would be the > >> new Short Place for that place. > : > : > : > 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 9/7/2015 3:52 PM, Rick Van Dusen via wrote in part: > Of course, that means you might have to > restructure many of your sentences to replace "[M]" with "[M1]" to allow > for this possibility. There is no need to make that change - [M] and [M1] are equivalent. Terry Reigel

On 9/7/2015 1:12 PM, Brian Gross via wrote: > TMG automatically outputs a source entry (from an appropriate source group) > that's entered as "surname, given name" to reports as "given name, surname" > in the full footnote and only "surname" in the short footnote (and "surname, > given name" in the bibliography). > > Is there a way to get TMG to do that automatically for names that are passed > to a source as "surname, given name" through [CDx] as ||surname, given > name||, or do I have to send it as two separate [CDx] as ||surname||given > name|| and sort things out in the source definition? > > Thanks again!. You're welcome, Brian. The automatic management of names in source notes only applies to names entered in one of the "names" Source Types. TMG has no clue that any text you enter in a CD segment is to be treated as a name. If you want that result for names entered in the CD you will need to enter given names and surnames in separate segments and build the Templates accordingly. Terry Reigel

On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 11:45:24AM -0400, Lee Hoffman/KY wrote: > At 9/7/2015 10:05, you wrote: >> I have recently come to realize that I would prefer SS >> to use the Full, then Short option (I have never modified >> the Short Place Format in TMG from the default) for the >> Place Format. On reading the TMG and SS Help I believe >> that the Short option will only come into play if *all* >> the place fields in the tag for a person are *identical* >> (to those in a previous tag). I only output the default >> place levels: L2, L3, L4, L5 and L6. >> >> My problem arises because when I have something to put >> in L2 [Detail] I frequently enter it with an exclusion >> mark '-'. This might be for the name of a church in a >> marriage tag, say. Then if the death tag has an empty >> Detail field this means the place fields in the Death tag >> do not exactly match the place fields in the Marriage tag, >> even though the output *looks* the same, because of the >> exclusion marker. >> >> It would be very nice if there was some way to exclude >> the output of L6 [Country] in those cases where the only >> difference is an excluded item in L2 [Detail], but it >> doesn't appear that there is any way to accomplish this. >> >> I wondered if by any chance there might be a solution, >> perhaps using some kind of place style for display >> purposes? > > I think the answer to your question would be answered in the Short Place > Template topic in TMG Help. It states the default Short Place Template > would be: > [CITY], [COUNTY], [STATE] > or [L3], [L4], [L5]. > Thus, Country (L6) is not part of the Short Place Template by default. > > If you wish to have the Short Place to be something else, such as: > [DETAIL], [CITY], [STATE] > or maybe > [CITY] [DETAIL] > then you would go to the Master Place List, find the desired place and > enter that template into the Short Place field. This then would be the > new Short Place for that place. > > Note that if you only wanted the new Short Place for just certain Tags, > then the above would not work as it would apply to all uses of that place > following the first use in a report. In such a case, you would need top > determine which would be the first use of the place, and then change all > other Tags with that place (in which you wanted the Short Place) and > locally change the Tag Sentence from "[L]" to the Short Place Template. > (Or if there were only a few places that you did not want the new Short > Place, change the Tag Sentence to what you wanted in those other Tags). Lee, Thank you for the response. I intended to say, but forgot when it came to writing the message, that I had studied the TMG and SS Help pages on this issue, and also Michael Hannah's article on place names. I also looked at Terry's Tips pages (both TMG and SS) but didn't manage to turn up anything about this. I'm afraid I did a bad job of explaining the situation. I do indeed want to omit the output of L6 [COUNTRY] for later tags, but am stymied by my (excluded) entries in the [DETAIL] field which prevent the Short Place Format from kicking in. At least that's my understanding of what is happening. John Cordes

I'd guess that you'd need to manually move any details anyway because you'd have to evaluate each one as to whether it fits the problem we're discussing. As for Memo empty or not, you'd probably need to make the Place Detail entry as something like M9 so that whatever else you ever have in a Memo will come before this Detail entry. Note that I'm assuming use of Split Memos. (Anyone unfamiliar with these should read TMG Help>Memo.) Of course, that means you might have to restructure many of your sentences to replace "[M]" with "[M1]" to allow for this possibility. I did say I think it's a clunky way to do what you wish.<g> Rick Van Dusen On 9/7/2015 12:09 PM, John Cordes via wrote: > Rick, > > I had thought about putting my excluded [DETAIL] field > into the Memo, but there a couple of problems (at least). > > As far as I know TMGU can't move a place part into a memo > field, unless perhaps the all purpose Find / Replace in > the Other section could somehow do that. > The other issue is that I would only want to do that > if the Memo was otherwise empty. It often would be, but > certainly not always. > > Thanks for your thoughts. > > John

At 9/7/2015 10:05, you wrote: > I have recently come to realize that I would prefer SS >to use the Full, then Short option (I have never modified >the Short Place Format in TMG from the default) for the >Place Format. On reading the TMG and SS Help I believe >that the Short option will only come into play if *all* >the place fields in the tag for a person are *identical* >(to those in a previous tag). I only output the default >place levels: L2, L3, L4, L5 and L6. > > My problem arises because when I have something to put >in L2 [Detail] I frequently enter it with an exclusion >mark '-'. This might be for the name of a church in a >marriage tag, say. Then if the death tag has an empty >Detail field this means the place fields in the Death tag >do not exactly match the place fields in the Marriage tag, >even though the output *looks* the same, because of the >exclusion marker. > > It would be very nice if there was some way to exclude >the output of L6 [Country] in those cases where the only >difference is an excluded item in L2 [Detail], but it >doesn't appear that there is any way to accomplish this. > > I wondered if by any chance there might be a solution, >perhaps using some kind of place style for display >purposes? I think the answer to your question would be answered in the Short Place Template topic in TMG Help. It states the default Short Place Template would be: [CITY], [COUNTY], [STATE] or [L3], [L4], [L5]. Thus, Country (L6) is not part of the Short Place Template by default. If you wish to have the Short Place to be something else, such as: [DETAIL], [CITY], [STATE] or maybe [CITY] [DETAIL] then you would go to the Master Place List, find the desired place and enter that template into the Short Place field. This then would be the new Short Place for that place. Note that if you only wanted the new Short Place for just certain Tags, then the above would not work as it would apply to all uses of that place following the first use in a report. In such a case, you would need top determine which would be the first use of the place, and then change all other Tags with that place (in which you wanted the Short Place) and locally change the Tag Sentence from "[L]" to the Short Place Template. (Or if there were only a few places that you did not want the new Short Place, change the Tag Sentence to what you wanted in those other Tags). Lee

I have what is probably a quite unrealistic question about the Master Place Index and related issues. First I should say that I'm using TMG 9.05, and almost always am only interested in output via Second Site. I've been using TMG for a little while now (since January 2004 -- I know that is only a 'little' compared to some of you!) but am a relative beginner as far as dealing with place / location data entry is concerned. My default place style is the U.S. Standard, but I have also set up a couple of others for Canada and UK. I hope my use of terminology below is reasonably accurate -- I tried! I have recently come to realize that I would prefer SS to use the Full, then Short option (I have never modified the Short Place Format in TMG from the default) for the Place Format. On reading the TMG and SS Help I believe that the Short option will only come into play if *all* the place fields in the tag for a person are *identical* (to those in a previous tag). I only output the default place levels: L2, L3, L4, L5 and L6. My problem arises because when I have something to put in L2 [Detail] I frequently enter it with an exclusion mark '-'. This might be for the name of a church in a marriage tag, say. Then if the death tag has an empty Detail field this means the place fields in the Death tag do not exactly match the place fields in the Marriage tag, even though the output *looks* the same, because of the exclusion marker. It would be very nice if there was some way to exclude the output of L6 [Country] in those cases where the only difference is an excluded item in L2 [Detail], but it doesn't appear that there is any way to accomplish this. I wondered if by any chance there might be a solution, perhaps using some kind of place style for display purposes? TIA for any feedback on this. John Cordes Halifax, Nova Scotia

Thank you Terry, Lee and Michael for your helpful answers. I have another question related to names. TMG automatically outputs a source entry (from an appropriate source group) that's entered as "surname, given name" to reports as "given name, surname" in the full footnote and only "surname" in the short footnote (and "surname, given name" in the bibliography). Is there a way to get TMG to do that automatically for names that are passed to a source as "surname, given name" through [CDx] as ||surname, given name||, or do I have to send it as two separate [CDx] as ||surname||given name|| and sort things out in the source definition? Thanks again!. Brian -----Original Message----- From: tmg-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:tmg-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Michael J. Hannah via Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2015 3:43 PM To: TMG-L submission address Subject: Re: [TMG] Name-Var and Name-Marr Brian Gross asked: > I am trying to figure out the easiest way > to get TMG to generate name variations. Hi Brian, Lee and Terry mentioned the important point that a blank field in a non-Primary Name tag is only inferred from data in the one Primary Name tag. Further, to get a specific name other the the Primary name to be used in an event tag, you must select the desired name for that person within that event tag. One last point is that only the GivenName and Surname fields are inferred from the Primary Name tag. If there are any values desired for any fields other than these two fields they must be entered in the non-Primary Name tag as they are not inferred. There is much more to learn about Name tags. There is a lengthy set of notes in the "Names" section of the Data Entry chapter of my on-line book which may be of some help: http://www.mjh-nm.net/DATENTRY.HTML#Names Hope this gives you ideas, 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 TMG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

As I understand what Lee is saying, the Short Place Format is applied Place-by-Place. If that's true, logically two facts: 1. Any difference that creates two Places which "look alike" but are different means that the Short Place Format will need to be entered for each of these Places. 2. If Place1 is used, then later Place2 is used, these are both "first appearances" of the respective Places, and therefore there's no way to shorten the "second appearance" because there is no "second appearance". I can think of one quite "clunky" possible way of doing what you want: Instead of putting the detail, excluded, in the Place, put it in a Memo segment, and make sure it's excluded from printing. That will make your Place the same as other Places (e.g. church of baptism and cemetery of burial will be same city, state). Not at all sure I like this idea, but I do think it would work. Rick Van Dusen On 9/7/2015 8:57 AM, John Cordes via wrote: > On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 11:45:24AM -0400, Lee Hoffman/KY wrote: : : : >> If you wish to have the Short Place to be something else, such as: >> [DETAIL], [CITY], [STATE] >> or maybe >> [CITY] [DETAIL] >> then you would go to the Master Place List, find the desired place and >> enter that template into the Short Place field. This then would be the >> new Short Place for that place. : : :

I have one TMG family tree which contains both my wife and my family tree which contains 9 families related directly to me and 13 to my wife each of which has a different custom flag. My mother's maiden name was GIBSON and, in addition to my direct GIBSON relatives marked by a Y in the GIBSON flag, there are also some other GIBSON families most of whom I am not certain yet whether they are related to me and my family although I have also given them a GIBSON flag and a Y. (In the GIBSON list in Second Site, all the GIBSONs who are related have an icon of three people - a family - to indicate which of these GIBSONs are related to me and which are not) When I send a SS to a family member, I send the family who are related to me and that particular family member but this time I don't think that will work. I am preparing a SS tree on a DVD to give to my sister in law when she comes up this week and that will involve 13 families. I have prepared a new custom flag to use for all her family but I am not certain how to ensure to give all the people who have these 13 family flags without losing any of the original flags or without trying to add this new flag to these people manually one at a time! I know that there must be some way to do it but unfortunately I can't find how it is done TIA please Jim. 9 in the list

The Seattle TMG Users Group meets Saturday, Sept. 12, 2:00-4:30 p.m., at Aljoya Thornton Place, 450 NE 100th St., just south of Northgate Mall. Free parking is available on the street, and in the Group Health parking lot across NE 100th St. The main entrance of Aljoya is near the corner of NE 100th & 5th Ave. NE. The main topic this month is "Citing Source(s) ... of a Source." We'll first review the GPS (Genealogical Proof Standard) "categories of genealogical sources": authored works, original records, and derivative records. Examples will include the TMG "Sources for this source" box in the Source Definition, the Memo [M] field of a tag (event), and the Citation Memo [CM] of a citation. For driving directions and map of the Aljoya neighborhood: http://www.eraliving.com/communities/north-seattle/map-directions For Metro bus schedule, routing and fare information, use the KC Metro Trip Planner: http://tripplanner.kingcounty.gov/hiwire?.a=iTripPlanning

James Payne wondered: > ... I am not certain how to ensure to give all the people > who have these 13 family flags without losing any of the > original flags or without trying to add this new flag > to these people manually one at a time! Hi Jim, 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. Those are the basics to get your new Flag set to whatever value you want for the people in the dataset. Hope this gives you ideas, Michael

Brian Gross asked: > I am trying to figure out the easiest way > to get TMG to generate name variations. Hi Brian, Lee and Terry mentioned the important point that a blank field in a non-Primary Name tag is only inferred from data in the one Primary Name tag. Further, to get a specific name other the the Primary name to be used in an event tag, you must select the desired name for that person within that event tag. One last point is that only the GivenName and Surname fields are inferred from the Primary Name tag. If there are any values desired for any fields other than these two fields they must be entered in the non-Primary Name tag as they are not inferred. There is much more to learn about Name tags. There is a lengthy set of notes in the "Names" section of the Data Entry chapter of my on-line book which may be of some help: http://www.mjh-nm.net/DATENTRY.HTML#Names Hope this gives you ideas, Michael

At 9/6/2015 01:10, you wrote: >It didn't create combinations using Name-Var or Name-Marr for both the given >and surname. I'd like those combinations on my picklist. Do I have to >enter those combinations (i.e. Lena Backes/Backus/Palckes/Hepler) myself, or >is there way to get TMG to generate them automatically? To reinforce what Terry said, consider this scenario (with automatic Name-Marr Tags for each marriage): Mary Smith marries (1st) John Green and he dies. Mary then Marries (2nd) Joe Brown Mary thus has three Name Tags one Name-Var (the Primary) Tag as Mary Smith, one Name-Marr as [Mary] Green, and one Name-Marr as [Mary] Brown. These three names will shown in the Picklist, the Project Explorer, and (as selected) in printed reports. Note that the Name-Marr Tags have no entry in the GivenName field of the Name-Marr Tags and the [Mary] above means that the GivenName is inferred from the Primary Name-Var Tag. In the second Marriage Tag, we may select Mary's married name from her first marriage indicating that she is Mary Green when she marries Joe Brown. Now, if Mary always went by her nickname of "Polly", we can add a Name-Nick Tag with the GivenName of Polly (and no Surname). If we select a name other than her Primary Name in her first Marriage Tag, we can select her Nickname as she was then known or called -- Polly Smith. We can also select that as her name for the second Marriage Tag, but she was probably known as Polly Green at that time. However, Polly Green is not available as a selection. In this case, we need to add a Name-Nick of Polly Green (probably dated as the date of (or right after) the first marriage) and make sure that both GivenName and Surname are entered since neither are Primary Names. Now, we can select Polly Green as a selected name for the second Marriage Tag. Lee