Somehow I am no longer able to export gedcoms. It goes through all the motions, but the output is just a small fraction of the data. Example I have over over 15,000 individuals which usually results in a gedcom of more than 4MB, but now results in a file with about 80 people and 32K. I’m still able with the same software to get all the entries in a gedcom on a different older computer, but those files don’t have all the most recent additions and corrections. This is a new problem as I have been able to output gedcoms from both computers without a problem until recently. Unfortunately I have added several hundred in one of the projects since then, and cannot export that updated file to a gedcom. I wanted to share that data online, but cannot create a file to do it. HELP. Terry Reigel suggested that perhaps a Cloud was interfering, so I removed the Cloud from my computer, restarted the computer and it still will not export the full files. Any suggestions? Janelle

In case people are not tracking the Wholly Genes Forum, Harry just posted there that he no longer has any TMG Version 9 licenses. So I now am unaware of any source for a new V9 license. His post today is at: http://www.whollygenes.com/forums201/index.php?/topic/15895-can-not-buy-master-genealogist-v9-anywhere-stuck-with-8/page-3#entry66647 Michael

Dear all, I have two inter-related questions. I would like to change - in blocks, not one at a time - my Citation References. I have looked at TMG Utility, with which I am familiar, and know how, for example, to change parts of Source Abbreviations, etc. using Search & Replace but I cannot see a way of doing the same with Citation Reference. Moreover, for some strange reason to do with my lack of understanding when I started with TMG 15 years ago, I have always used the same Citation Reference as the Source Abbreviation, which only now seems to be quite wrong, or at least unnecessary. So, alternatively, it seems to make even more sense to just blank out my Citation References, as they only duplicate the corresponding Source Abbreviation! Can anyone advise/help please? Nigel Brown

On 6/26/2015 7:35 AM, Nigel Brown via wrote: > I would like to change - in blocks, not one at a time - my Citation > References. I have looked at TMG Utility, with which I am familiar, and know > how, for example, to change parts of Source Abbreviations, etc. using Search > & Replace but I cannot see a way of doing the same with Citation Reference. > Moreover, for some strange reason to do with my lack of understanding when I > started with TMG 15 years ago, I have always used the same Citation > Reference as the Source Abbreviation, which only now seems to be quite > wrong, or at least unnecessary. So, alternatively, it seems to make even > more sense to just blank out my Citation References, as they only duplicate > the corresponding Source Abbreviation! Nigel, I don't see a way to change the Citation Reference with the Search and Replace function either. But you can with the Citation > Change Citation Parts function. But the first question is what change to you want to make? I think you are saying that the Citation Reference is the same as the Source Abbreviation, and thus unneeded. If that's the case I agree. One solution is to just ignore them. What harm does it do? If you want to delete all of them you can use the Change Citation Parts funtion. I think the "Rules" you need are: Filter: If Reference is not empty Action: Change Reference set to and leave the text field at the end empty. Of course, test with the log only option before running it on your Project. Terry Reigel

On 6/24/2015 4:35 PM, Robin Kaspar via wrote: > Thanks MIchael, I’ll look into this. My own brother was adopted by my parents, and I’m also looking for a solution that keeps him in the journal report but makes it clear about the adoption. Robin, What I've done, especially for cases where the birth parents aren't part of my story, is to make the adoptive relationship primary, then add a note in the FamilySectionNote tag (for Second Site) or the NarrativeChildren tag (for TMG reports) in which I explain the child was adopted. That takes care of the issue from the parent's view in a Journal or website. Then I add Adopted tags to capture it from the child's view. Terry Reigel

Robin Kaspar replied: > Thanks MIchael, I’ll look into this. You are most welcome, Robin, hope it gives you ideas. > My own brother was adopted by my parents, and I’m also looking > for a solution that keeps him in the journal report > but makes it clear about the adoption. As my book mentions, I am also adopted so have given this a lot of thought. I chose the approach that Adoption is not a relationship, and thus I do not use TMG relationship tags to document it. I reserve those tags for genetic relationships. I decided Adoption involves two distinct *events* instead of relationships. Like any event in an ancestor's life your information about these events may be limited. You may have sketchy or detailed information about one or the other or both. First is the loss of linkage to the birth parents, usually involving signing over parental rights and giving the child up for adoption. Or the children may become orphans due to the death of the parents on some specific date. The second is the linkage to the adoptive parents, often involving a legal action asigning the children to the new parent(s). But the children may simple "move in" to a someone's home after some period of time and are accepted as their children without any specific legal actions. These two events likely occur at separate times and places and involve different parties, so I keep them as two completely separate TMG events. For example, my mother gave me to the adoption agency at birth, but I was not adopted until age two, so events documenting movements to different children's homes can exist between the two events. As for the information in the adoptive parents' journal report, with the adoptive parent(s) as Principal(s) and the child(ren) as Witness(es) to my single "Adopting" tag, with appropriate memos the events and linkages are clear in both the child's narrative and the parent's narrative. Hope this provides clarification to what I describe in my book. Michael

Thanks MIchael, I’ll look into this. My own brother was adopted by my parents, and I’m also looking for a solution that keeps him in the journal report but makes it clear about the adoption. > On Jun 24, 2015, at 2:47 PM, Michael J. Hannah via <tmg@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Robin Kaspar "assumed": >> I would think that using the “step” tag for the children/step-parent >> would prevent those children from showing up on a journal report >> looking like full, biological children of both parents. > > As Terry replied your assumption is incorrect, if the Relationship tag > is made Primary, TMG will treat it as the genetic link. These cosmetic > labels are only for viewing, but can be helpful for non-Primary tags. > >> For example, my aunt married a widower with two children. I have >> input them both as step-son and step-daughter... But I have them >> input as the biological children of my uncle’s first wife. > >> In a journal report they are listed as the only known children >> of my aunt and her husband. > > I would guess that is because you made her their Primary mother? > >> How do other people handle this? Is this something I’m just >> going to have to deal with using memos or an anecdote-like tag >> to explain the relationship? > > Basically, yes. I always use Primary Relationship tags for biological > parents, so the two children would have their biological mother as the > Primary mother Relationship. > > But essentially your aunt "adopted" her husband's two existing children, > or became their "Guardian", when she married him. It may not have been > a legal action in a court, but that is the result. Since this occurs so > often in my lines I have several custom tag types to deal with the > various permutations of these complex relationships. For a full > background of my thinking see the introduction to my Adoption custom tag > types in the "Custom Tag Type Descriptions" chapter of my on-line book: > http://www.mjh-nm.net/TAGCUSTM.HTML#Adoption > > In your particular case I would use my "Guardian" custom tag type > described here: > http://www.mjh-nm.net/TAGCUSTM.HTML#GuardianTag > > And its sentence templates are here: > http://www.mjh-nm.net/SENTENCE.HTML#GuardianSentences > > In your specific case I would enter the aunt as the only Principal to > the Guardian tag with the role "Guardian", and would link both children > as Witnesses with the role "ward". The memos would explain that she > became their guardian when she married their biological father. > > 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

What I do (which may not be totally "kosher") is to use a custom birth tag that reads "[P] was born <[D]> <[L]><[M]>," and the memo says "to..." the birth parents' names. So even though the Journal Report refers to the child as the son or daughter of the stepparent, the birth tag explains who the birth parents were. Of course, that doesn't help with the Descendant Indented Chart.... Judy Madnick Albany, NY On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Terry Reigel via <tmg@rootsweb.com> wrote: > On 6/24/2015 1:24 PM, Robin Kaspar via wrote: >> I would think that using the “step” tag for the children/step-parent would prevent those children from showing up on a journal report looking like full, biological children of both parents. > Robin, > > Not so. There is just one kind parent/child relationship tag. The > various labels - bio, step, god, etc. - are just decorations. The only > purpose they serve, other than confusing users, is to provide some > information when you view the tag in the Details view. > > When you make a Relationship tag primary it is treated like a biological > relationship, now matter which variety of Relationship tag you are using. > > 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

On 6/24/2015 1:24 PM, Robin Kaspar via wrote: > I would think that using the “step” tag for the children/step-parent would prevent those children from showing up on a journal report looking like full, biological children of both parents. Robin, Not so. There is just one kind parent/child relationship tag. The various labels - bio, step, god, etc. - are just decorations. The only purpose they serve, other than confusing users, is to provide some information when you view the tag in the Details view. When you make a Relationship tag primary it is treated like a biological relationship, now matter which variety of Relationship tag you are using. Terry Reigel

I lied, I had not input the children with their biological mother tag. I have now. > On Jun 24, 2015, at 1:24 PM, Robin Kaspar <kaspar.robin@gmail.com> wrote: > > I would think that using the “step” tag for the children/step-parent would prevent those children from showing up on a journal report looking like full, biological children of both parents. > > For example, my aunt married a widower with two children. I have input them both as step-son and step-daughter, because hey, we were raised together as cousins. But I have them input as the biological children of my uncle’s first wife. > > In a journal report they are listed as the only known children of my aunt and her husband. > > How do other people handle this? Is this something I’m just going to have to deal with using memos or an anecdote-like tag to explain the relationship? > > Robin in Short Pump > > >

I would think that using the “step” tag for the children/step-parent would prevent those children from showing up on a journal report looking like full, biological children of both parents. For example, my aunt married a widower with two children. I have input them both as step-son and step-daughter, because hey, we were raised together as cousins. But I have them input as the biological children of my uncle’s first wife. In a journal report they are listed as the only known children of my aunt and her husband. How do other people handle this? Is this something I’m just going to have to deal with using memos or an anecdote-like tag to explain the relationship? Robin in Short Pump

Robin Kaspar "assumed": > I would think that using the “step” tag for the children/step-parent > would prevent those children from showing up on a journal report > looking like full, biological children of both parents. As Terry replied your assumption is incorrect, if the Relationship tag is made Primary, TMG will treat it as the genetic link. These cosmetic labels are only for viewing, but can be helpful for non-Primary tags. > For example, my aunt married a widower with two children. I have > input them both as step-son and step-daughter... But I have them > input as the biological children of my uncle’s first wife. > In a journal report they are listed as the only known children > of my aunt and her husband. I would guess that is because you made her their Primary mother? > How do other people handle this? Is this something I’m just > going to have to deal with using memos or an anecdote-like tag > to explain the relationship? Basically, yes. I always use Primary Relationship tags for biological parents, so the two children would have their biological mother as the Primary mother Relationship. But essentially your aunt "adopted" her husband's two existing children, or became their "Guardian", when she married him. It may not have been a legal action in a court, but that is the result. Since this occurs so often in my lines I have several custom tag types to deal with the various permutations of these complex relationships. For a full background of my thinking see the introduction to my Adoption custom tag types in the "Custom Tag Type Descriptions" chapter of my on-line book: http://www.mjh-nm.net/TAGCUSTM.HTML#Adoption In your particular case I would use my "Guardian" custom tag type described here: http://www.mjh-nm.net/TAGCUSTM.HTML#GuardianTag And its sentence templates are here: http://www.mjh-nm.net/SENTENCE.HTML#GuardianSentences In your specific case I would enter the aunt as the only Principal to the Guardian tag with the role "Guardian", and would link both children as Witnesses with the role "ward". The memos would explain that she became their guardian when she married their biological father. Hope this gives you ideas, Michael

Gwen reported: > I asked for a gedcom of all the people. When the bar for > "Exporting people" reaches 5% that bar stops but it goes > through everthing else. The finish product does not have > everyone though. Any suggestions? Sorry to hear of your problems, Gwen. In most cases previously reported with these symptoms, the issue has been one of two associated with the location into which the GEDCOM file was being created: - The location is on a removable device, such as a CD or thumb drive. Create the GEDCOM on the main hard drive, then move it after it is created to the removable media. - The location is in some folder which is automatically being backed up or monitored by some other program in the background, such as DropBox. Create the GEDCOM on the main hard drive in a folder not being monitored by some other program, then move it to the backup or monitored folder after it is created. Hope this gives you ideas, Michael

I wrote: > While that works in TMG, TMG's sentences are typically > arranged like this: > > [P] was born <[D]> <[L]> > > Note that there are spaces on either side of the <[D]> > conditional reference. Even though the spaces are not > inside the conditional expression, TMG will only output > one of the spaces, not both. (Which one? Hard to tell!) I left out a key clause: Even though the spaces are not inside the conditional expression, _if the date is empty_, TMG will only output one of the spaces, not both.

I am using the lastest version and I have a database over 38,000 people. I have exported a gedcom before but all of a sudden I am having a problem. I asked for a gedcom of all the people. When the bar for "Exporting people" reaches 5% that bar stops but it goes through everthing else. The finish product does not have everyone though. Any suggestions? Gwen

Kay, You have this: [:CR:][:TAB:][P1F] <and [P2F] >appeared on the [Y]< [L5]> census <at [L]>< [M]> While that works in TMG, TMG's sentences are typically arranged like this: [P] was born <[D]> <[L]> Note that there are spaces on either side of the <[D]> conditional reference. Even though the spaces are not inside the conditional expression, TMG will only output one of the spaces, not both. (Which one? Hard to tell!) To make your sentence work in TMG and SS, change it as follows: [:CR:][:TAB:][P1F] <and [P2F]> appeared on the [Y] <[L5]> census <at [L]> <[M]> Follow the model above and you'll get good results most of the time. Typically, issues only arise when you do not want a space to precede a punctuation mark but the punctuation mark is the first character inside a conditional reference. For that, and some other cases, you may try to control spaces by including them inside conditional references. When you do include spaces in conditional references, it will probably work better if you put them in the prefixes (before the variable) rather than the suffixes (after the variable). So: [:CR:][:TAB:][P1F]< and [P2F]> appeared on the [Y]< [L5]> census< at [L]>< [M]> As I mentioned earlier, I am unaware of any explicit rules that describe how TMG treats spaces in sentence structures. After observing how TMG works, and making adjustments so that SS could handle some cases that TMG has trouble with, I programmed SS to ignores spaces that occur before conditional references. John

This is a follow up on an earlier post regarding where to put a space following a conditional variable in a sentence (John's reply appears below). Anyway, I found another case where the space is being omitted. The TMG sentence: [:CR:][:TAB:][P1F] <and [P2F] >appeared on the [Y]< [L5]> census <at [L]>< [M]> TMG report output: John appeared on the 1706 NY census at Staten Island giving his age as 48. 2nd Site output: Johnappeared on the 1706 NY census at Staten Island giving his age as 48. Maybe it happens because there was no P2 in the tag. Not a big deal, but I need to know how to make sure spaces are all where I want them. Thanks, Kay Schmidt ============ Subject: Re: [TMG] Where to put space in conditional references Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 16:39:57 -0400 I am not sure which sentence you mean when you say "recommended example in the original message". I just tested the output of this sentence: [:CR:][:CR:][:TAB:]<She was [RA:Child] when >her parents divorced<[D]>. In SS, the result was: She was 28 when her parents divorced in January 1850. I also tested this sentence: [:CR:][:CR:][:TAB:]<She was [RA:Child] when> her parents divorced<[D]>. That produced the same output in SS: She was 28 when her parents divorced in January 1850.

On 6/21/2015 11:16 AM, Judy Madnick wrote: > Hi, Terry, > > Adding a fake child, etc., would be very time-consuming if I want the > entire family tree (or trees!) to be consistent. > > So the way to have the most information included would be "Abbreviated > events for children: Only children that are carried forward"? Judy, Yes, that gets everything printed. > Thanks for your quick reply. You're welcome, Terry

Hi, Terry, Adding a fake child, etc., would be very time-consuming if I want the entire family tree (or trees!) to be consistent. So the way to have the most information included would be "Abbreviated events for children: Only children that are carried forward"? Thanks for your quick reply. Judy On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Terry Reigel via <tmg@rootsweb.com> wrote: > On 6/21/2015 10:34 AM, Judy Madnick via wrote: >> I noticed something that seems odd when I checked the Journal Report >> for a member of my family. I have a married couple with two daughters. >> Each of the daughters is married. The parents' information appears >> correctly under "1." Under "Children of (parents) are as follows," the >> two daughters are listed with their respective births and marriages. >> BUT one has her occupation listed at this point, the other does not -- >> and the one who does have her occupation listed isn't listed in >> generation two! >> >> <SNIP> >> >> One difference, though, is that one child has children and the other >> one does not. Would that result in "generation two" not including the >> child who doesn't have children? > Judy, > > That's it exactly - children who do not have children are not carried > forward to their own section. > > You can choose in the Tag tab of report Options whether these children > who are not carried forward have all their Tags printed or just the > brief summary like those children who are carried forward. > > If you want them to have their own section the best way seems to be to > add a fake child, then edit that child out in your word processor after > you create the report. > > 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

On 6/21/2015 10:34 AM, Judy Madnick via wrote: > I noticed something that seems odd when I checked the Journal Report > for a member of my family. I have a married couple with two daughters. > Each of the daughters is married. The parents' information appears > correctly under "1." Under "Children of (parents) are as follows," the > two daughters are listed with their respective births and marriages. > BUT one has her occupation listed at this point, the other does not -- > and the one who does have her occupation listed isn't listed in > generation two! > > <SNIP> > > One difference, though, is that one child has children and the other > one does not. Would that result in "generation two" not including the > child who doesn't have children? Judy, That's it exactly - children who do not have children are not carried forward to their own section. You can choose in the Tag tab of report Options whether these children who are not carried forward have all their Tags printed or just the brief summary like those children who are carried forward. If you want them to have their own section the best way seems to be to add a fake child, then edit that child out in your word processor after you create the report. Terry Reigel