What I am trying now is to create a separate source for each page of census record (which effectively means one per family, since there is rarely more than one family of interest on one census page), and then to create a citation for each person and each event/tag of those people pointing to the source. That seems to me to offer the benefit that nearly all the information (including an image of the census page) is in the source, so I only have to enter it once, but at the same time the information is attached (via the citation) to each person and event that needs it. The information in the citation (apart from the reference to the source) just needs to be anything that is different or specific to this  person or event. This would typically be any non-obvious deductions that I have made from the census data. Does that sound reasonable? Thanks - Rowan On 09/02/19 15:58, Lee Hoffman wrote: > At 2/9/2019 10:09, Richard Damon wrote >> In my opinion, the answer to resolve objectives #1 and #4 is to use a >> distinct source for every Census family. > > I tend to agree.  It is a lot less work than what to citation expertsd > want ua to do --- a citation for each person.  Having a citation point > to a househoold instead of an individual requires the reader to do > some interpolation to gain the same information that we did.  And in > many cases, the reader may come to the same conclusion that we do.  > But, that may not be true in all cases. Still, I mostly use the > household method unless I foresee a possible problem for a reader (and > I probably miss a lot of these). > > Robert Lackey's citation models in "Cite Your Sources" tended to be > more of the global variety.  But, Elizabeth Shown Mills (and others) > tell us that individual is the way to go.  I would not want to argue > either way as I can see the pros and cons of both sides.  The problem > is that the pros and cons tend to act on personal preferences which > tends to color the argument. > > Lee > > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/tmg@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY  Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal > RootsWeb community -- -- Rowan Sylvester-Bradley 22 Fox Green Great Bradley Newmarket Suffolk CB8 9NR United Kingdom Phone: 01440 783157 Email: rowan@sylvesterbradley.org

<No! Putting people in a new project and deleting the project will not delete people from the original project. You must put the people that you want to keep in the new project.< Put the people I want to keep into the new project? The project I am going to delete people from is "Kladd". (The project I am working with and uses to split and delete from). It`s 121555 AAS=Y people in the Kladd project ,which I just have started a report sending them to a new project named "Sletting" ,for after that to delete the "Sletting" project ,and that way delete those 121555. Why should I put the people I want to keep in that new project instead of the the people with flag AAS=Y?

At 2/9/2019 10:09, Richard Damon wrote >In my opinion, the answer to resolve objectives #1 and #4 is to use a >distinct source for every Census family. I tend to agree. It is a lot less work than what to citation expertsd want ua to do --- a citation for each person. Having a citation point to a househoold instead of an individual requires the reader to do some interpolation to gain the same information that we did. And in many cases, the reader may come to the same conclusion that we do. But, that may not be true in all cases. Still, I mostly use the household method unless I foresee a possible problem for a reader (and I probably miss a lot of these). Robert Lackey's citation models in "Cite Your Sources" tended to be more of the global variety. But, Elizabeth Shown Mills (and others) tell us that individual is the way to go. I would not want to argue either way as I can see the pros and cons of both sides. The problem is that the pros and cons tend to act on personal preferences which tends to color the argument. Lee

At 2/9/2019 08:35, Erik Hov wrote >Thanks very much for answering my questions. I now know what to do!. >I will keep the ID numbers ,and delete the people by getting them in a new >project and then delete that project. >I may do the necessary edits in the project before actually deleting ,will >see about that. No! Putting people in a new project and deleting the project will not delete people from the original project. You must put the people that you want to keep in the new project. Lee

Terry, Yes, I did see your earlier message, for which thanks: >My understanding is that the TMG reports go to the default printer (as defined in Windows) to get the specifications for the >size of the page. The solution is to specify a default printer in Windows. I think the PDF "printer" will do if you aren't connected to a real printer. I _do_ have a default printer defined. And I have checked that other applications can print to it with no problem. So maybe there is some sort of incompatibility between TMG and my printer driver. I have just tried making PDFill (a PDF printer driver that I use quite a lot) my default printer, and I have changed the anme fo the report file (to avoid the problem of the locked 0 byte file being there), and pretty well the same thing happened as beiofre, i.e. it created a zero byte PDF file, and then hung, apparently busy but making no progress. I say "pretty well the same thing" because I think the progress bars may have been different. Here is the remains of them: http://sylvesterbradley.org/images/tmg_progress_bars190209.png . I also tried making the destination fo rthe report Printer (with the defailt prionter still set to PDFill). This time I got this error: http://sylvesterbradley.org/images/tmg_conversion_error190209.png . When I clicked OK, I got this error: The raw ISC file has been saved as D:\XPS_8700 Extended Files\Users\RowanB\Documents\The Master Genealogist v9\Logs\error.isc . However, there seemed to be no such file in this location. I then tried changing the default printer to a real printer, and tried again. This time I got the same conversion error, and the same ISC file message. Lastly I tried setting the destination to Screen Preview. This time there were several progress bars (including a red one which didn't stay for long enough for me to see the title), but no screen preview was shown. I'm still stumped by this problem. Any suggestions on how to get this report produced? Thanks - Rowan On 09/02/19 14:27, Terry Reigel wrote: > On 2/9/2019 9:04 AM, Rowan Sylvester-Bradley wrote: >> I do have a printer defined as default, but why is it trying to use >> the printer? I'm trying to save a PDF file to disk. There should >> surely be nothing printed. > > Rowan, > > Did you see my earlier reply in this thread, which addresses this point? > > Terry Reigel > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/tmg@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY  Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal > RootsWeb community -- -- Rowan Sylvester-Bradley 22 Fox Green Great Bradley Newmarket Suffolk CB8 9NR United Kingdom Phone: 01440 783157 Email: rowan@sylvesterbradley.org

On 2/9/19 9:25 AM, Terry Reigel wrote: > On 2/9/2019 8:21 AM, Rowan Sylvester-Bradley wrote: >>  I am just trying to work out the best way of using the features >> within TMG to hold the information. What I'm trying to achieve is: >> >> 1. An efficient way of entering the data. E.g. for a census return, I >>    should not have to enter the same citation data multiple times for >>    each family member, and for multiple tags for each member. > <SNIP> >> 4. The data should be presented in my Second Site website in a good, >>    accurate, complete and easy to understand way. > > Rowan, > > It is my belief that your objectives #1 and 4 are mutually exclusive. > > Your census example is a perfect example of why this doesn't work. > Typically a more recent census record will typically provide the > following information about a person: > > 1. The person's name, often spelled differently than in other sources, > not uncommonly totally different, and generally for women different > than the name in pre-married records or records from other marriages. > > 2. The age and birth place information, where the age often does not > agree with other sources showing the date, and the place often is less > detailed and occasionally conflicts with place information from other > sources. > > 3. Sometimes information about the subject's relationship to a parent > or child, sometimes explicit and sometimes implied, and rarely > modified by terms like step or adopted, while other sources may > provide it explicitly, or not provide it at all. > > 4. Often information about the subject's marriage, either explicitly > or implied, and sometimes information about the date of the marriage, > which often conflicts with other sources. > > 5. Often information about the subject's occupation, which often > differs in detail, or completely, with information from other sources. > > 6. Sometimes information about a spouse's death, which is not > uncommonly incorrect. > > So, if cite a census record for a person only once, and you also cite > other census records and other sources for information entered for > that person, how will you or your readers known which sources provided > which information, and when they agreed or conflicted? Objective #4 is > not achieved in my view. > > Terry Reigel In my opinion, the answer to resolve objectives #1 and #4 is to use a distinct source for every Census family. That way the data in the Census is only listed a minimum number of times. The source record perhaps includes an image of the page of the census, or a transcript/summary of what the record states, and you create tags for your interpretation of what this means, with a citation to the source, perhaps with comments about your logic in the Citation Memo (with very specif sources, you don't have much to enter into the Citation Detail). As a side note, my 'Census' event doesn't try to detail all the information for the person from the census, but is basically just a record that I have found that census record and where the person was residing, and these are placed in a separate tag group near the end of the persons section. All the auxiliary information you describe above ends up in other tags detailing that type of information, which may or may not actually cite the census depending on the presence of other better sources (like if I have a birth certificate, I rarely cite the census in the birth event, unless I think it is evidence that the birth certificate might be in error). -- Richard Damon

On 2/9/2019 9:04 AM, Rowan Sylvester-Bradley wrote: > I do have a printer defined as default, but why is it trying to use > the printer? I'm trying to save a PDF file to disk. There should > surely be nothing printed. Rowan, Did you see my earlier reply in this thread, which addresses this point? Terry Reigel

On 2/9/2019 8:21 AM, Rowan Sylvester-Bradley wrote: >  I am just trying to work out the best way of using the features > within TMG to hold the information. What I'm trying to achieve is: > > 1. An efficient way of entering the data. E.g. for a census return, I >    should not have to enter the same citation data multiple times for >    each family member, and for multiple tags for each member. <SNIP> > 4. The data should be presented in my Second Site website in a good, >    accurate, complete and easy to understand way. Rowan, It is my belief that your objectives #1 and 4 are mutually exclusive. Your census example is a perfect example of why this doesn't work. Typically a more recent census record will typically provide the following information about a person: 1. The person's name, often spelled differently than in other sources, not uncommonly totally different, and generally for women different than the name in pre-married records or records from other marriages. 2. The age and birth place information, where the age often does not agree with other sources showing the date, and the place often is less detailed and occasionally conflicts with place information from other sources. 3. Sometimes information about the subject's relationship to a parent or child, sometimes explicit and sometimes implied, and rarely modified by terms like step or adopted, while other sources may provide it explicitly, or not provide it at all. 4. Often information about the subject's marriage, either explicitly or implied, and sometimes information about the date of the marriage, which often conflicts with other sources. 5. Often information about the subject's occupation, which often differs in detail, or completely, with information from other sources. 6. Sometimes information about a spouse's death, which is not uncommonly incorrect. So, if cite a census record for a person only once, and you also cite other census records and other sources for information entered for that person, how will you or your readers known which sources provided which information, and when they agreed or conflicted? Objective #4 is not achieved in my view. Terry Reigel

Dennis, Thanks for your reply. Some answers etc. below On 08/02/19 21:22, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: > At 2/8/2019 6:20 PM, Rowan Sylvester-Bradley wrote: >> I'm having trouble creating a Pedigree Chart in TMG. Here's what I have >> requested that it do: >> >> When I click Create Report one of several things happen. >> >> 1. I get an error saying that it can;t find the printer (despite the >> fact that I am not asking it to print anything). > What option do you have for the destination of the report. Even if not going to a physical printer, many destinations still make use of a "printer driver" to do the rendering of the output. The options are Screen Preview, Save to PDF file, and Printer. I have chosen Save to PDF file. > Do you even have a printer defined as "default"? I do have a printer defined as default, but why is it trying to use the printer? I'm trying to save a PDF file to disk. There should surely be nothing printed. >> 3. It creates a file called Rowan Sylvester-Bradley Pedigree Chart.PDF >> of zero length in the Report_output directory. > That tends to imply you are using either the file destination "Adobe PDF", or using a PDF printer driver (likely the one that never works for me <G>). 0-length could mean that nothing was ever written to it (for a very complex tree, TMG might open/create the destination file, but then not write anything to it until the data has been collected and sorted. I have waited 12 hours, and nothing is added to the file. >> 4. It says that the file already exists and is busy. Eventually I found >> that by closing all my Explorer windows the file was unlocked. >> > WHAT "says the the file already exists"? TMG, or something in Windows? I also get lots of errors like this http://sylvesterbradley.org/images/tmg_create_font_error190209.png . If I click OK after each one, eventually they stop appearing, and in a few seconds it creates the empty PDF file. Then it just stays busy for up to 12 hours, when I have to terminate TMG and restart. When it reports that the file already exists, that is because the zero byte PDF file is still there from the last attempt. When I try to delete the file, it says that it is locked by Print Driver Host for Applications. If I terminate this using Task Manager, then I can delete the file, and then TNG will get a little further befiore hanging. How do I get this report to generate succesfully? Thanks - Rowan

Thanks very much for answering my questions. I now know what to do!. I will keep the ID numbers ,and delete the people by getting them in a new project and then delete that project. I may do the necessary edits in the project before actually deleting ,will see about that. Thanks again. -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: Lee Hoffman [mailto:azchief@bellsouth.net] Sendt: 9. februar 2019 03:54 Til: The Master Genealogist Rootsweb Email List <tmg@rootsweb.com> Emne: [TMG] Re: ID`s and the best way of deleting a lot of people?? At 2/8/2019 19:38, Erik Hov wrote >I have a lot of unused ID numbers (must be about 30000) after splitting >out a new project last year. I haven`t renumbered the IDs ,and now I >will soon delete about 120000 more people after going through those reports. >I might still need the ID numbers intact because of some maintenance I >have to do ,but would that be wise? Some people prefer to have no unused ID#s in their project. To others, it makes no difference. If you tend to use ID#s a lot to call up certain people, renumbering might be a problem. >And what about renumbering the IDs? ,would that reduce the size of the >program?. The TMG program itself would not be affected. Your project files would not be affected either. When a anything in TMG is deleted, the record is marked as deleted but is retained UNTIL you run the Optimize Maintenance function. Them all deleted records are removed and the file is "closed up" so that no empty records exist. >Or.......is it any way of keeping the ID numbers ,but deleting the >unused IDnumbers ,so if I shall add another person ,the IDs will always >start at the first unused number??. Just now ,each time I might want to >add any new person (which I will not ,because of the size) ,TMG >automatically starts with the ID 1014496 since that was how long I had >come before I split my project the first time..... TMG is designed to used the next highest ID# than is currently the highest. The only way to eliminate unused numbers is the renumber the data set or to manually renumber the individual persons to an unused ID#. For a small data set, this is conceivable, but in your case, no. >Secondly.....deleting a lot of people: >I am going to delete about 120000 people from my project ,but what`s >the best way of doing that? List of people and creating a new project >with those people? Or is it other possibilities? (in my eyes a dataset >would be too much risk) The only way to mass delete a large number of people would be to use the List of People report to either create a new data set or a new project of those persons that you want to keep. As to which way, that depends on what you want to do with the result. I would probably go the project route in your case. >After my first split ,I had about 20000 to delete. I don`t remember how >I tried to delete those ,but wonder I got some errormessage trying to >delete them by sending all of the 20000 to a new dataset. Of course >because of the size ,it wouldn`t work sending those 20000 to a dataset >since that dataset would be within a project which was already too >large nearly up to the 2 GB limit. (I never tried to send them to a new >project of course!). I was able to use the focus group with 3000 people >at a time ,made a new dataset ,and deleted that dataset each time until >I had no more left to delete. I bet it would be better making a new >temporary project of those 120000 and not a dataset ,and then delete that project?..... >The n.cdx project file is now 1.997.785 kB ,so I would guess to make >any dataset would make everything worse.... Have you Optimized the project? That would reduce the size of the files. Lee _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/tmg@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Lee, Thanks for your reply. I understand the three terms in principle. I am just trying to work out the best way of using the features within TMG to hold the information. What I'm trying to achieve is: 1. An efficient way of entering the data. E.g. for a census return, I should not have to enter the same citation data multiple times for each family member, and for multiple tags for each member. 2. All of the citation/source data should be recorded within TMG. 3. There should be local copies of the data (e.g. screenshots, or scans/photos, or local copies of web pages, or transcripts), so that if the original source disappears or moves location (which it often does on the internet), there is still a copy (which needs to be accessible via the Second Site website) for future researchers to refer to. 4. The data should be presented in my Second Site website in a good, accurate, complete and easy to understand way. One of my main uncertainties is whether the source should be very general (i.e. just FamilySearch, or The British Library), or much more specific (i.e. a single page within FamilySearch with its URL, or a specific page within a specific book found within a specific department at the Brtish Library), or somewhere in between. You explain that the Citation Detail should include the information about where in the source I found the information relevant to this event/tag. What is the Citation Memo field best used for? I have copies of both the Elizabeth Shown Mills books, but I haven't yet spent enough time fully understanding and working out how to implement her suggestions within TMG. Thanks for your advice - Rowan On 08/02/19 21:53, Lee Hoffman wrote: > At 2/8/2019 10:43, Rowan Sylvester-Bradley wrote >> I would welcome some advice on the best way to use Citations, Sources >> and Repositories. For example, let's say I have just found the >> following page: > > Others have given good advice.  Let me point out that.  I am wondering > if you understand the three terms. >  A Source is simply a description of the document that supports your > data and includes enough information for a reader to find the > document.  The Repository is where the document may be found.  Not all > Sources require a Repository although a user may include a Repository  > in a Source for their own use.  Citing a Source is the attaching of > the Source to the information it is supporting.  This may be a Tag or > even another Source (e.g., the Source of a Source).  A Citation > consists of the appropriate Source and any desired specific data > (Citation Details) telling where (within the Source) the information > was found. > > Source Citations have three different formats -- Full Footnote (FF), > Short Footnote (SF), and Bibliography (B).   The FF is the basically > what you used in high school.  Most professions have source documents > that are unique to that profession and thus the design of the > citations are different from other kind of > documents/books/periodicals/etc.  Due to the fact that genealogy > encompasses many kinds of source documents from many professions, we > tend to see many different Source Types where each type describe a > different kind of document. > > Trying to described all the various standard Source Types in TMG would > require a book and maybe two or three. <g>  These books are called > style manuals and there are probablyu at least a dozen that could be > referenced.  Two stylebooks pretty well cover most Source Types in > TMG.  The standard TMG Source Types are modeled after the types > descvrbed  in Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence! Citation & Analysis for > the Family Historian (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, > 1997).  This is the go-to style manual for genealogy, and you would do > well to acquire a copy (124 pages) or find a copy you can look at from > time to time. > > Mrs. Mills also has  published an 885 page style manual that goes a > lot deeper in telling how to the various citations are designed and > why. It is Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence Explained, Citing History > Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace (Baltimore: Genealogical > Publishing Company, 2007).  Some of the citation models in "Evidence > Explained" differ from the similar model in "Evidence!".  Which you > use is personal preference.  I vary in my choices. > > Lee

Lots of great technical advice. I follow the basic principal that it is important to me to be able to share my work with others to help further their own research. To this end, I try to follow the scientific approach - that all good science must be reproduceable. Therefore, I try to document the source of every fact I add in a way that will give others the means to reproduce my research and confirm the facts I present. After decades of trying to follow this, it wasn't until I tried to put my own book together that recognized the need to produce citations in formats that met the basic criteria of good style systems for publication, as used by the major genealogical journals and publishing houses (e.g., NEHGS and their Register). Let your choice of approaches be guided by your own personal goal. Greg On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 4:55 PM Lee Hoffman <azchief@bellsouth.net> wrote: > At 2/8/2019 10:43, Rowan Sylvester-Bradley wrote > >I would welcome some advice on the best way to use Citations, > >Sources and Repositories. For example, let's say I have just found > >the following page: > > Others have given good advice. Let me point out that. I am > wondering if you understand the three terms. > A Source is simply a description of the document that supports your > data and includes enough information for a reader to find the > document. The Repository is where the document may be found. Not > all Sources require a Repository although a user may include a > Repository in a Source for their own use. Citing a Source is the > attaching of the Source to the information it is supporting. This > may be a Tag or even another Source (e.g., the Source of a > Source). A Citation consists of the appropriate Source and any > desired specific data (Citation Details) telling where (within the > Source) the information was found. > > Source Citations have three different formats -- Full Footnote (FF), > Short Footnote (SF), and Bibliography (B). The FF is the basically > what you used in high school. Most professions have source documents > that are unique to that profession and thus the design of the > citations are different from other kind of > documents/books/periodicals/etc. Due to the fact that genealogy > encompasses many kinds of source documents from many professions, we > tend to see many different Source Types where each type describe a > different kind of document. > > Trying to described all the various standard Source Types in TMG > would require a book and maybe two or three. <g> These books are > called style manuals and there are probablyu at least a dozen that > could be referenced. Two stylebooks pretty well cover most Source > Types in TMG. The standard TMG Source Types are modeled after the > types descvrbed in Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence! Citation & > Analysis for the Family Historian (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing > Company, 1997). This is the go-to style manual for genealogy, and > you would do well to acquire a copy (124 pages) or find a copy you > can look at from time to time. > > Mrs. Mills also has published an 885 page style manual that goes a > lot deeper in telling how to the various citations are designed and > why. It is Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence Explained, Citing History > Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace (Baltimore: Genealogical > Publishing Company, 2007). Some of the citation models in "Evidence > Explained" differ from the similar model in "Evidence!". Which you > use is personal preference. I vary in my choices. > > Lee > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/tmg@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community >

At 2/8/2019 19:38, Erik Hov wrote >I have a lot of unused ID numbers (must be about 30000) after splitting out >a new project last year. I haven`t renumbered the IDs ,and now I will soon >delete about 120000 more people after going through those reports. >I might still need the ID numbers intact because of some maintenance I have >to do ,but would that be wise? Some people prefer to have no unused ID#s in their project. To others, it makes no difference. If you tend to use ID#s a lot to call up certain people, renumbering might be a problem. >And what about renumbering the IDs? ,would that reduce the size of the >program?. The TMG program itself would not be affected. Your project files would not be affected either. When a anything in TMG is deleted, the record is marked as deleted but is retained UNTIL you run the Optimize Maintenance function. Them all deleted records are removed and the file is "closed up" so that no empty records exist. >Or.......is it any way of keeping the ID numbers ,but deleting the unused >IDnumbers ,so if I shall add another person ,the IDs will always start at >the first unused number??. Just now ,each time I might want to add any new >person (which I will not ,because of the size) ,TMG automatically starts >with the ID 1014496 since that was how long I had come before I split my >project the first time..... TMG is designed to used the next highest ID# than is currently the highest. The only way to eliminate unused numbers is the renumber the data set or to manually renumber the individual persons to an unused ID#. For a small data set, this is conceivable, but in your case, no. >Secondly.....deleting a lot of people: >I am going to delete about 120000 people from my project ,but what`s the >best way of doing that? List of people and creating a new project with those >people? Or is it other possibilities? (in my eyes a dataset would be too >much risk) The only way to mass delete a large number of people would be to use the List of People report to either create a new data set or a new project of those persons that you want to keep. As to which way, that depends on what you want to do with the result. I would probably go the project route in your case. >After my first split ,I had about 20000 to delete. I don`t remember how I >tried to delete those ,but wonder I got some errormessage trying to delete >them by sending all of the 20000 to a new dataset. Of course because of the >size ,it wouldn`t work sending those 20000 to a dataset since that dataset >would be within a project which was already too large nearly up to the 2 GB >limit. (I never tried to send them to a new project of course!). I was able >to use the focus group with 3000 people at a time ,made a new dataset ,and >deleted that dataset each time until I had no more left to delete. I bet it >would be better making a new temporary project of those 120000 and not a >dataset ,and then delete that project?..... >The n.cdx project file is now 1.997.785 kB ,so I would guess to make any >dataset would make everything worse.... Have you Optimized the project? That would reduce the size of the files. Lee

Erik Hov wrote: > And what about renumbering the IDs? > ,would that reduce the size of the program?. No.

I am just through two reports ,and found the last people I need to keep in my project before I am going to delete about 120000 people from my project. I wonder about two things.... First ID numbers: I have a lot of unused ID numbers (must be about 30000) after splitting out a new project last year. I haven`t renumbered the IDs ,and now I will soon delete about 120000 more people after going through those reports. I might still need the ID numbers intact because of some maintenance I have to do ,but would that be wise? And what about renumbering the IDs? ,would that reduce the size of the program?. What I had thought was to have my project copied ,having it all there (including IDnumbers intact) ,and then work in the other when it comes to deleting people ,and splitting out more etc.... Since the ID numbers are intact in the main project ,I could renumber the IDs in the project I am working in instead of the main project? Or.......is it any way of keeping the ID numbers ,but deleting the unused IDnumbers ,so if I shall add another person ,the IDs will always start at the first unused number??. Just now ,each time I might want to add any new person (which I will not ,because of the size) ,TMG automatically starts with the ID 1014496 since that was how long I had come before I split my project the first time..... Secondly.....deleting a lot of people: I am going to delete about 120000 people from my project ,but what`s the best way of doing that? List of people and creating a new project with those people? Or is it other possibilities? (in my eyes a dataset would be too much risk) After my first split ,I had about 20000 to delete. I don`t remember how I tried to delete those ,but wonder I got some errormessage trying to delete them by sending all of the 20000 to a new dataset. Of course because of the size ,it wouldn`t work sending those 20000 to a dataset since that dataset would be within a project which was already too large nearly up to the 2 GB limit. (I never tried to send them to a new project of course!). I was able to use the focus group with 3000 people at a time ,made a new dataset ,and deleted that dataset each time until I had no more left to delete. I bet it would be better making a new temporary project of those 120000 and not a dataset ,and then delete that project?..... The n.cdx project file is now 1.997.785 kB ,so I would guess to make any dataset would make everything worse.... So.....what`s the best way of deleting about 120000 from an already nearly too large project ,and is it possible to keep the IDnumbers intact as I have them now ,but still delete the unused IDs (after a possible renumbering if necessary)? Thanks , Erik

At 2/8/2019 10:43, Rowan Sylvester-Bradley wrote >I would welcome some advice on the best way to use Citations, >Sources and Repositories. For example, let's say I have just found >the following page: Others have given good advice. Let me point out that. I am wondering if you understand the three terms. A Source is simply a description of the document that supports your data and includes enough information for a reader to find the document. The Repository is where the document may be found. Not all Sources require a Repository although a user may include a Repository in a Source for their own use. Citing a Source is the attaching of the Source to the information it is supporting. This may be a Tag or even another Source (e.g., the Source of a Source). A Citation consists of the appropriate Source and any desired specific data (Citation Details) telling where (within the Source) the information was found. Source Citations have three different formats -- Full Footnote (FF), Short Footnote (SF), and Bibliography (B). The FF is the basically what you used in high school. Most professions have source documents that are unique to that profession and thus the design of the citations are different from other kind of documents/books/periodicals/etc. Due to the fact that genealogy encompasses many kinds of source documents from many professions, we tend to see many different Source Types where each type describe a different kind of document. Trying to described all the various standard Source Types in TMG would require a book and maybe two or three. <g> These books are called style manuals and there are probablyu at least a dozen that could be referenced. Two stylebooks pretty well cover most Source Types in TMG. The standard TMG Source Types are modeled after the types descvrbed in Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 1997). This is the go-to style manual for genealogy, and you would do well to acquire a copy (124 pages) or find a copy you can look at from time to time. Mrs. Mills also has published an 885 page style manual that goes a lot deeper in telling how to the various citations are designed and why. It is Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence Explained, Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 2007). Some of the citation models in "Evidence Explained" differ from the similar model in "Evidence!". Which you use is personal preference. I vary in my choices. Lee

At 2/8/2019 6:20 PM, Rowan Sylvester-Bradley wrote: >I'm having trouble creating a Pedigree Chart in TMG. Here's what I have >requested that it do: > >When I click Create Report one of several things happen. > > 1. I get an error saying that it can;t find the printer (despite the > fact that I am not asking it to print anything). What option do you have for the destination of the report. Even if not going to a physical printer, many destinations still make use of a "printer driver" to do the rendering of the output. Do you even have a printer defined as "default"? > 3. It creates a file called Rowan Sylvester-Bradley Pedigree Chart.PDF > of zero length in the Report_output directory. That tends to imply you are using either the file destination "Adobe PDF", or using a PDF printer driver (likely the one that never works for me <G>). 0-length could mean that nothing was ever written to it (for a very complex tree, TMG might open/create the destination file, but then not write anything to it until the data has been collected and sorted. > 4. It says that the file already exists and is busy. Eventually I found > that by closing all my Explorer windows the file was unlocked. > WHAT "says the the file already exists"? TMG, or something in Windows? -- bieber.genealogy@earthlink.net Dennis Lee Bieber HTTP://home.earthlink.net/~bieber.genealogy/

Hi Rowan, Just because I think source citations are fun, I'll add my thoughts. First, I never like the phrase, "best way to ...." There are very few things that seem to have a single "best way," and one of my favorite aspects of TMG is the fact that it doesn't tell me what the one "best way" is. This is the source citation I would construct for your database entry. It's based on _Evidence Explained_ (1st ed.), QuickCheck Model, p. 165. I haven't double-checked for any changes in the 3rd ed. Note that this is the way I interpret some of Mills's citation principals, not necessarily what she would do with this same record. "England and Wales Non-Conformist Record Indexes (RG4-8), 1588-1977," database, _Family Search_ (https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/1666142 : accessed 8 February 2019), Eleanor Gibbes birth (1785); citing National Archives (Kew) RG 5, General Register Office: Birth Certificates from the Presbyterian, Independent and Baptist Registry and from the Wesleyan Methodist Metropolitan Registry, specifically citing p. 192, Long Alley, St Leonard Shoreditch, Middlesex. * To paraphrase Terry and quote Robert Charles Anderson, "An index is not a source, it's a finding aid." I do agree with this, but until you view the original record, an index or database entry is a record of where you found your information and where you plan to look for a better record. This citation specifies that you saw a database of indexed records, definitely not the best available source. * Although URLs to individual records are long and likely to change, I do like to include the URL to the website collection in such umbrella websites as _FamilySearch_, _Ancestry_, etc. It's up to you to locate that collection URL. * Always read the helps and background information for these collections. The _FamilySearch_ wiki describes each record group included in this collection and gives a link to the UK National Archives' catalog description for each record group. The Eleanor Gibbes entry is identified as a record from RG 5. This information appears in the citation layer beginning "citing National Archives ...." I put this information in the "Comments" section in the Master Source entry. If I also find records in this database from the other included record groups, I would need to create a second Master Source entry for those. You might want to do something less fussy. * The document information on the Eleanor Gibbes entry also includes the specific page and (probably) volume, but I would need to do more investigation to determine exactly how I wanted that entered. This is where I found the information for the line beginning, "specifically citing ...." I put it in a defined CD part. I use the split citation detail feature for many of my source type templates. The date of access and the record entry identification are also placed in the CD. * If you read the UK Archives' information, you will see that electronic images are available on their "partner website," which turns out to _TheGenealogist_. Depending on how critical this person is in your research, you might want to see how many other records on this site you might want, and then subscribe to see them. You need to check out copyright restrictions before posting any images, though. I think these records may be protected by Crown copyright - but don't quote me on that. * You should always check the _FamilySearch_ catalog to see if the records you want have been digitized, but not indexed. It could save you money. Anyway, that summarizes my work flow when crafting these citations. And as Terry said, citation is as much art as science. Susan Johnston On 2/8/2019 11:52 AM, Rowan Sylvester-Bradley wrote: > Terry, > > Many thanks for your useful ideas on this. I've added a few comments > below in all caps (just to distinguish my comments, not because I'm > shouting - normally I would use an innocuous color like green, but I > understand that Rootsweb discards all colors). > > On 08/02/19 18:05, Terry Reigel wrote: >> On 2/8/2019 10:43 AM, Rowan Sylvester-Bradley wrote: >>> I would welcome some advice on the best way to use Citations, >>> Sources and Repositories.

Rowan Sylvester-Bradley wrote: > I would welcome some advice on the best way to use Citations, > Sources and Repositories. First, Rowan, there is no one "best" way. It is up to you how you use them so long as you report the source and repository information in a way that someone else could find this citation. > If I create separate citations for each event, and put all this > information into the citations, then I will have to enter it all 6 > times, which seems very inefficient. > If I create a separate source for this web page, and refer to it in each > of the 6 citations, then I avoid the previous problem, but now I have to > have a separate source for every single FamilySearch page that I use. > And what do I put in the Respository? I am assuming from your example that you are trying to cite data from a pedigree resource web page on Family Search. What I do for such FamilySearch data is first identify FamilySearch as the Repository: Name - Other: LDS On-line Family Search Place Detail: https://www.familysearch.org/ I then have a "lumped" Source for such pedigree resource citations: Title: LDS Pedigree Resource Short title: LDS Pedigree Publisher: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Publisher Address: Salt Lake City, Utah Full Footnote: [ITAL:][TITLE][:ITAL]<, [SUBTITLE]><, [SERIES]><; [CD]>. Cited as [ITAL:][SHORT TITLE][:ITAL]<. [CM]> Short Footnote: [ITAL:][SHORT TITLE][:ITAL]<, [SERIES]><, [CD]><. [CM]> Bibliography: [ITAL:][TITLE][:ITAL]<, [SUBTITLE]><, [SERIES]>. <[PUBLISHER ADDRESS]: >[PUBLISHER]<, [PUBLISH DATE]>. <[REPOSITORY REFERENCE]. >[REPOSITORY]<, [REPOSITORY ADDRESS]><. [ANNOTATION]> So I get only one Bibliography entry from this "lumped" source: LDS Pedigree Resource. Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. LDS On-line FamilySearch, http://www.familysearch.org/. ==================== An example citation to a Birth tag: CD: /ark:/61903/2:2:S5BG-6XH, Margaret Norma Romoyse Sorrick, submission id: MM36-1GH, 11 May 2011 CM: Birth: 16 Jan 1904 Which gives a Full Footnote of: LDS Pedigree Resource; /ark:/61903/2:2:S5BG-6XH, Margaret Norma Romoyse Sorrick, submission id: MM36-1GH, 11 May 2011. Cited as LDS Pedigree. Birth: 16 Jan 1904. Or a citation to an Emigration tag: CD: ark:/61903/2:2:3CS9-WQF, submitted 28 Feb 2016 (file 2:2:2:MMDL-SXC), Johann Wilhelm Stumpfund CM: Entered in Philadelphia, 1753 \[Source: Passenger and Immigration Lists Index, 1500s-1900s, Place: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Year: 1753\] Which gives a Full Footnote of: LDS Pedigree Resource; ark:/61903/2:2:3CS9-WQF, submitted 28 Feb 2016 (file 2:2:2:MMDL-SXC), Johann Wilhelm Stumpfund. Cited as LDS Pedigree. Entered in Philadelphia, 1753 [Source: Passenger and Immigration Lists Index, 1500s-1900s, Place: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Year: 1753] ================== By having the FamilySearch information in the CD, I can just use <[F3]> when citing to multiple tags, and put only the data concerning this tag in the CM. Just my way of doing things. Hope this gives you ideas, Michael

On 2/8/2019 1:52 PM, Rowan Sylvester-Bradley wrote: > The page has what information about them? I TRIED TO ATTACH THE PAGE > BUT THIS OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T WORK, SORRY. THE PAGE IS AT > http://sylvesterbradley.org/images/eleanor_gibbes_birth.jpg Rowan, OK, I got your image and found the page on FamilySearch. This record is a database entry, an index to the original record. So it's not really a "source" but just points you to one. The "proper" think to do with this is to record it as your source temporarily and find the original record. Then cite that and exclude your initial citation to the index record. This index is not to images that can be found on FamilySearch but to the Public Record Office in London. Someone familiar with British records could suggest how that might be done. In reality you may not want to do that depending on how important this person is to your research and the cost and difficulty of getting a copy of the original. > For most of them I don't include a URL because in my experience they > tend to change often. YES, I UNDERSTAND THIS POINT, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME > THAT IT MAY BE USEFUL TO GIVE THE ORIGINAL URL, AND TO HAVE A COPY > (EITHER AN IMAGE, OR A COPY OF THE WEB PAGE) IN ONE'S OWN COMPUTER IN > CASE THE ORIGINAL DISAPPEARS. That's your choice of course. I don't see the point in recording the detailed URL. Part of the reason is the detailed URL is way too long. Do you want something like this in every footnote: https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?count=20&query=%2Bgivenname%3Aeleanor~%20%2Bsurname%3AGibbes~%20%2Bbirth_place%3Amiddlesex~%20%2Bbirth_year%3A1785-1785~ And of course there is little reason to believe it will work in a few years. Rather, I would create a Source that identifies the database and provides as a URL only familysearch.org, and in the Citation Detail the name of the person in the record, in this case Eleanor Gibbes. Then anyone who cares can find it by searching that database for that name. Keeping an image of the record is again a matter of preference. In my view there is precious little in these records, so I'm happy simply recording the data that's there in the tag. And, as I said, if what I record is in any way different I make a note of that in the Citation Details field in the Citation so it appears in the footnote. >  I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT TO PUT IN THE DETAIL SECTION, AND WHAT > IN THE MEMO SECTION. There are at least three places you can record details. Information about the Source itself, which applies to everything in the source, can be put in the Comments section on the Supplemental tab of the Source Definition screen. Then be sure the [COMMENTS] Source Element appears in at least the Full Footnote template so it will appear in the output. It's not in all the default templates. If I were creating a Source for this database for example, I'd note that it's an index of record Group RG5, and cites Baptist Church records. Information about the record from a specific record in the database can go in either the Memo field of the tag or in the Citation Detail field. Put it in the Memo if it's important enough that you want it in the body of the person's page, and put it in the CD if you want it to appear in the footnotes. What you put in the Memo is not linked to a specific Source, do you must relate it to the source by what you enter if that's relevant. Our you might just say "some sources say..." What you put in the CD is automatically associated with the Source, so that's generally the place for details that are specific to this one source. >  MY END OBJECTIVE IS TO CREATE A WEBSITE USING SECOND-SITE THAT ALL MY > FAMILY (AND ANYONE ELSE WHO IS INTERESTED) CAN LOOK AT. FOR THIS TO DO > ITS JOB PROPERLY, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT I NEED TO CREATE ALL THESE > IMAGES, COPIES OF WEB PAGES ETC AS EXTERNAL EXHIBITS SO SECOND-SITE > WILL INCLUDE THEM. BASICALLY I'D L:IKE THE SS WEBSITE TO CONTAIN _ALL_ > MY INFORMATION. I think that's a great objective. A site created with Second Site that includes images of sources is a very nice, complete, package. Where we may differ is in what we view as a "source." In my view a database record is not really a source, but a clue about where to find the source. If I decide to never find the real source (and I do decide that for more distant relatives if getting it is difficult) I record the database record, but I don't see the point in including an image of it as part of a website. > Yes, but accurate. SURELY DUPLICATED INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE > NECESSARY FOR ACCURACY? I think it is. Are you going to be satisfied with this one record as a source for all the entries for these three people? I'd guess not. I'd suppose you will find other records for each of them, and they will have different information. Perhaps the marriage or death date of Eleanor. Or information about her birth that is the same or different than what's here. Hopefully birth, marriage, and death information for her parents. When you make your website those bits of information (name, relationships, birth, marriage, death, etc.) will appear separately. If you don't cite the several sources you have used how will you or your readers know where you found each piece? If they don't all totally agree how will you or your readers know how to evaluate the differences or conflicts? Second Site will produce one footnote for each different Source/Citation Detail combination for each person. So if the same Source is cited for several different bits of information they will all share the same footnote so long as there isn't anything different in the CD field of the citations. Terry