On 1/29/2017 2:40 PM, Brian Gross wrote: > > Wait, I'm confused. I thought the same people were listed twice. Now it sounds like at least two different people are listed. What am I missing? > > Sent from my iPhone >> Thanks Terry and David. >> I was think that I need two Census Tag and Two citation, to make it clear that the family was listed twice. What makes this stand out, one was a minister and the other was active in local government, so they new each other. >> >> Robert >> >> -- >> Robert Administrator of Clark County, MOGenWeb Project >> Sorry, I should of said the minister was John Martin and the Ass't. Marshal was active in local government. "What makes this stand out, one was a minister (John Martin) and the other was active in local government (C. Lanford Ass't. Marshal), so they new each other." Robert -- Robert Administrator of Clark County, MOGenWeb Project --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

At 1/29/2017 15:22, Robert wrote >I was think that I need two Census Tag and Two citation, to make it >clear that the family was listed twice. What makes this stand out, >one was a minister and the other was active in local government, so >they new each other. Wait a minute! You mean that the two census records are not the same family? Then, yes, you definitely need Census Tags for each family and the appropriate Source Citation for each. And, if nothing else, I would add a comment in the Citation Detail of the Source Citations noting the existence of the similar other family including a shortened reference to where the other family is found on the census. In such a case, I might add another Tag (Note, Anecdote, some Custom Tag, or whatever) to explain that the two families are so similar and could be confused, that they likely knew each other, etc. Lee

The ass't marshall is the enumerator for this census. Based solely on the information you've provided, there is no evidence to support the presumption that he knew the family. If that were valuable to present as part of your research, you'd need something else that shows a relationship between, then a tag and citation for it. In addition, you'd need to add a memo to your census citation(s) since the enumerator's name is not usually captured in a census source citation. Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 29, 2017, at 2:36 PM, Lee Hoffman/KY <azchief@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > At 1/29/2017 16:53, Robert wrote >> Sorry, I should of said the minister was John Martin and the Ass't. Marshal was active in local government. "What makes this stand out, one was a minister (John Martin) and the other was active in local government (C. Lanford Ass't. Marshal), so they new each other." > > Well, now I am confused even more. Who is this Lanford and where is he in the households you note? And which John Martin was the Minister? > > Lee > > 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 1/29/2017 10:48 AM, David Ball wrote: > I have a large project, so double census records turn up now and then, > usually because a family was in the process of moving during the census data > collection period. I enter each instance in its own tag and dated by the > date on that page. The only difference is that in the memo box of the later > listing I preface the normal text entry with the comment: [second listing]. > In most cases the data are the same, only the residence changes, but when > there are differences, I usually comment on the data bit that is not likely > correct, again in brackets. The point here is to convey how the double > listing likely came about....e.g., a move versus a census taker error. > > More common are the instances where only one of a family's children shows up > as home with parents, but also on another location as an individual.....for > example a daughter may be a "live-in" nanny listed with that family, but > still considered as part of the family of her parents, because she may spend > weekends with them. > > The most important issue for recording these anomalies is considering how > your database will be viewed (on-line as a tree, in journal reports, etc.) > and what you want the viewer/reader to understand about the data you are > presenting. So, there is no "right" answer, only an answer that provides > you with an appropriate end product. > > Dave Ball > Compiler of the New England Ball Project > > -----Original Message----- > From: TMG [mailto:tmg-bounces+dgballtmg=shaw.ca@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of > Robert > Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 7:57 AM > To: TMG > Subject: [TMG] Family report twice in 1850 US Census > > Hi List > > I have a Family recorded twice in the 1850 US Census. > The first record Household number 003: > John J. Martin M 42 Virginia > Pheobe Martin F 38 Kentucky > R. Martin F 16 Illinois > William H. Martin M 14 Iowa > John N Martin M 12 Iowa > P. Martin F 6 Missouri > J. G. Martin M 4 Missouri > A. G. Martin M 1 Missouri > > The second record Household number 358: > John J. Martin M 43 Virginia > Pheobe Martin F 41 Virginia (Age and birth place > different) > Rebeca Martin F 16 Illinois > William H. Martin M 14 Iowa > John N Martin M 13 Iowa > Pheobe Martin F 6 Missouri > Green Martin M 4 Missouri > Albert Martin M 1 Missouri > > How should this be reported? Two Census Tag with name as shown in census > with two Citation Tag (I do not lump). One Census Tag with names recorded > twice as witnesses as shown in the census, and one or two Citation Tag? > > Thanks for you advice. > > Robert Hartman > > > Robert Administrator of Clark County, MOGenWeb Project > Thanks Terry and David. I was think that I need two Census Tag and Two citation, to make it clear that the family was listed twice. What makes this stand out, one was a minister and the other was active in local government, so they new each other. Robert -- Robert Administrator of Clark County, MOGenWeb Project --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Wait, I'm confused. I thought the same people were listed twice. Now it sounds like at least two different people are listed. What am I missing? Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 29, 2017, at 12:22 PM, Robert <mogenclark@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 1/29/2017 10:48 AM, David Ball wrote: >> I have a large project, so double census records turn up now and then, >> usually because a family was in the process of moving during the census data >> collection period. I enter each instance in its own tag and dated by the >> date on that page. The only difference is that in the memo box of the later >> listing I preface the normal text entry with the comment: [second listing]. >> In most cases the data are the same, only the residence changes, but when >> there are differences, I usually comment on the data bit that is not likely >> correct, again in brackets. The point here is to convey how the double >> listing likely came about....e.g., a move versus a census taker error. >> >> More common are the instances where only one of a family's children shows up >> as home with parents, but also on another location as an individual.....for >> example a daughter may be a "live-in" nanny listed with that family, but >> still considered as part of the family of her parents, because she may spend >> weekends with them. >> >> The most important issue for recording these anomalies is considering how >> your database will be viewed (on-line as a tree, in journal reports, etc.) >> and what you want the viewer/reader to understand about the data you are >> presenting. So, there is no "right" answer, only an answer that provides >> you with an appropriate end product. >> >> Dave Ball >> Compiler of the New England Ball Project >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: TMG [mailto:tmg-bounces+dgballtmg=shaw.ca@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of >> Robert >> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 7:57 AM >> To: TMG >> Subject: [TMG] Family report twice in 1850 US Census >> >> Hi List >> >> I have a Family recorded twice in the 1850 US Census. >> The first record Household number 003: >> John J. Martin M 42 Virginia >> Pheobe Martin F 38 Kentucky >> R. Martin F 16 Illinois >> William H. Martin M 14 Iowa >> John N Martin M 12 Iowa >> P. Martin F 6 Missouri >> J. G. Martin M 4 Missouri >> A. G. Martin M 1 Missouri >> >> The second record Household number 358: >> John J. Martin M 43 Virginia >> Pheobe Martin F 41 Virginia (Age and birth place >> different) >> Rebeca Martin F 16 Illinois >> William H. Martin M 14 Iowa >> John N Martin M 13 Iowa >> Pheobe Martin F 6 Missouri >> Green Martin M 4 Missouri >> Albert Martin M 1 Missouri >> >> How should this be reported? Two Census Tag with name as shown in census >> with two Citation Tag (I do not lump). One Census Tag with names recorded >> twice as witnesses as shown in the census, and one or two Citation Tag? >> >> Thanks for you advice. >> >> Robert Hartman >> >> >> Robert Administrator of Clark County, MOGenWeb Project >> > > Thanks Terry and David. > I was think that I need two Census Tag and Two citation, to make it clear that the family was listed twice. What makes this stand out, one was a minister and the other was active in local government, so they new each other. > > Robert > > -- > Robert Administrator of Clark County, MOGenWeb Project > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > 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 1/29/2017 10:57 AM, Robert wrote: > I have a Family recorded twice in the 1850 US Census. > The first record Household number 003: > John J. Martin M 42 Virginia > Pheobe Martin F 38 Kentucky > R. Martin F 16 Illinois > William H. Martin M 14 Iowa > John N Martin M 12 Iowa > P. Martin F 6 Missouri > J. G. Martin M 4 Missouri > A. G. Martin M 1 Missouri > > The second record Household number 358: > John J. Martin M 43 Virginia > Pheobe Martin F 41 Virginia (Age and birth place different) > Rebeca Martin F 16 Illinois > William H. Martin M 14 Iowa > John N Martin M 13 Iowa > Pheobe Martin F 6 Missouri > Green Martin M 4 Missouri > Albert Martin M 1 Missouri > > How should this be reported? Two Census Tag with name as shown in census > with two Citation Tag (I do not lump). One Census Tag with names > recorded twice as witnesses as shown in the census, and one or two > Citation Tag? Robert, I've found this from time to time. I record each listing in separate Census Tags, then modify the Sentence of second one so it was something like "...were also listed..." If the reason for the double listing is apparent (often is a young adult listed both with parents and separately) I may make a notation in the Memo field of the second Census Tag. I don't know what you mean by "Citation Tag." Are you talking about Sources? Yes, I make a separate source for each listing and Cite them on the respective Census Tags, as well as in Name, Relationship, Marriage, and Birth Tags. Terry Reigel

Hi List I have a Family recorded twice in the 1850 US Census. The first record Household number 003: John J. Martin M 42 Virginia Pheobe Martin F 38 Kentucky R. Martin F 16 Illinois William H. Martin M 14 Iowa John N Martin M 12 Iowa P. Martin F 6 Missouri J. G. Martin M 4 Missouri A. G. Martin M 1 Missouri The second record Household number 358: John J. Martin M 43 Virginia Pheobe Martin F 41 Virginia (Age and birth place different) Rebeca Martin F 16 Illinois William H. Martin M 14 Iowa John N Martin M 13 Iowa Pheobe Martin F 6 Missouri Green Martin M 4 Missouri Albert Martin M 1 Missouri How should this be reported? Two Census Tag with name as shown in census with two Citation Tag (I do not lump). One Census Tag with names recorded twice as witnesses as shown in the census, and one or two Citation Tag? Thanks for you advice. Robert Hartman Robert Administrator of Clark County, MOGenWeb Project --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Raymond How are you running TMG - from a Desptop or Start Menu icon? If so it could be that the shortcut points to the wrong program. What happens if you go use File Explorer to go to the TMG program folder (probably C:\Program Files(x86)\The Master Genealogist v9) and double click the TMG.exe file. If that works then make a new shortcut to that file and put it on your desktop (and delete the old one) BTW I have just installed TMG and Roxio on a new computer without problems. JohnH _________________________________________________ John Heckels john@heckels.org.uk > -----Original Message----- > From: TMG [mailto:tmg-bounces+jeheckels=gmail.com@rootsweb.com] On > Behalf Of Raymond Payne > Sent: 26 January 2017 18:44 > To: The Master Genealogist Rootsweb Email List > Subject: Re: [TMG] TMG & Rixio -- Was: Re: Gedcom file from TMG > > Terry, > > Thanks for the help. The problem occurs Everytime I open TMG. > > Looking forward to other responses. > > > > Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone > >

I have a large project, so double census records turn up now and then, usually because a family was in the process of moving during the census data collection period. I enter each instance in its own tag and dated by the date on that page. The only difference is that in the memo box of the later listing I preface the normal text entry with the comment: [second listing]. In most cases the data are the same, only the residence changes, but when there are differences, I usually comment on the data bit that is not likely correct, again in brackets. The point here is to convey how the double listing likely came about....e.g., a move versus a census taker error. More common are the instances where only one of a family's children shows up as home with parents, but also on another location as an individual.....for example a daughter may be a "live-in" nanny listed with that family, but still considered as part of the family of her parents, because she may spend weekends with them. The most important issue for recording these anomalies is considering how your database will be viewed (on-line as a tree, in journal reports, etc.) and what you want the viewer/reader to understand about the data you are presenting. So, there is no "right" answer, only an answer that provides you with an appropriate end product. Dave Ball Compiler of the New England Ball Project -----Original Message----- From: TMG [mailto:tmg-bounces+dgballtmg=shaw.ca@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Robert Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 7:57 AM To: TMG Subject: [TMG] Family report twice in 1850 US Census Hi List I have a Family recorded twice in the 1850 US Census. The first record Household number 003: John J. Martin M 42 Virginia Pheobe Martin F 38 Kentucky R. Martin F 16 Illinois William H. Martin M 14 Iowa John N Martin M 12 Iowa P. Martin F 6 Missouri J. G. Martin M 4 Missouri A. G. Martin M 1 Missouri The second record Household number 358: John J. Martin M 43 Virginia Pheobe Martin F 41 Virginia (Age and birth place different) Rebeca Martin F 16 Illinois William H. Martin M 14 Iowa John N Martin M 13 Iowa Pheobe Martin F 6 Missouri Green Martin M 4 Missouri Albert Martin M 1 Missouri How should this be reported? Two Census Tag with name as shown in census with two Citation Tag (I do not lump). One Census Tag with names recorded twice as witnesses as shown in the census, and one or two Citation Tag? Thanks for you advice. Robert Hartman Robert Administrator of Clark County, MOGenWeb Project --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus 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

G'day James Just adding my 5 cents worth: I use Lackey, as allocating Sources is faster (a smaller list!) and let's face it, an email is just a modern letter, so why not use the category: "Letter"? Unless you are going to use your output with full citations for a university degree then as long as you record where you got the information isn't that enough? For my "informants" I allocate each individual as a Source, and mostly their input is by "Letter" whether old paper style or modern electronic (email). In the Comments window I enter something like "Email: 28 Sep 2016" or Letter: 2001-23 (filing reference) If an email just has a handful of dates etc. then I don't waste paper by printing it out: I know who gave me that information and when from my citation. If an email has a page or so of data then it is printed out, given a reference and filed as a "Letter". In either case, the Lackey category works fine. All of my Informants are included in my TMG database, with my Informant Flag set to "Y", and for that person I record their email address and anything else I can discover such as phone number, address etc. I have a report ((to screen, from my Toolbar" to print out Informants, so I can find "Who are the people who gave me information about the XXXX family?" My main "bug" with many email senders is that (sorry, my age is showing!!) they generally don't include any address etc. As email addresses do change, I try to seek more definitive details, and that is also good to check for any sort of identify fraud, especially if the sender is seeking details from my database: "How do I know you are genuine?" The big reason for my taking up TMG way back in Windows 3 days was its adaptability: you adapt it to suit your purposes. Bruce Fairhall On 28/01/2017 9:44 AM, James Payne wrote: Thank you to all those who gave me various answers. This particular email, that I wrote about, had all the information that I added to my tree and I have made the email source using Unpublished / Miscellaneous. I have had many emails over years but the majority of them contained the information in attachments which I listed as the source eg descendants of Thomas Copland. This source is now listed as GGatward2Payne 25012017 which is the same way that I have listed a letter included with a cousin's Christmas Card. Thanks again for your help Jim Payne New Zealand

Thank you to all those who gave me various answers. This particular email, that I wrote about, had all the information that I added to my tree and I have made the email source using Unpublished / Miscellaneous. I have had many emails over years but the majority of them contained the information in attachments which I listed as the source eg descendants of Thomas Copland. This source is now listed as GGatward2Payne 25012017 which is the same way that I have listed a letter included with a cousin's Christmas Card. Thanks again for your help Jim Payne New Zealand

Thank you to Dave Nelson for making the comment about the design of flexible software. Thank you to Richard Damon for answering this query first . The flexibility represented in TMG is also the aim of the design of HRE. Hard-coding may be simpler and faster to implement by volunteers, but it comes at a great cost in testing, maintenance and extensibility. There are 2 types of data recorded in HRE. That which is the true *user data* and the (system and user-modified) *template dat**a*, like tag definitions, name styles, layouts, sentences, report definitions, input data validation rules, importing and exporting rules, filters, etc. Wherever sensible, a feature in HRE will be controlled by some form of template data. New templates can be created by the user (usually by cloning a template and then editing that renamed clone). For those users happy with the actions of features while using the in-built templates do not need to understand the templates. As Richard said this will make writing the documentation more difficult. But it can avoid the complete code rewrite that has happened in a number of Open Source projects where there has been gun-ho attitude to quickly cut code, only find that because of poor prior design considerations, some extremely important case had been compromised. That code gets dumped and things start again. We are wanting to avoid that by asking questions about how HRE may be desired to be used by others. Please think about why have some TMG users created "pseudo-persons" to represent other types of objects that they want to attach records to. What should be added to HRE to allow this to be a standard capability? On the plus-side, to add an extra feature to a report may only require the definition of an additional term to some template parser and the actions to be performed when found. Late in the life of TMG the introduction of the [S]-related sentence variables is an example of why templates are a powerful mechanism to simply extend the capability of a package without a complete re-write. To make HRE's templates more powerful the actual syntax will be further homogenized. To request the same thing and many new things always have the same syntax elements. [All TMG template data will be converted to HRE format as it is imported.] On the down-size, this requires extra parsing of templates, hence making some operations slower. To make that parsing faster, the new syntax should avoid some of the current multi-stage matching before some actions are identified. I hope that this publicly clarifies our design philosophy. RobinL On 27-Jan-17 02:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > From what I have seen in the design, it is designed for expansion and > being data/template driven. One of the basic goals is that the system > be usable in more fields then just Genealogy, so it is being designed > as a core engine which is fairly general, with a built in application > specific module for Genealogy. The program will also be fully open > source, so it will be quite possible to create other application fields. > > For example, the base module will have a generic report generator and > the Genealogical module will have (editable) templates to build the > standard reports. > > I think the template system will provide a LOT more flexibility, while > at the same time, if you are willing to just keep that basic > templates, you can ignore the complexity inherent in the flexibility. > > This will make the documentation harder to write, as for the basic > user, you need to describe how to work within the (changeable) > framework provided, and then have a much more in-depth description of > a much wider set of options, some of which might make the methods > first described no longer applicable. > > On 1/26/17 2:06 PM, Dave Nelson wrote: >> Speaking as a professional data architect (now retired) I can say with >> confidence that what set TMG apart from almost all PC apps was the >> combination of its data model and the sophisticated use of data driven >> processing (e.g., this is what made the reporting so incredibly >> flexible). >> Very few professionals will bother to code that way but those that do >> will >> produce an exceptionally flexible product. >> >> My question: Are you doing the same or are you falling back to >> hardcoding >> all the features? I ask because once a development team choses an >> answer >> and starts to code there is no going back. >> >> I STRONGLY urge you follow Bob V's example. It need not be perfectly >> identical, in fact it probably shouldn't be, but the path he chose is >> the >> right path to walk when your users are from so many different >> countries and >> have so many individual preferences. FWIW< I'm helping an Open Source >> project -- completely different domain than genealogy -- similar user >> profile and needs and they insist on hardcoding everything. What an >> inflexible mass/mess of if then else code they've produced. >> >> Dave Nelson >> -----Original Message----- >> From: TMG [mailto:tmg-bounces+linleymh=bigpond.net.au@rootsweb.com] On >> Behalf Of Patrick M. Lofft >> Sent: Wednesday, 11 January 2017 10:27 AM >> >> Work is happening on several fronts: >> >> (1) *The Initial scope* for the core application has been determined. >> That is, what we want to be available as common services in the core, >> and >> which critical features to demonstrate in the first demonstration >> version. >> Clearly, this will not include all the import, reporting and export >> features >> that TMG has, but will have a range of features to illustrate some >> chosen >> feature extensions. It includes TMG v8.5+ importing, but is likely to >> have a >> limited range of reporting templates at first. >> >> [DHN>] [rest deleted for brevity] >> Robin Lamacraft >> >> 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 >> > > -- Robin Lamacraft, Adelaide, Australia

At 1/27/2017 17:44, James Payne wrote >Thank you to all those who gave me various answers. >This particular email, that I wrote about, had all the information that I >added to my tree and I have made the email source using Unpublished / >Miscellaneous. >I have had many emails over years but the majority of them contained the >information in attachments which I listed as the source eg descendants of >Thomas Copland. >This source is now listed as GGatward2Payne 25012017 which is the same way >that I have listed a letter included with a cousin's Christmas Card. Now I see your problem! You are using the original TMG Source Category based on Richard S. Lackey's "Cite Your Sources" (as selected in Preferences=>Current Project Options=>Other). The option for Source Categories based on Elizabeth Shown Mills "Evidence!" is the better choice and Custom would be even better (Custom starts with Mills "Evidence!" and then allows you to adjust as you wish. Either way, there is an E-Mail Source Type available. Lackey was the original (and only) Source Category back in TMG's early days. I think the Mills Source Category was introduced back in 1997 with TMG v3 or v3.5. It has been the recommended option ever since. But, many are updating their Source Types in accordance with Mills 2007 work "Evidence Explained". Lackey is still okay; but with only 14 Source Types, it leaves a lot to be desired. If you had an E-Mail Source Type before, it is likely that you inadvertantly switched your Preferences to Lackey somewhere along the way. If this happened, you will probably need to look at all your Sources to make sure that the correct Source Type is now being used as changing the Preferences Source Categories option will remove any customizations. You may want to look at an old backup (don't overwrite your current project unless you are sure of what you might be losing and can easily re-enter it). Lee

At 1/27/2017 11:24, Walter Wood wrote >Maybe I am missing something here but I put any supplemental information >into the Comments section of the Supplemental tab in the Source Definition >form. This would be a good fit for text information and would keep them >within the source rather than in a separate file. This would be my usual manner of doing things for relatively small amounts of information. I don't know what kind of Sources that Giles is working with here, but most of mine are wills, letters and the like. In most cases, I abstract the information and put that in the Source Definition Comments. For a few, I enter the information verbatim -- especially of I want to keep the wording of the document. For example, I quoted the full will of my three great grandfather where the language used was very interesting. He had left everything to his housekeeper (mistress?) and her children, and left nothing to his four children because he had "already given them $25,000.00 each which is enough to keep them if they care for it and too much if they don't". For the rare time when the information is very large and I want to retain the wording and have easy access to it, I use the External Exhibit method. However, typing that much information is often more work than it is worth. Scanning works better for these situations in which case the External Exhibit is best. Of course, one other consideration here is the reason for entering the information. If it is for printing in reports, that also points to inclusion in the Source Definition Comments (and in the Source Template(s)). But, large amounts of information is probably not desirable in the output of Source Citations. It makes for awkward reading. In such cases, it may be better to not print it at all (the citation tells where to find it) or to print it as an appendix to the report. Lee

On 1/26/2017 5:34 PM, James Payne wrote: > I have received a reply to an email that I sent to my brother in law in > which he gave me the address of one of his sons and the son's wife and I > have put their residence in my TMG, which I still use, but I cannot put the > email as it's source. > > I have gone to the new citation list but I can't find one for "email" > perhaps the closest might be letter but which one do people use? Jim, I don't understand why you don't have a Source Type for email. The US version (Mills) has one, and I see that the UK version has two. I don't use the standard source type, but have a custom one I use: Full Footnote: [AUTHOR],< "[TITLE],"><[SUBJECT]> e-mail message< from [AUTHOR E-MAIL]>< ([AUTHOR ADDRESS])> to [RECIPIENT]<, [DATE]><. [COMMENTS]><, [CD]> Short Footnote: <[SF GIVEN NAME] >[AUTHOR],< "[SHORT TITLE],"><[SUBJECT]> e-mail to [RECIPIENT]<, [DATE]><, [CD]>. Bibliography: [AUTHOR].< "[TITLE]."><[SUBJECT]> E-mail message<. [DATE]>. Reminder: Use Title element for subject of email - it will be in quotes Use Subject element instead if there is no subject - it will not be in quotes - enter: \[no subject\] The reminder explains the use of the Subject element. The SF Given Name element is a custom one I've created to add the given name to the short footnote of sources where I'm likely to have multiple sources for different people with the same surname. When that happens the "standard" approach of omitting the given name in the short footnote leaves the note ambiguous. Terry Reigel

I have received a reply to an email that I sent to my brother in law in which he gave me the address of one of his sons and the son's wife and I have put their residence in my TMG, which I still use, but I cannot put the email as it's source. I have gone to the new citation list but I can't find one for "email" perhaps the closest might be letter but which one do people use? Jim Payne New Zealand

Giles, Maybe I am missing something here but I put any supplemental information into the Comments section of the Supplemental tab in the Source Definition form. This would be a good fit for text information and would keep them within the source rather than in a separate file. Walter Wood http://mywoodfamily.us -----Original Message----- From: TMG [mailto:tmg-bounces+walterwood44=gmail.com@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Gilles Pinet Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:10 PM To: tmg@rootsweb.com Subject: [TMG] HELP: Converting internal text exhibits to external files Hi, I own a copy of the PathWiz version 9. I have tried to convert all of the internal text exhibits to external files using PathWiz but can't seem to figure it out. All of the internal text exhibits are only associated to sources. If anybody has figured out how to do this, a step by step description would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Gilles 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

James Payne wrote: > I have received a reply to an email... > I have gone to the new citation list but I can't find one for "email" > perhaps the closest might be letter but which one do people use? Hi Jim, My on-line book has examples of the many custom Source Types I have constructed for my use. What I would use is my custom "Correspondence" Source Type and enter "E-mail" as the data in the "Record Type" source element. See a complete example as the second example here: http://www.mjh-nm.net/SRCTMPLS.HTML#Correspondence Hope this gives you ideas, Michael

From what I have seen in the design, it is designed for expansion and being data/template driven. One of the basic goals is that the system be usable in more fields then just Genealogy, so it is being designed as a core engine which is fairly general, with a built in application specific module for Genealogy. The program will also be fully open source, so it will be quite possible to create other application fields. For example, the base module will have a generic report generator and the Genealogical module will have (editable) templates to build the standard reports. I think the template system will provide a LOT more flexibility, while at the same time, if you are willing to just keep that basic templates, you can ignore the complexity inherent in the flexibility. This will make the documentation harder to write, as for the basic user, you need to describe how to work within the (changeable) framework provided, and then have a much more in-depth description of a much wider set of options, some of which might make the methods first described no longer applicable. On 1/26/17 2:06 PM, Dave Nelson wrote: > Speaking as a professional data architect (now retired) I can say with > confidence that what set TMG apart from almost all PC apps was the > combination of its data model and the sophisticated use of data driven > processing (e.g., this is what made the reporting so incredibly flexible). > Very few professionals will bother to code that way but those that do will > produce an exceptionally flexible product. > > My question: Are you doing the same or are you falling back to hardcoding > all the features? I ask because once a development team choses an answer > and starts to code there is no going back. > > I STRONGLY urge you follow Bob V's example. It need not be perfectly > identical, in fact it probably shouldn't be, but the path he chose is the > right path to walk when your users are from so many different countries and > have so many individual preferences. FWIW< I'm helping an Open Source > project -- completely different domain than genealogy -- similar user > profile and needs and they insist on hardcoding everything. What an > inflexible mass/mess of if then else code they've produced. > > Dave Nelson > -----Original Message----- > From: TMG [mailto:tmg-bounces+linleymh=bigpond.net.au@rootsweb.com] On > Behalf Of Patrick M. Lofft > Sent: Wednesday, 11 January 2017 10:27 AM > > Work is happening on several fronts: > > (1) *The Initial scope* for the core application has been determined. > That is, what we want to be available as common services in the core, and > which critical features to demonstrate in the first demonstration version. > Clearly, this will not include all the import, reporting and export features > that TMG has, but will have a range of features to illustrate some chosen > feature extensions. It includes TMG v8.5+ importing, but is likely to have a > limited range of reporting templates at first. > > [DHN>] [rest deleted for brevity] > Robin Lamacraft > > 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 > -- Richard Damon

Terry, Thanks for the help. The problem occurs Everytime I open TMG. Looking forward to other responses. Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Terry Reigel <terry@reigelridge.com> Date: 1/26/17 10:34 AM (GMT-08:00) To: The Master Genealogist Rootsweb Email List <tmg@rootsweb.com> Subject: [TMG] TMG & Rixio -- Was: Re: Gedcom file from TMG On 1/26/2017 1:02 PM, Raymond Payne wrote: > Terry, > > I'm not sure how to use this forum. I have subscribed but don't know how to get started. Ray, Congratulations. You just did. <g> However, if you are creating a message about a new question you should change the subject so list members will know it is a new topic, and those who know about the new issue can respond. > I have a problem that I believe you can answer. Years ago I installed Roxio CD and DVD burner on my computer. Since that time TMG always tries to connect to Roxio. I have uninstalled Roxio but TMG v9 continues to try to open it. It is annoying because I have to continually cancel the attempt. Is there a solution to this problem? I'm afraid this is not an issue I know anything about, but hopefully other list members who see this will have some helpful suggestions. It would be helpful if you explained what you are doing in TMG that causes it to try to connect to Roxio. Is it just opening TMG, or do you have to do something after TMG is open? 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