Jump to content


Photo

Can't get <Place:Short> to work.


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 flame1carol

flame1carol

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 27 August 2014 - 09:03 PM

Can someone tell me what I'm doing wrong?  I have a census sentence set up as follows:

 

[ThisPerson] was enumerated on the 1910 U.S. Federal Census< on [Date:plain]>< [PlaceDetails]>< [Place:short]> in the household of <%his|her> parents, [Person:Casual] and [Spouse:Casual] [Person:Surname].

 

PlaceDetails = 123 Main St.

Place = St. Petersburg, Pinellas, Florida, United States

 

I was hoping, by using <Place:short>, that my address would come out to 123 Main St., St. Petersburg, Florida but it is coming out with the full name including county and country.

 

Same thing is happening on the Principal sentence - I just didn't copy that one here because it is much longer.

 

Thanks,

Carol

 



#2 Laura

Laura

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4276 posts

Posted 27 August 2014 - 09:36 PM

Go to Lists, Place list and Edit the Place. Enter the short form of the place that you want to use in the Abbreviated place name box. This is the entry that is printed for [Place:Short].

#3 flame1carol

flame1carol

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 27 August 2014 - 10:11 PM

Thanks Laura!  There's so much to learn when you're new.



#4 Laura

Laura

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4276 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 05:26 AM

You are welcome. We all learn from each other.

You taught me something new today. I don't remember ever trying using the Gender switch to just switch between his and her. I have always used :HisHer after a Person option, I.e., [ThisPerson:HisHer].

You can use [Date:Year] to print just the year in a date.

#5 Nettie

Nettie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1637 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 06:05 AM

Can someone tell me what I'm doing wrong?  I have a census sentence set up as follows:

 

[ThisPerson] was enumerated on the 1910 U.S. Federal Census< on [Date:plain]>< [PlaceDetails]>< [Place:short]> in the household of <%his|her> parents, [Person:Casual] and [Spouse:Casual] [Person:Surname].

 

This sentence did not work for me.   Parent names did not show up using Person:Casual and Spouse: Casual, I use 

The <[date:plain]> Federal census record says, <[Person:casual]>, <[desc]>, was enumerated<[placeDetails]>< [place]> in the household of <%his|her]> parents.

saying

The 26 Apr 1910 Federal census record says, Lloyd, age 22, was enumerated in Dawson Township, Greene County, Iowa in the household of his parents.


Genealogy:
"I work on genealogy only on days that end in "Y"." [Grin!!!]
from www.GenealogyDaily.com.
"Documentation....The hardest part of genealogy"
"Genealogy is like Hide & Seek: They Hide & I Seek!"
" Genealogists: People helping people.....that's what it's all about!"
from http://www.rootsweb....nry/gentags.htm
Using FO and RM since FO2.0 


#6 Laura

Laura

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4276 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 09:44 AM

Hi, Nettie

Carol didn't say, but, I think she is using the Census (Family) fact.

For a Family fact, [Spouse] will print in the sharee's role sentence as well as the Principal's role.

[Person] should print in the role sentence for either an Individual or Family fact.

#7 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3532 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 01:42 PM

This thread has peaked my interest. I tend to think I'm pretty fluent with all the features of RM, but [Place:Short] is one that had escaped my attention up until now. So now I'm wondering if the functionality of [Place:Short] might allow me to peacefully co-exist with Standardized Place Names, County Check, etc. I think the answer is "no", but RM seems to come oh so close to doing what I really need. Here are some of my thoughts in this regard.

 

  • RM stores three names for each place: 1) the Place Name, 2) the Standardized Place Name, and 3) the Abbreviated Place Name.
    • The Place Name is the name that a user enters into items such as events in the Edit Person window or that is imported via GEDCOM, etc. Also, the Place Name is the one that appears by default in reports, that appears in response to the [Place] field in sentence templates, and that is exported in GEDCOM.
    • The Standardized Place Name is constructed by RM based on what the user has entered as the Place Name. The user can change the Standardized Place Name. But if so, it's not clear to me what the consequences might be if the user's changes result in a non-standardized name being store in the Standardized Place Name field. I think the only time that RM constructs Standardized Place Names is as a part of a GeoCoding operation, and that if you enter a Place Name that RM cannot convert into a Standard Place Name that you are then responsible for entering the longitude and latitude for the place manually. There does not appear to be a [Place:Standard] or [Place:Standardized] field available in the Sentence Template Language.
    • RM does not produce Abbreviated Place Names for you. Rather, you enter them manually if you wish. Having done so, you can then access a Abbreviated Place Name in a Sentence Template with the [Place:Short] field.
  • So far, so good. What occurred to me was perhaps I could enter Standardized Place Names into the Place Name field and enter my preferred display format for place names into the Abbreviated Place Names field. Having done so, I would then be in the good graces of the Standardized Place Names fairy and I could still get my reports to look the way I wish by using the [Place:Short] field in all Sentence Templates instead of the [Place] field. Being in the good graces of the Standardized Place Names fairy would mean that I could turn on County Check and use it effectively. By the way, the Help file says warns you not to change the [Place] field globally to [Place:Short]. But I think for what I want to do, using [Place:Short] universally would be just fine.

 

Sadly, I think there would still be problems with this approach. For example, there are many reports that don't use the sentence templates - the Pedigree report being one of many. So if I tried this approach then I would have to put up with Standardized Place Names in such reports. Also, GEDCOM export would export Standardized Place names rather than my preferred Place Names. So I would need the presently non-existent option to export the Abbreviated Place Name instead of the Standard Place names. As I said at the beginning, so close yet still so far from being able to do what I need to do. So I will just stick with what I'm doing and continue to do without the benefits of CountyCheck. Sigh.

 

Jerry



#8 Nettie

Nettie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1637 posts

Posted 29 August 2014 - 06:23 AM

Laura thanks for the tidbit.

 

Only time I use the census (family) fact is for a married couple in the census record.  The children all are in the census (personal) fact.  Do not use Shared FActs. 

 

So again that in my thinking will not work.


Genealogy:
"I work on genealogy only on days that end in "Y"." [Grin!!!]
from www.GenealogyDaily.com.
"Documentation....The hardest part of genealogy"
"Genealogy is like Hide & Seek: They Hide & I Seek!"
" Genealogists: People helping people.....that's what it's all about!"
from http://www.rootsweb....nry/gentags.htm
Using FO and RM since FO2.0 


#9 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6215 posts

Posted 29 August 2014 - 08:23 AM

So I would need the presently non-existent option to export the Abbreviated Place Name instead of the Standard Place names.

Is that on the tracking system as a request for enhancement? That is:
- user control over what is exported to the GEDCOM PLAC tag, e.g., by using sentence template syntax
- ability to control export settings independently of drag'n'drop

One added benefit of this would be the ability to recombine Place Details with Place in an export destined for software that does not handle them separately the way RootsMagic does.

Tom user of RM7550 FTM2017 Ancestry.ca FamilySearch.org FindMyPast.com
SQLite_Tools_For_Roots_Magic_in_PR_Celti wiki, exploiting the database in special ways >>> RMtrix-tiny.png app, a bundle of RootsMagic utilities.


#10 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 8414 posts

Posted 29 August 2014 - 09:32 AM

Confirming enhancement requests are in our tracking system. 


Renee
RootsMagic

#11 flame1carol

flame1carol

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 29 August 2014 - 09:31 PM

Laura and Nettie,

 

I used the plain old Census fact, not the family version.  I was trying to duplicate the sentences I was using in TMG so I added new facts for each census year (sure wish there was a "copy fact" button) and changed the wording around so I wouldn't bore myself to sleep reading the same sentences in the narrative every decade!  (I was aware of [Date:year] but hardcoded it in my sentences so I wouldn't get mixed up on which year I was working on.)  I added roles for Spouse, Children With Both Parents, Children With One Parent, etc. 

 

I zeroed in on the gender switch before I even noticed the :HisHer option.  (We newbies can get pretty inventive with what limited information we have learned!)  And yes, I am using shared facts.  I do have 2 questions:

 

1.  Can you give me an example of how to use the HisHer option in my sentence? What would I put where my ??? is below?

        [ThisPerson:HisHer] was enumerated on the 1910 U.S. Federal Census< on [Date:plain]>< [PlaceDetails]>< [Place:short]> in the household of ??? parents, [Person:Casual] and [Spouse:Casual] [Person:Surname].

 

2.  I was using shared facts because I thought that was the best way to control my narrative.  I know I've stumbled across a couple of discussions where people have decided not to use shared facts but I don't really know what the limitations are.  I think I read that one problem is that the shared facts don't go to GEDCOM so I was considering going back and adding a census fact to each person that a census was shared with, but removing the sentence so it wouldn't print a second time in the narrative.  Are there other limitations?

 

Thanks much!

Carol



#12 flame1carol

flame1carol

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 30 August 2014 - 12:45 AM

Well, I just heard in the webinar on creating a 1940 census record that shared events DO go into the GEDCOM file, but might not be read by other programs if they don't use shared events.  So now I guess I don't know what any of the limitations are.  Why do some people, and it seems like quite a few, not use shared events?

 

Carol



#13 Laura

Laura

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4276 posts

Posted 30 August 2014 - 02:22 AM

Using Sharee's roles and role switches works only in the Principal's sentence.  So, using [Spouse] as a role in the Sharee's sentence will not print.

If the Family fact is shared [Spouse] will work in the Sharee's sentence because a Family fact is linked to both spouses.  You can also use [Couple] or [Husband] or [Wife].  [Person] prints the person whose Edit person screen the Family fact was linked on.

In RM, the default role sentence is a generic sentence  that works for everyone.  Then we can customized that sentence for the fact on a person's Edit person screen to make it more personal for that person and less boring.  So, we really don't need seperate facts for each census.

Plus, when a gedcom is imported into another genealogy program, we never know how well that program will import user defined facts.

1.  Yes, you would use [ThisPerson:HisHer] where you have your question marks.  In a more complex sentence where you are using the gender switch to print different sentences for the genders or using other switches, you would want to use [ThisPerson:HisHer].

2.  Customize the narrative sentence by customizing the sentence on the Edit person screen.  A default sentence is just that whether it is for a Principal or Sharee role.

Supposedly, Sharing facts saves time and work rather than linking each fact to each individual.  By the time, I selected the Sharees, selected the role and added a note, I didn't really save any time or work.

I played around at one time with having a user defined fact, Census shared.  I was linking the Census fact which I didn't share.  I unmarked the Narrative report on the Lists, Fact type list so it wouldn't print in a Narrative report or Family Group Sheet.

Then, I linked the Census shared fact and shared it.  It was marked to print in the Narrative report or Family Group Sheet.  It was just double work entering both facts so I deleted the Census shared fact.

We can export Shared facts for Sharees in a gedcom if we select Extra details on the Gedcom export screen.  But, it is highly unlikely that the Shared fact for Sharees will be supported in another genealogy program.  The fact for the Principle is what will be imported in another program.

I don't share facts where it is important for the fact for the Sharee be imported into another program.

Also, on searches or Media tags and most reports only the Principal's name and data will be shown.

I always suggest creating a new database and dragging and dropping some people into it to experiment with sentences, making changes and other features of RM. rather than experimenting in your main database.



#14 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6215 posts

Posted 30 August 2014 - 05:34 AM

My RMtrix utility has functions to split shared facts/events to individual sharees as described at http://sqlitetoolsfo...d to Individual. New users described their experiences with both the raw SQLite queries and them integrated in RMtrix at http://sqlitetoolsfo...uery RootsMagic

So the best of both worlds would allow you to use shared facts freely to great advantage for reporting from RootsMagic with an export option that would convert them to individual facts for compatibility with other importing programs. While it's an enhancement on the wish list, until fulfilled consider using the aforementioned utilities.

Tom user of RM7550 FTM2017 Ancestry.ca FamilySearch.org FindMyPast.com
SQLite_Tools_For_Roots_Magic_in_PR_Celti wiki, exploiting the database in special ways >>> RMtrix-tiny.png app, a bundle of RootsMagic utilities.


#15 flame1carol

flame1carol

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 30 August 2014 - 02:13 PM

Hi Laura,

Actually, the Spouse role IS working for me on the regular census fact in the sharee roles.  The principal role was there by default.  I manually added a Spouse role and a role for Child With Both Parents, among others.  Here's an example.

Principal = Richard Underhill
Spouse = Daisy
Child With Both Parents = Chester

Principal sentence (partial)
[Person:Casual]< and [Spouse:Casual]> [Person:Surname] appeared on the 1930 U.S. Census<, enumerated [Date:plain],>< [PlaceDetails]>< [Place:Short]>.< Their children, [Children With Both Parents:Casual], were listed as living with them.>< Their <%Child With Both Parents% son|daughter>, [Child With Both Parents:Casual], was listed as living with them.>

Spouse sentence (partial)
[ThisPerson:Casual] and [Person:Casual] [Person:Surname] appeared on the 1930 U.S. Census<, enumerated [Date:plain],>< [PlaceDetails]>< [Place:Short]>.< Their children, [Children With Both Parents:Casual], were listed as living with them.>< Their <%Child With Both Parents% son|daughter>, [Child With Both Parents:Casual], was listed as living with them.>

Child With Both Parents sentence
[ThisPerson:Casual] [ThisPerson:Surname] appeared on the 1930 U.S. Federal Census<, enumerated [Date:plain],>< [PlaceDetails]>< [Place:Short]> in the household of <%his|her> parents, [Person:Casual] and [Spouse:Casual] [Person:Surname].

Resulting "child" sentence is:
Chester Underhill appeared on the 1930 U.S. Federal Census, enumerated 1 Jan 1930, at 123 Main St. in St. Petersburg, Florida in the household of his parents, Richard and Daisy Underhill.

-------------------------

After reading your comments, I think I'll ditch my user-created census facts by year.  I will also take your advice and create a separate database for experimenting.  At this point, I have less than a dozen people set up and don't plan to add many more until I've figured out how I want to do things.

I haven't yet tried directly entering census records for each person to see what difference it might make in data entry time.  So far, I've been playing with the shared census facts because that is similar to what I was doing in TMG with witnesses.  I like having the "in the household" statements on all the family members so the shared sentences are working well in that regard.  I suppose, if I wasn't sharing, I could just add the "in the household" sentence directly in the edit screen for the children.  I hadn't really considered that, mainly because, in TMG, I think they put more of an emphasis on customizing the templates rather than customizing individual people.

Thank you Tom, for your suggestion on RMtrix.  Though I'm not very technical, I will look into it further.  I've never used SQL, but at least it looks like there are some good instructions in the links you provided.  (I'm more familiar with the dark ages of mainframes and Cobol.)  I'm glad the export option is on the enhancement list.

TMG's forum was very helpful so I'm happy to see that this one is as well!

Carol


 



#16 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6215 posts

Posted 30 August 2014 - 03:26 PM

... I've been playing with the shared census facts because that is similar to what I was doing in TMG with witnesses.  I like having the "in the household" statements on all the family members so the shared sentences are working well in that regard.  I suppose, if I wasn't sharing, I could just add the "in the household" sentence directly in the edit screen for the children.  I hadn't really considered that, mainly because, in TMG, I think they put more of an emphasis on customizing the templates rather than customizing individual people.

If you made extensive use of TMG's "witness" tag (or whatever is the right nomenclature), of course they were all lost in the export to GEDCOM. There is some prospect that these may become transferable to RootsMagic in the future. Right now, there is a GEDCOM post-processing utility that will indicate witnesses for display in RootsMagic. That helps to find each "witness" in RootsMagic and then look them up in TMG for comparison and cleanup. The utility is described on the whollygenes TMG forum at http://www.whollygen...erated-gedcoms/ It may not work quite the way you would prefer and there are things you can do with a regular expression search/replace capable text editor such as Notepad++ to improve your GEDCOM before importing. The point being that you might consider waiting or taking additional steps before committing your working database to RootsMagic and burning the bridge from TMG. It's a tradeoff that will vary for different people and different databases.


Tom user of RM7550 FTM2017 Ancestry.ca FamilySearch.org FindMyPast.com
SQLite_Tools_For_Roots_Magic_in_PR_Celti wiki, exploiting the database in special ways >>> RMtrix-tiny.png app, a bundle of RootsMagic utilities.


#17 flame1carol

flame1carol

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 30 August 2014 - 08:40 PM

I think most TMG users are waiting to see what the competitor software developers might offer to entice TMG users to pick their software.  And, since many TMG users have invested years in the TMG software and have huge databases, they are waiting until there is a better interface to transfer their data.  In fact, they recently started a new list for discussion of alternative software, GEDCOM issues, and other information that users discover that may help in making a decision as to which software they wish to migrate to.

 

Since I am fairly new to genealogy and most of what I entered in TMG was not sourced very well, if at all, I decided to manually re-enter my data into RootsMagic and commit to sourcing it as I should.  The top two programs that keep coming up on the TMG list are RootsMagic and Legacy.  I briefly looked at both programs and just liked the looks of RootsMagic more so tried out the free version and then decided to buy.  Since TMG still works, I will keep my database while I work with RootsMagic.

 

Thanks for the help!

Carol



#18 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6215 posts

Posted 30 August 2014 - 09:16 PM

I think most TMG users are waiting to see what the competitor software developers might offer to entice TMG users to pick their software.  And, since many TMG users have invested years in the TMG software and have huge databases, they are waiting until there is a better interface to transfer their data.  In fact, they recently started a new list for discussion of alternative software, GEDCOM issues, and other information that users discover that may help in making a decision as to which software they wish to migrate to.

Please let us know the address of this new list for TMG refugees, Carol. 


Tom user of RM7550 FTM2017 Ancestry.ca FamilySearch.org FindMyPast.com
SQLite_Tools_For_Roots_Magic_in_PR_Celti wiki, exploiting the database in special ways >>> RMtrix-tiny.png app, a bundle of RootsMagic utilities.


#19 flame1carol

flame1carol

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 30 August 2014 - 09:56 PM

For general information about the mailing list including how to subscribe and links to the list archives, use http://lists.rootswe...G-REFUGEES.html

 

You can use TMG-REFUGEES@rootsweb.com to post.

 

Carol



#20 Laura

Laura

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4276 posts

Posted 31 August 2014 - 09:49 AM

Carol, my apologies. Other roles for a Sharee sentence is now printing when the Narrative report is printed. I neglected to check the Narrative report itself and was just looking at the sentence on the Edit person screen where it just shows the roles.