You could also transcribe it and add it as a note or biography to her "edit person" sheet. I have "biography" as a fact, but I cannot recollect whether it was native to RM7 or if I added it myself.
- RootsMagic Forums
- → robertjacobs0's Content
There have been 60 items by robertjacobs0 (Search limited from 28-October 19)
The RM short place name problem is that the reporting program — in this case GedSite — is that it cannot know from the standard place name (e.g., Bronx, Bronx County, New York, United States) how the short name has been defined by the RootsMagic user. That's why it would be so helpful for RM to output the short name in its GEDCOMS when the short name exists. There are too many possibilities: Bronx, New York; the Bronx; Bronx, NY, USA . . . etc.
In general, if I may say so, I do not think that a "standard" can be devised which will accommodate all the vagaries of human taste and experience. Of the genealogical programs I've used (UFT, TMG, RootsMagic), TMG seemed to me to offer the most powerful means of standardizing place names. The next step up would have been free-form. That's all very well within one program, but the moment one expects some other program to interpret free-form transfers accurately, one is in for trouble.
If free-form is the "standard" one may as well use a typewriter as a computer.
Exactly. As I understand it, RM7 is already putting non-standard entries into its GEDCOMs when the "RM specific details" box is checked on the GEDCOM output screen. John Cardinal's GedSite program utilizes them extensively. The addition I am suggesting will make it easier to prepare smooth narratives in GedSite, GedSite Publisher, and possibly in other programs still to come.
For those of us who use the RM specific details in RootsMagic's GEDCOM output, it would be a great help if RootsMagic GEDCOMs would output the user-selected abbreviated place names when they exist.
External programs could then successfully use sentence templates such as "[person:given:surname] was born<? [Date]| [date]| on an unknown date>< at [PlaceDetails:plain]>< in [Place:plain:short]>" to make smoother narratives.
A change like this should require only very minimal programming changes and would be a great blessing, at least for me.
Thanks so much, Jerry and Bob.
I just ran Jerry's source template script and found to my astonishment that all but four of the _TMG_ templates had been used at least once. Fifteen of them had been used only once. Those probably represent my earliest entered sources and the ones most in need of revision and replacement.
I wish I'd known more about all of this twenty years ago when I started in, first with Ultimate Family Tree, and then with TMG.
Lists>Source Lists>Select your source>Print will show everyone that has that source attached.
Thanks, Bob. That's useful, but the underlying problem is to find out which source templates are in use. Multiple sources can use the same template; if I want to convert them to use RM7 templates or even to delete the unused TMG templates it seems I have to do it manually, source by source if I am to remain within the confines of RM7.
Thanks, Jerry. It seems a tedious process from within RM7. Is there a suitable SQL script? I know how to look at the tables and run SQL scripts using SQLite expert, but I haven't constructed any programs. If I knew that RM8 would provide an easy way to do this I would wait, but part of the purpose of this clean-up is to deliver a nice clean database for the RM8 conversion when it comes.
When I converted from TMG to RM6 perhaps seven or eight years ago, the conversion brought a great many TMG source templates into RootsMagic. They appear in the source template list prefixed by _TMG_. I'm now in the process of trying to rationalize my sources and citations, which quite frankly, are all higgledy-piggledy. Part of the project is to delete unused TMG sources templates. (I'm up to RM7, the latest)
Whenever I attempt to delete one I get a warning that it is in use & that any sources of its type will be removed from the database. I know that some of them were never used but there's doubt about many others. How can I find out whether they have or have not been used?
I understand that if I delete a template the sources of its type will be deleted. What happens to citations which utilized those sources?
I agree with Don. Shared facts save a lot of duplication and make it much easier to prepare graceful narrative reports. They also work well with GedSite, an important consideration for me.
GEDCOM non-adherence isn't important to me. I prefer to work with one program. My need for any of the facilities of Family Historian or Legacy is minimal. If I ever do need to make a full conversion I think there are already a couple of SQL routines which will ease the process.Cancel
You can make changes to place names from the place list (Lists/Place list). Different spelling & formats can merged to a single correct one on the place list. The place names in individual fact entries will then be modified accordingly.
I assumed that RM doesn't store the alpha month names. I took a quick look at the event and multimedia tables; the dates are all stored numerically. Somewhere in RootsMagic is a table translating the month name into those numbers. What I had in mind was that Janvier and Enero as well as January be assigned the appropriate numerical value. That shouldn't be too hard to implement.
Alt-0182 will enter the pilcrow in an RM sentence template, but LibreOffice, at least, doesn't operationalize it. But I would think (haven't tried it) that a search & replace in Word would enable one to substitute a working paragraph marker for the pilcrow.
I don't care to trust my data to any of them — fortunately, I have no need or desire to access the data from devices other than my desktop and laptop machines. I publish what I wish via GedSite on a server hosted by John Cardinal. If these practices may make me a kind of computer-age Luddite, then so be it. I guess the point is that I control the data, keep private what I wish to keep private, and send out only what I am willing to show the public.
The practical consequence for my genealogical research is that I can access the website from any computer or cell phone that connects to the net; I can only work on my RM7 database from one of the computers — desktop at home, laptop on the road. This limitation seems to me a small price to pay for avoiding Google Drive, One Drive, Dropbox, and Ancestry sharing.
BTW, I was one of the victims of the Equifax hack. There's little reason to believe that the various cloud services are hack-proof. If I may say so, you're wise to encrypt your financial data.
Thanks, Jerry. I think I recollect your post about that. But as I understood the OP, he was asking whether he could write directly to the Google cloud as though it were a drive on his own machine. If I now understand you correctly, the google drive software creates a local folder willy-nilly. I was unaware of that. If so, I can see where the other problems you discuss in your post would arise.
Synchronizing the backup seems sensible, although I still have serious reservations about Google's practices.
Why bother? Even if it works, you'll be stymied sometimes by internet outages, slow transmission times, and the like. If your internet connection fails, your work-session ends. Much better, I would think, to maintain the data on your own machines and upload only the backup files to the cloud.
I do my own work on two machines & keep them synchronized with batch files. The latest .rmgc is copied over from one machine to the other. It can be done easily on one's LAN or with flash drives. It does require a little care — one has to be careful not to add or edit data on both machines without synchronizing, but it's really not hard to remember which machine has to be brought up to date.
Another problem is that you are at the mercy of Google. IIRC (I may be mistaken about this) your agreement with Google gives them the right to inspect your data and perhaps use it to guide their advertising. Another potential issue might be the inadvertent disclosure of information about living people. Everything we know about the practices of Google and others suggest that it's not paranoid to be concerned about such matters. I don't use their cloud even for my backups.