Making U.F.T. narrative reports in T.M.G.

Site Navigation
TMG/UFT directory
UFT Sources
UFT Roles in TMG
U.K. roles in UFT
e-mail me

Do you like the way narrative reports, be they Family Journals (also known as Genealogy Reports) or Descendant Text Reports (another name for Henry reports) read like in Ultimate Family Tree? They present, in my opinion, a certain almost 19th century quality to them, designed to read like a book prepared by a professional genealogist. To produce this report you should need a copy of Ultimate Family Tree. (Of course.) You may acquire a copy of it in various places at very reasonable prices, sometimes free and almost definitely at auction on e-bay. However, having used UFT I find that it has certain deficiencies, some of which I have mentioned elsewhere on these web-pages. I much prefer TMG. And here's how you can create a report using TMG to make it read almost as if it were created in UFT.

There will be some differences, but I believe they will be, for the most part, preferred, or at least, acceptable differences. TMG will permit citations in their Indented Descendant Narratives (also known as Henry, Modified Henry, etc. reports). UFT does not permit that. UFT only permits endnotes in a Modified Register Report and inline embedded citations in a Register Report. You have a choice of footnotes, endnotes, unique and embedded sources in TMG for any report that is produced. There were string sources in UFT, which looks much more professional than what appears in TMG, which does not yet support them in v. 5.06. Hopefully this feature will be added to TMG soon, as well as providing for the way UFT handled source numbers. In TMG the raised source number(s) follows the entire tag, the tag sentence and any text that is printed from the Memo.

In UFT the source number (there was only one, as there were string cites) followed the tag sentence, and then following the source number came the text that could be found in what UFT called the text box and what TMG calls the Memo. The only source numbers that would appear there are the citations that were added to the entire text or which were embedded into the text box. This can be replicated in TMG, but it takes more work than I'm willing to advise, and it would prohibit the use of certain other features. You would need to change the default template of all tag and role sentences to include a memo immediately following the end of a tag or role sentence, and before any Memo. For example: "[P] resided [L] [D][M1] <[M2]> " Whenever you include text in [M2] you would need to include all the cites for the sentence in [M1] and place exclusionary markers before the source numbers in the citation box. All citations would need to be embedded.

To make a report read like a UFT report you need first of all to have the roles as they are used in Ultimate Family Tree. If you have TMG and you do not have a copy of UFT, and you have no intention of getting such a copy, you might find this requirement a problem. Not so. For a very easy solution, see here . Everything in UFT is done with roles, and perhaps it would be best to make extensive use of roles in TMG. You should be aware that [P] [PO] and [W], for Principal, Other Principal, and Witness, are themselves roles.

In TMG sentences are constructed with the date first, followed by the location. UFT does the opposite: location first, then the date. We should be consistent. Since the idea will be to make this look like an UFT report, change all the tag templates to read [L] [D].

One of the main differences will be the way marriages are reported. There is no [PARO] element in UFT. There was a sentence following the marriage tag which reported that the spouse was the son or daughter of whomever. To get this sentence in TMG a sentence could be devised reading:

[RF:bride] (or [RF:groom]) is|was [RPAR:bride] (or [RPAR:groom]).
The problem with this sentence is that TMG adds a comma at the beginning of the variable. It would take more work than is needed to correct this in your word processor. The answer is to add the variable <[PARO]> (or the variables <[RPAR:bride]> and <[RPAR:groom]>) to the bride and groom default sentences, and not to create a separate sentence.

One more action is needed. Add the parents as witnesses to every birth, giving them the father or mother roles. This has to be done manually in TMG. UFT created these roles automatically whenever a birth was recorded, or more precisely, when parents were added to a person. And it always recorded their age, with the witness sentence always beginning with the variable [A].

In a Family Journal, where spouse events was selected to be included, the information was presented in the following order:

In TMG the spouse biographies would print after the principal persons' own biography, and not before it. They also print the shared events once, under the biography of the person that this is being written about (the focus person). In UFT the information contained in shared events would be printed twice, once under each spouse. The concept of Principals is different in UFT, where there can be numerous Principals, but there are only two (or one) in TMG. I prefer the way TMG handles this.