TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2001-09 > 0999404772


From: "William M Roberts" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] GEDCOM to WorldConnect prob
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 00:27:09 -0400
References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010901190327.00adfc60@pop3.airmail.net> <003501c13340$b02b5d40$b66b323f@custom> <4.2.0.58.20010830222608.00a495a0@mail> <00b901c1332f$52ae03e0$2f2c0441@bvrtn1.or.home.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010901225312.00aa3480@pop3.airmail.net>


My guess is that the marriages are in order by the marriage record number
not the individual record number.

Myrnice

"Linda Lawhon" Wrote:

> Hi Robin,
>
> I think it must have to do with TMG outputting marriage partners in
> the order that their data was entered. I do wish some things could
> just be easy. Tis not like I am asking for a perfect Register report
> with all sources cited! Egads! I just want the begats.
>
> > Also, look at the ID numbers for each partner. I think that one
> way I fixed this was to renumber the Spice so that their ID# were in
> the correct date sequence.<
>
> Don't think that will fix the problem.
>
> Marriage 1 Talitha Jane Love b: 11 DEC 1850 in McDonald County, Missouri
> · Married: 27 NOV 1870 in Newton Co., Missouri
>
> Marriage 2 Frances Arbell Griffin b: 17 SEP 1866 in Pike County,
> Arkansas
> · Married: 12 DEC 1886 in Pike County, Arkansas
>
> Marriage 3 Sarah L. Davidson b: 27 JAN 1840
> · Married: 02 JAN 1856
>
> Marriage 4 Mary E. Barnes
> · Married: 12 FEB 1884
>
> Sarah is #213
> Talitha is #214
> Frances is # 215
> Mary is # 1395 (A marriage no one knew about until a bible was
> located recently.)
>
> If the problem could be fixed with the ID # -- then the above
> marriages should have been in order. In any case, this is the pits.
> There is no way one could tell there is this problem unless one did
> create a GEDCOM and then read each and every mulitple marriage family.
>
> > This certainly was a bug in an earlier version - has it crept back in.
>
> I guess I will just have to put a statement in every GEDCOM I share
> that the material may not be in proper order due some some quirk.
>
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> Linda



This thread: