Am I correct in assuming that since Elizabeth Shown Mills includes the date a web page was accessed in the PUBLICATION FACTS, she leans towards "splitting? (meaning you can't reuse the Master Source later on)
EXAMPLE:(http://www.bobswebpage.com/cemetery : accessed 01 September 2007), entry for John Doe, section 1, plot 2, grave 3 But if she had included the accessed date in the SOURCE DETAIL instead, this would have been "lumping"? (meaning you can reuse the Master Source later on). EXAMPLE:(http://www.bobswebpage.com/cemeterydatabase), accessed 01 September 2007, entry for John Doe, section 1, plot 2, grave 3 I hope I'm making sense. Being relatively new to sourcing (okay bad me) I'm finding sourcing in this POST "Evidence Explained" and PRE Legacy 7.0 world a tad complicated. Thanks, Ralf Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail at http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
