Sorry, Michele, but I cannot help on this as I do not know the systems and formats required for a CG.
I think Mills states that much more information is required in Sources than I give, and I am unsure whether she recommends lumping or splitting (if either). As you can gather I have not read her books and have only picked up bits of her recommendations from lists such as this. Ron Ferguson _____________________________________________________________________ For Genealogy, Software and Social visit: http://www.fergys.co.uk *New Blog* Protect Your PC View the Grimshaw Family Tree at: http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/ For The Fergusons of N.W. England See: http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/ _____________________________________________________________________ > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources] > Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 09:06:55 -0500 > > Ron, > Here is my thing with the Mills standard format... I want to eventually go > for my CG. From what I understand, your sourcing must pretty much go with > what Mills has advocated. Is it not the god standard among CGs? I would > love to know what the AGs accept as the right way to source! > > michele > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ronald ferguson" > To: > Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 8:55 AM > Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources] > > > > Gail, > > I do understand the points which you make, and as you are no doubt aware I > am a confirmed lumper. You are possibly aware that I am no lover of so > called standardisation of Sources eg Mills. I guess I am also a minimalist > in that I record the minimum amount of information in each Source to enable > someone else to find it, and do not include the full details of where it is. > As a consequence the second part of the sentence in your note (2) does not > really apply to me but the rest does and also notes (1) to (4). > > The result is that, spelling and grammar apart, I have not changed either a > Master Source or Source Details for years and for those two aspects have > found the Search and Replace as described by Cathy to be fine. > > My opinion is certainly coloured by the fact that I consider Mills's views > on Sourcing to be overkill; an opinion which is unlikely to be changed by > debate! This is not to criticise those who prefer to dot every "i" and cross > every "t" as to the exact location in which a document is to be found but > simply to state that to me it is not necessary. > > I hope that this clarifies/explains my view and the reason(s) behind it. > > Ron Ferguson > > > _____________________________________________________________________ > > For Genealogy, Software and Social visit: > http://www.fergys.co.uk > *New Blog* Protect Your PC > View the Grimshaw Family Tree at: > http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/ > For The Fergusons of N.W. England See: > http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/ > _____________________________________________________________________ > >> Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 08:02:22 -0500 >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com >> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources] >> >> Cathy and Ron, I do respect your opinions and you two are my heroes in >> terms of being very kind and helpful to this list! You both have made >> huge contributions to the knowledge contained in this LUG. >> >> One last example might help explain my specific dilemma and I know >> this tool won't help everyone. It sure would help me though, >> especially when I go to do massive edits to my sources so I can get >> them to mirror Mills' _Evidence Explained_ (again, not something >> everyone wants) once v7 comes out. >> >> Let's say I have a census master source with detail for one household >> containing 10 people. If I attach the source only to the census event >> for each person, I already have 10 identical (master plus detail) >> source combos floating around in Legacy. Now let's say I decide to >> attach that same (master plus detail) source to each person's name, >> birth information, and occupation. That would be 30 additional copies >> of the same (master plus detail) source. >> >> A while back, I decided to leave all census entries attached only to >> the census event for each person and that has saved me tons of >> repetition. Keep in mind I have literally thousands of census entries >> for families in my file of almost 7,000. Each person might have 1-8 >> census entries throughout time (e.g. 1810, 1820, 1830, etc.) depending >> of his lifespan. >> >> A some point, based on Mills' books, I decided not to include the >> image number from Ancestry. My master source would include the NARA >> microfilm series number, the roll number, and then the image number. >> Because the image number is unique for every census page, it does not >> lend itself well to the handy search and replace feature. I could >> search for "image_" but then I had to manually delete the numbers >> following this search string. It took many hours just to amend this >> part of the citation with only one copy of each census to one >> individual. Imagine if each one were multiplied by three additional >> facts/events! >> >> I know we all do sourcing a bit differently, so in some cases this >> will not help users at all. However, I do think it will help those >> who: >> 1) have medium to large databases, >> 2) care about sourcing and plan to make citation adjustments as time >> and experience dictate, >> 3) lump sources more than split, and >> 4) want their (master plus detail) sources attached to multiple places >> frequently. >> >> Sorry for the long posts! >> >> Gail Rich Nestor >> Smyrna, GA >> www.roots2buds.net >> >> >> On Dec 30, 2007 3:24 AM, Cathy wrote: >>> Although I have sympathy with Gail in wanting the source Detail to be >>> relational as well so there is only one copy of the specific detail >>> and every use links to that, I have learnt to live with the database as >>> it is. >>> >>> You can correct typos etc in a specific source detail by using the >>> Search and Replace on just the right part of the Source/Citation >>> Detail or Text. >>> >>> So long as you carefully enter as the search phrase a unique section >>> of detail that includes the error and choose to just replace the >>> found text, all sorts of errors are quickly corrected. No need to >>> find each individual person. I do it all too often. >>> >>> It is harder when the error is less easily uniquely identified in the >>> search phrase. >>> >>> Cathy >>> >>> At 02:59 PM 30/12/2007, you wrote: >>> >>>>Gail: >>>> >>>>My sourcing method is very similar to yours and I agree that it is a >>>>major >>>>pain when you find a typo in the Source Detail that's been used for >>>>perhaps >>>>a dozen different people and in several fields for each person. It's >>>>necessary then to locate and correct every individual instance or you can >>>>end up with two versions of the citation in the Source Notes in reports, >>>>so >>>>if I'm understanding your suggestion correctly it would be a tremendous >>>>convenience. >>>> >>>>What I don't understand is your statement that a given Master >>>>Source/Source >>>>Detail combination used multiple times results in multiple copies in the >>>>database. If the "combo" is identical, but applied to several different >>>>fields and/or individuals, would it not be in the database only once? >>>> >>>>Either way, being able to make a global change to any given Master >>>>Source/Source Detail combination would be absolutely wonderful. If this >>>>is >>>>what you're advocating, then I'll certainly add my vote and hope that >>>>Millennia is listening! >>>> >>>>Kirsten >>>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gail >>>>Nestor >>>>Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 8:11 AM >>>>To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com >>>>Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources >>>> >>>> >>>>Hi Michele, you have hit upon a scenario that is exactly why I hope >>>>Legacy will consider a change in its source formatting. Your method >>>>is the same as mine for attaching sources to different people and >>>>different facts or events. Unfortunately, every time we attach a >>>>single source to all these different places, it adds an extra >>>>identical copy of that exact same source in the database. >>>> >>>>I wish so much that the source could just be in the database once and >>>>then that same source could be attached as a *link* to all the various >>>>places it needs to go. It would save so much space and would help >>>>immensely when I find an error I want to correct. I wouldn't have to >>>>correct 10 duplicate copies. Instead I would just have the one linked >>>>copy to correct. >>>> >>>>Gail Rich Nestor >>>>Smyrna, GA >>>>www.roots2buds.net >>> _________________________________________________________________ Fancy some celeb spotting? https://www.celebmashup.com Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et 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
