Hi, Elizabeth, In the past I have been a splitter, but am moving closer to lumping, with the new source writer.
Are you objecting to creating one source for, say, "Missouri - 1900 census"? If so, then we agree. I do like to use the source writer, but I would create a separate source for each county. Instead of the above, I would create "Missouri, Howell - 1900 census (Ancestry)." Then you can use the detail for the post office, township, etc. Have I misunderstood? Janis Walker Gilmore -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Richardson Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 4:46 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Non-US Censuses in v7 For a census citation, you have to go through 5 menus in order to achieve the same thing the old way? That would be my primary reason for not using it. However and in addition, I disagree completely with the idea that you should separate census sourcing by state and county. The state and county should be part of the source detail. There is one NARA microfilm series, for instance,. yet Ms Mills would have you possibly citing more than 50 different sources for this one census (46 states, plus Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska, Hawaii, Consulate Service, etc.). What is the purpose of that? If that's what you have to do in order to get "published", then perhaps the hoity-toity publishers should rethink their requirements. Elizabeth researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson 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
