Gail, I'm a little puzzled - have you tried to use Highlight and Ctrl + C to copy? The mouse won't work.
Ron Ferguson _____________________________________________________________________ New Blog: Free Contacts Database for use with Open Office http://www.fergys.co.uk 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: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:26:33 -0400 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Old Source Detail associated with newly Merged Master > Sources > > I think what Janis and I were talking about has to do with what > happens to the source detail. When you merge an old master source > (which has one or more details attached to it) into a new sourcewriter > source, the new source does replace the old one as expected. The > source details associated with the old source also do seem to go along > and become part of the the newly merged source. > > *However*, when you look at the assigned sources screen, you cannot > see the old source details in the source output tab at the bottom of > the screen, even when you select "show entire source" (at least I > can't). You *can* still see part of the source details in the upper > part of the assigned sources screen, but unless your entry is short > (which mine aren't for my census sources), you will have to stretch > the field width to the max to (hopefully) see it all. Even then, I > don't believe you can do a copy/paste of this data, but maybe I am > wrong. > > I have been feverishly working on source conversion for the last > couple of days and I think I have a few good tips to share. When I > get the kids off to camp, I'll try to write something up. It is still > a tedious process, but I don't think it's going to be as bad as I > first thought. I have 800 master sources in my database and tens of > thousands of source details associated with them. Whew! > > > Gail Rich Nestor > Smyrna, Georgia > www.roots2buds.net > > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 4:41 AM, Jenny M Benson wrote: >> >> Dede Holden wrote >>> >>> Based on what Geoff and Dave B have said, I think my source and details >>> were pretty clear cut - no conflicts so everything combined like it was >>> supposed to. >> >> If you did indeed do exactly what you described in your original post, you >> merged the *new* Source into the *old* one. This does retain the old >> Source Detail. Presumably what you intended to do is the opposite - old >> into new - and everyone is finding that Source Details are *not* retained in >> the new, merged Source. >> >> Has your newly combined Source got the bullet next to it when you look at >> the Source List? If not, then you definitely merged new into old. >> -- >> Jenny M Benson >> _________________________________________________________________ http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000002ukm/direct/01/ 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
