If you are undecided as to whether to lump or split sources, I suggest splitting them. If you change your mind later, it is fairly easy to combine split sources into one, but difficult to separate lumped sources.
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Janis Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Cathy, > > I am what might be called a "moderate splitter." > > I title the sources like this: > > Tennessee, Dickson - 1850 census (Ancestry) > Tennessee, Dickson - 1860 census (Ancestry) > Tennessee, Giles - 1850 census (Ancestry) > etc. > > I do not use USA for census titles, simply because my family have all been > in this country forever. My Master Locations list contains 977 entries, of > which 22 are outside the United States. If I had family with a more diverse > geographic background, I would certainly add "USA" to the front of the > source titles. > > As to the old lumping versus splitting argument. I have always tended toward > splitting because it was the only way to get my sources to read exactly as I > wanted them to read (according to the Mills guidelines). With the advent of > Legacy's Source Writer, I am hoping to be able to do more lumping. > > One advantage to splitting is that if, for instance, you find an error in > the sourcing of a census, which you wish to correct, it is easy if the > entire source is contained in the Master Source. You fix the error, and save > and presto! it is corrected everywhere. If, however, you have a source which > is simply 1900 U.S. Census, with all further data in the Source Detail, and > particularly if it is a large family, and you have used the source as > further documentation of birthdates, birth places, date of migration, etc - > then you have to do a whole lot of hunting to find all of the places that > you have put that particular source, and fix it in all of those places. > > I think I could have put that better. It's early, and I'm not yet through my > first cup of coffee. > > I would also suggest that you check the archives for a lot of lively > discussion on splitting versus lumping. However, much of it was prior to the > Source Writer, so not entirely applicable to the present. > > Janis Walker Gilmore > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cathy > Vallevieni > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 4:25 PM > To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyFamilyTree.com > Subject: [LegacyUG] Splitting vs Not > > Again, I am just starting to use Legacy. I've seen lots of messages > over the weekend about splitting sources vs not splitting sources. > > Can someone that does split sources (ie. 1820 Census may be listed > lots of times for each town in which you have an ancestor), please > tell me how they title the split sources (start with city then county > then state then list the document document or something else goes first)? > > Can you also tell me the key advantages of splitting (I understand > it's easy to find all the sources for a specific town or county or > state this way but are there others)? > > > > > > 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 > > > > 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
