You don't think it's a problem to have sources numbers after each element in a date (i.e., day, month, year)?
Lisa ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kristian Fjeldsg�rd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 3:48 PM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Independent sourcing: was: Separating date sources from place sources suggestion > > Lisa > > I don't think proper sourcing is ugly, it shows you have done proper work. > It's allso a topic about detailed sourcing, using the "Show list" feature > that has been discussed on this list more than once. > > I believ that for the basic informations, names and birth/death > informatioan every part should be sources individually, even if I get many > footnotes. > > Kristian in Norway > > P� Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:09:40 -0700, skrev Lisa Young > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I can understand your frustration, I share it, but I'm wondering how you > > want this foot-noted: > > > > 17(1) Jan (2) 1876 (3) etc > > > > Could get pretty ugly. Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp To find past messages, please go to our searchable archives at: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup%40mail.millenniacorp.com/ To unsubscribe please visit: http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp
