"Evidence Explained" says that a web site should not be used as a
repository, so I don't. The only time I would have a repository is if it is
a brick and mortar location like a genealogical library or personally owned
copy. Web documents are digital images, and most templates have that
capability.
haw/
> For The Fergusons of N.W. England
> http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/
>
>
> - Original Message - From: Jim Walton
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Sent: 07 October 2009 00:50
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census information
>
>
> I guess my problem st
Mike Fry wrote
Perhaps this is why I see so many Americans opting to 'split' and
Europeans opting to 'lump'! If so, then aren't the "lumpers" confusing
Source and Repository?
I don't make a great deal of use of "Repository" I must admit. An
example of one of my Census Sources (first time cit
Jim Walton wrote:
When I look at a list of sources, I would much rather see three or four
sources that are easy to locate and then add the state, county, and city
information in the detail record. I see the census as a single source
with a series of volumes, one for each state. Each volume wou
Ron Ferguson wrote
I had not considered that as a possible reason as to why I am a lumper,
Jim, but you may well be right. It certainly is natural way of working
for me rather than something which I actually gave consideration to
when I first started out.
And in my case it was having had Noma
/
- Original Message -
From: Jim Walton
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: 07 October 2009 00:50
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census information
I guess my problem stems from my history with computers. I grew up in the
days that if you did something on a computer more than twice, you
Agreed, and I'm having an issue right now with some state documents that
contain many volumes, but every document has a separate title. Fortunately
only a handfull of records are affected, but it looks like I'm going to have
to split in this case and make every volume a separate source. So, I guess
I have gone the other way (splitting one master source into multiple),
and it was a *lot* of work.
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Janis L Gilmore wrote:
> In theory, it seems as if that would be true. But I haven't done much
> combining of sources, so I can't speak with any authority.
>
> Janis
I guess my problem stems from my history with computers. I grew up in the
days that if you did something on a computer more than twice, you write a
program to automate the task. (This was back in the 70s when most people
still didn't believe such a thing as a personal computer was very useful.)
Wh
In theory, it seems as if that would be true. But I haven't done much
combining of sources, so I can't speak with any authority.
Janis
On 10/5/09 4:21 PM, "Bruce Jones" wrote:
> It seems to me that it is easier for a Splitter to move toward being a
> Lumper (by combining Master Sources) than
certain Ron is cringing at this .)
>>
>> Kirsten
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: k...@legacyfamilytree.com [mailto:k...@legacyfamilytree.com]on
>> Behalf Of Jim Walton
>> Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 8:56 PM
>> To: LegacyUserGrou
n Ron is cringing at this .)
>
> Kirsten
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: k...@legacyfamilytree.com [mailto:k...@legacyfamilytree.com]on
> Behalf Of Jim Walton
> Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 8:56 PM
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: Re: [Leg
October 03, 2009 8:56 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census information
Thanks, Kirsten. It looks pretty good, so in the meantime I'll do
it that way.
You said it's extreme, but consider that a census is a document
with 50 volumes, each volume has hundre
in LA CA
- Original Message
From: Jim Walton
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2009 8:56:05 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census information
Thanks, Kirsten. It looks pretty good, so in the meantime I'll do it that way.
You said it's extreme, bu
> Kirsten
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: k...@legacyfamilytree.com [mailto:k...@legacyfamilytree.com]on
>>> Behalf Of Jim Walton
>>> Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 8:56 PM
>>> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytr
inging at this .)
Kirsten
-Original Message-
From: k...@legacyfamilytree.com [mailto:k...@legacyfamilytree.com]on
Behalf Of Jim Walton
Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 8:56 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census information
Thanks, Kirsten. It looks pretty goo
ces but it bothers
me not at all. (A certain Ron is cringing at this .)
Kirsten
-Original Message-
From: k...@legacyfamilytree.com [mailto:k...@legacyfamilytree.com]on
Behalf Of Jim Walton
Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 8:56 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [Legacy
> Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 4:41 PM
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: [LegacyUG] Census information
>
>
> I record census information as part of residency then I can do a
> chronology showing residence to compare people I think may be related.
> I the
tober 03, 2009 4:41 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Census information
I record census information as part of residency then I can do a
chronology showing residence to compare people I think may be related.
I then use the source writer for the census information and supplemen
I record census information as part of residency then I can do a
chronology showing residence to compare people I think may be related.
I then use the source writer for the census information and supplement
it in the notes with my comments, such as children, etc. that clarify
the numbers a little b
Cathy Vallevieni wrote
Is it appropriate to just enter in the "ID of Person" field just the
head of household's name (i.e. John Smith Family) for all citations of
that Census rather than each individual's name when assigning that
Census to each family member listed on the Census?
Well, that's
Thank you all who responded. Now I feel comfortable entering just
the "household" name and having one citation for the Census without
being concerned about breaking some "citation rule".
Cathy Vallevieni
Orange County, CA
At 11:52 AM 6/25/2009, you wrote:
Cathy, In this situation, I still
Cathy, In this situation, I still use the head of household in the citation.
However, I add "he was a boarder in Joel DeBoard's house" in the Notes on
Michael Smith's census Event. I like the way that looks on the reports I run.
So maybe that is just personal preference.
--Paula
--- On Th
Cathy, That's what I do... enter head of household name, as it appears
(sometimes it's last name first).
--Paula
--- On Thu, 6/25/09, Cathy Vallevieni wrote:
> From: Cathy Vallevieni
> Subject: [LegacyUG] Census Source Citation Question
> To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyFa
>Kirsten
>
>-Original Message-
>From: k...@legacyfamilytree.com [mailto:k...@legacyfamilytree.com]on
>Behalf Of Cathy Vallevieni
>Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 10:59 PM
>To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyFamilyTree.com
>Subject: [LegacyUG] Census Source Citation Question
>
>
>If I un
Cathy,
I cite the head of household: "Joel F. DeBoard household."
The exception is when it is someone of a different surname, boarding in the
household, or a nephew in the household, etc. In which case, I cite it as
"Joel F. DeBoard household, for Michael Smith, boarder."
Janis Walker Gilmore
...@legacyfamilytree.com] On Behalf
Of Cathy Vallevieni
Sent: June-25-09 1:59 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyFamilyTree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Census Source Citation Question
If I understand it correctly when citing a Census, the citation
includes the name of the person ("ID of Person" in L
m]on
Behalf Of Cathy Vallevieni
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 10:59 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyFamilyTree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Census Source Citation Question
If I understand it correctly when citing a Census, the citation
includes the name of the person ("ID of Person" in Legacy) and that
m
PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyFamilyTree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Census Source Citation Question
If I understand it correctly when citing a Census, the citation
includes the name of the person ("ID of Person" in Legacy) and that
means each family member's name would be listed separately for th
If I understand it correctly when citing a Census, the citation
includes the name of the person ("ID of Person" in Legacy) and that
means each family member's name would be listed separately for the
source assigned to them. Since each different citation shows up as a
separate source in the end
I'd go along with this - it's easy to see from the individual screen
just what you do know about a person. As nearly everyone I add is long
dead, their 'pattern of migration' be it from one village to another or
one country to another is plain to see.
Elizabeth
John Roose wrote:
I put census
Dave -
I put census info into an event labelled "Residence." I then put "Census" in
the description. I also use other sources for residence. I use "Tax Lists,"
sometimes "Church Record" [but I don't duplicate baptism], etc. I like to
see the list of residence and dates in an easily (by me) spotted
I follow Geoff's method and put all the Census info in the Event,
even for other members of the household, because I like to see the
trend of the family (who lived with them, who was no longer living
with them--I even note if it appears a child died because they
dropped off the census at a youn
I take a Census Event - and make it both a Residence EVent and (if
possible) an occupation event. I then make the Census Event
"private". Reports seem a lot "friendlier" showing where someone
lived and what they did rather than all of that other data that comes
with a census. I use the Census as
I used to do it that way too, and only changed because I saw it done the
other way by some-one more experienced. Does that make it right? Don't
know. I would hardly call a visitor from the census-taker 'an event'.
That's like notating every time the phone rings. Even I am not that
organized.
-
Hello, great Legacy User's Group Helpers,
Before I learned that there was a Census Event, I put all occurrences in the
Census as Residence Events. Is there a significant difference between using
the Census Event vs the Residence Event?
Thanks for your input.
Dave
Legacy User
Ron F. wrote:
> one of the considerations which I made when deciding how to deal with
census. What is the source for a census? In Britain, The government? It
wasn't their information, they only collected it. without going through all
the administrative layers we end up with the householder who
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
>
Ron, I have copied your comments from the Source Subsequent Citation thread,
but I have deleted most of your comments and the post to which you responded
because I hope we can discuss the example of the census and whether or not
it is an event or a source.
While I record this as an event, the
rmaster, Polesworth Abbey
www.polesworthabbey.co.uk
*
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of music-line
Sent: 07 November 2008 10:05
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyFamilyTree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Census records: Master So
mpare every
byte with what has already been cited? Or will it somehow keep track
of source details that were copied/placed via the clipboard (and not
edited after)?
Ward
- Original Message - From: "JLB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 1:43 PM
Sub
CTED] Behalf Of Ward
Walker
Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 11:24 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census records: Master Source v. Detail Source
I wonder about this. As discussed a few months ago, the system for printing
the initial citation and then subs
re copied/placed via the clipboard (and not
edited after)?
Ward
- Original Message - From: "JLB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census records: Master Source v. Detail Source
In regards to making multip
h what has already
been cited? Or will it somehow keep track of source details that were
copied/placed via the clipboard (and not edited after)?
Ward
- Original Message -
From: "JLB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Legacy
AIL PROTECTED]
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Census records: Master Source v. Detail Source
> Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 07:21:15 +1100
>
> I have also use the same method as Jenny. I now wish to convert all these to
> use the new SourseWriter template
I am waiting - too many problems with the mixed BASIC and SOURCEWRITER
sources when it comes to reports. Once that is resolved - I may switch.
But my system does what sources should do -- gives anyone looking at them
all they need to see what I saw to prove a fact. What more do you need???
And -
My sources are much like Michele's - except I put the State FIRST (Georgia
US Census - 1880 - McDuffie Co) so that - when I look at my sources -
everything from Georgia will be together (Marriage records would be Georgia
- Marriage). Works for me!
Keith
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Miche
I have also use the same method as Jenny. I now wish to convert all these to
use the new SourseWriter template. Should I wait until the new conversion
tool that is to come or just how should I go about it?
Susan
Yikes, the thought of having a separate Master Source for every
household for every
music-line wrote
Example: If I lump together all my Staffordshire census details for
1901, I
may have 10 different addresses. Let's say, there are 5 people living
at each address - that's 50 people (some which may have duplicate
names).
Yikes, the thought of having a separate Master Source f
ember 07, 2008 2:05 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyFamilyTree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Census records: Master Source v. Detail Source
Hi everyone,
It will be much later on in the weekend before I am able to read the replies
to this, but hear goes (again). I have really tried to look back in the
I think the trick to have a lot of sources is how you organize them. This
is what I do...
Census - GA - McDuffie Co - 1880
Census - GA - Richmond Co - 1850
Census - LA - Caddo Parrish - 1860
Census - MS - Lamar Co - 1910
Census - MS - Lamar Co - 1920
All the censuses will be listed together th
I don't lump census sources either. I have over 26,000 people in my data base,
and hundreds, perhaps thousands of census records. I don't find the length of
the list to be unmanageable.
For U.S. and Canada census records, I start with an event: Event=census,
date=year of census, place=city, s
atabase and how will
that product be impacted by either lumping or splitting?
Kirsten
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
music-line
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 2:05 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyFamilyTree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Census records:
rching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson
- Original Message -
From: "music-line" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 1:04 AM
Subject: [LegacyUG] Census records: Master Source v. Detail Source
Hi everyone,
It will be much later on
That was the whole reason I previously advocated having identical citation
details entered only once, and then creating multiple links to different
people (instead of having to create multiple entries of the same detail each
time it is needed). Not only would the links leave less room for error an
Well said. I came to the same conclusion some time ago. Lumping makes
sense in theory but the editing problem you cite makes it much more
difficult in practice.
I think that there are other reasons for splitting as well but it was
fixing mistakes or making additons in souce detail that convinced
/
_
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyFamilyTree.com
> Subject: [LegacyUG] Census records: Master Source v. Detail Source
> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:04:32 +
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> It will be much later on in the weekend before I am able
Hi everyone,
It will be much later on in the weekend before I am able to read the replies
to this, but hear goes (again). I have really tried to look back in the
archives to read the long thread on 'lumping and splitting' but it is no
longer there.
When Legacy 7 was released with the new sourcew
Geoff Rasmussen
Millennia Corporation
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.LegacyFamilyTree.com
=
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Randolph
Clark
Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 7:45 AM
To: legacyusergroup
Subject: [LegacyUG] census
When selecting the
When selecting the 1870 federal census the series is pre-entered as M593.
Isn't Minnesota on T132?
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: h
egacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census Information: How to record 'published date'
in the the Master Source definition of Sourcewriter.
My bad. I misread the question to being about avoiding multiple inputting of
data.
Rich in LA CA
--- On Tue, 9/30/08, Jenny M Ben
My bad. I misread the question to being about avoiding multiple inputting of
data.
Rich in LA CA
--- On Tue, 9/30/08, Jenny M Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Jenny M Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census Information: How to record 'publis
RICHARD SCHULTHIES wrote
Redundancy is not evil. The disk space used by the 4 characters is made
up for by the 'fact' it is appearing somewhere in whichever report you
use, without retyping. In the past, I used abbreviations to save disk
space usage, I learned and changed my ways.
Richard, yo
e, 9/30/08, Jenny M Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Jenny M Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census Information: How to record 'published date' in
> the the Master Source definition of Sourcewriter.
> To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyFamilyTre
PROTECTED]
www.LegacyFamilyTree.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of music-line
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 3:58 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Census Information: How to record 'published date'
The original source is National Archives HO107 (HO stands for Home Office)
and the class is England and Wales Census for 1851 (not just England). There
are many organisations who have transcribed the images, but the original
image production was done by the National Archives in the days when it was
ronald ferguson wrote
There is no way I would put in all that stuff from Ancestry!!
As you will see elsewhere in this thread, I do! (For the reasons I have
given.)
Ancestry is the repository and not the source.
I agree with you, but Ancestry is "publishing" the Census and "handy
hint" fo
music-line wrote
Just interested to see what people do here. What information would
people put in the 'published date' section of the sourcewriter template
if the information is found online at ancestry.com?
1851? It is the 1851 census of England, so is there any point in
putting it twice?
mshaw 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: [LegacyU
Hi everyone,
Just interested to see what people do here. What information would people
put in the 'published date' section of the sourcewriter template if the
information is found online at ancestry.com?
1851? It is the 1851 census of England, so is there any point in putting it
twice?
2005?
I have one instance of a family appearing twice in the same county census -
a large family, apparently the result of a move.
I also have an instance of a woman appearing with her parents and
siblings,under her maiden name, although she was a couple of years into her
_second_ marriage. This was qui
Kirsten,
I am finding that already and my only regret is I did not make the move
sooner.{;-)
Colin.
- Original Message -
From: Kirsten Bowman
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 2:29 AM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Census & BMD Name changes
C
17:53
To: legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Census - To split or not to split, that is the
question!
David,
I cannot understand that as the address below is fine (just checked it) Note
it is not .com. Actually it would be better with a slash at the end (have
now put that in) but th
Mike Fry wrote:
> Re-read the original message. In fact look at the bottom of any of Rons'
> messages. You'll see that he's in the UK therefore you need *.co.uk*
Thanks, Mike. I should have been able to see that.
On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Mike Fry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Glenn Wood
/
_
> Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 08:52:37 -0700
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census - To split or not to split, that is the
> question!
>
> Ron,
>
> I tried visiting your Website at fergys.co (as you listed).
Glenn Woodman wrote:
Ron,
I tried visiting your Website at fergys.co (as you listed). I get a
message returned "unable to located that page." I then tried
www.fergys.com, and I get another message saying that that domain is
available for purchase. Is there a typo in your post?
Re-read
12:32 AM
To: Legacy User Group
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census & BMD Name changes
Hi Kirsten,
Thank you for your thoughts, I have now put the additonal names in as AKAs
and used the birth registration spelling on his main page.
I have also left the notes in the Birth and Marriage Notes to c
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@legac
- Original Message -
From: Jenny M Benson
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 9:49 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census & BMD Name changes
Colin Liddell wrote
> My father was Baptised Archibald George but was known all his
Colin Liddell wrote
My father was Baptised Archibald George but was known all his life as
George, would you classify that as an AKA?
No, as it its one of his officially given names I would enter it as a
quoted name ("Archibald George "George" in the firstname field) and use
George in Reports
- Original Message -
From: Jenny M Benson
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census & BMD Name changes
Colin Liddell wrote
>
>My question is; how do I handle the different spellings of his surname?
Colin Liddell wrote
My question is; how do I handle the different spellings of his surname?
Do I make the assumption that the birth spelling is correct and just
use that in all instances or should I put in the Marriage notes the
spelling used there and in the Birth notes the spelling used th
and a convert from FTM and Legacy is taking a bit to get used to.{;-)
Colin.
- Original Message -
From: Kirsten Bowman
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 2:07 PM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Census & BMD Name changes
Welcome Colin!
You shoul
iginal Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mary Young
Sent: 05 July 2008 04:08
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census - To split or not to split, that is the
question!
On 7/4/08, Jenny M Benson wrote:
> So if you found a p
takes it for a
typo.
Kirsten
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Colin
Liddell
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 7:30 PM
To: Legacy User Group
Subject: [LegacyUG] Census & BMD Name changes
I am a new user of Legacy and still finding my way. I
- Original Message -
From: "Colin Liddell"
: My question is; how do I handle the different spellings of his surname?
:
: Do I make the assumption that the birth spelling is correct and just use
: that in all instances or should I put in the Marriage notes the spelling
: used there and
I am a new user of Legacy and still finding my way. I have come across a
small problem and wondered how others would handle it.
I have just found my ggg grandfather Joseph THOMAS and his wife Grace in the
English 1891 Census living in Hackney, London with their daughter Emily and
husband George
Hi again
I'm sorry I seem to have opened a can of worms with my description of TMG's
ability to record "witnesses". Witnesses is just a TMG generic term for
other people involved in an event - in fact they can take on any role - so
in a census they can be wife, son, daughter etc, for a will
Mary Young wrote
I don't worry about "resources" that is what modern computers
Nice if you can afford to upgrade to bigger and better memory and hard
drive whenever you need to!
Chacun a son gout.
I guess we have to agree to differ.
Fortunately, we are all free to differ and most of us a
music-line wrote
Now I'm no expert (as by now you've gathered) but surely if the
information is there whether it is in the Master Source or Detail
Source it is the same information, being recorded the same number of
times and therefore using (approximately) the same memory resources.
Surely w
From: "Wynthner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census - To split or not to split, that is the
question!
The point is that it doesn't matter who gave the information.
Whoever gave it would be Witness #1.
As
ROTECTED]>
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2008 5:12:16 AM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census - To split or not to split, that is the question!
How in the world do you tell who gave the info to the census
enumerator? In just one case, I can tell -- my grandmoth
D] On Behalf Of Gary
Templeman
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 11:55 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census - To split or not to split, that is the
question!
- Original Message -
From: "Janis Gilmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturd
- Original Message -
From: "Janis Gilmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 8:29 AM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Census - To split or not to split, that is the
question!
I am a splitter, although I split less with the new Source Writer. I am
tru
CTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 7:29 AM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Census - To split or not to split, that is the
question!
I am a splitter, although I split less with the new Source Writer. I am
truly curious as to why anyone cares how many Master Sources they have? I
frequently s
PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 12:44 AM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Census - To split or not to split, that is the
question!
Hi Mary,
I really want to be able to search legacy for a census (exact location)
and
to get a census (exact location) as a result and not
just truly
curious.)
Janis
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce
McArthur
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 4:20 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census - To split or not to split, that is the
question!
Hi
This i
Another reason for not splitting is to avoid errors. If you consider each
one as separate, there is a chance that mistakes can enter into the data.
Also, if you wish to change the description of a source, you only have to
change it in one place rather than in each record. In the UK, the Public
Reco
July 2008 12:34
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census - To split or not to split, that is the
question!
Maybe it's easier in v.7 (or do you have that already?)
Mary
On 7/5/08, music-line <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I found it Mary, so thanks for that, bu
Maybe it's easier in v.7 (or do you have that already?)
Mary
On 7/5/08, music-line <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I found it Mary, so thanks for that, but as you say, it is a bit tedious.
> To find something in a Detail Source, I eventually found it by searching
> Citation-Text.
Legacy User Grou
1 - 100 of 346 matches
Mail list logo
