Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
How fantastic -- it had never occurred to me that the Shfit, Ctrl bit would work with Show List! Thanks!! -- Pat - Original Message - From: "Mike Fry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 11:30 AM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) familyjesse wrote: Mike, I am learning so much from this list on sources. Can you tell me how to select multiple sources and derive a list from them? Simple! From the Master Source List, select your set of Master Sources. You use the Ctrl key to select multiple entries and the Shift key to select a contiguous group. Ctrl key Select an entry with the left mouse button. Then, holding the Ctrl key down, left click on a second entry and so on. Shift key = Select an entry with the left mouse button. Then, holding the Shift key down, left click on a second entry. All entries between and including the first and second should be selected. Now, you can click the Show List button. The list of people should contain all those using one or more of the selected entries. -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg. 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
Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
In reality the only time "correctness" comes into the source questions is if one is doing a work for a particular publication that has a requirement that sources must be in a certain format. Other than that it is pretty much "roll your own" with respect to how they are entered and formatted. There is absolutely no universal standard to which one must adhere. Andy -- The Verminator -Original Message- From: Ralf X <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I'm hoping I have included enough information that my kids/future grandkids will be able to track down any required sources. I guess in comparison, you have one neat Master Source with all the information contained and easy to find. While I have dozens (so far) Master Sources by each head of household. I used to worry whether I was doing it properly, but I've recently read messages by people using similar methods. Thanks! Ralf Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- Unlimited storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. 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
RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
tain. > Census Office > Census returns for Canton, 1841-1891 Great Britain. > Census Office > Census returns for Llandaff, 1841-1891 Great > Britain. Census Office > Census returns of England and Wales, 1841 Great > Britain. Census Office > > 4. Repository: > Call number: 6400288, 6400289 [fiche] 0464328 > [microfilm] > > Nothing in my source addresses any single use of the > source. That is all > located in the event tab under "edit detail" and the > three sections: Detail > Information, Detail Text, and Comments. > > Carol > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of RICHARD > SCHULTHIES > Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 6:43 PM > To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? > (knowing I may get > "lumps" for this) > > He did, and I sometimes do, but only when it is a > unique reference, and not a 'lumper' type. > Rich in LA CA > > --- Jenny M Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Linda McCauley wrote > > >Since the Master Source has a space for entering > > "Text of Source", I > > >don't see how lumpers would ever use that space > > (which is a part of the > > >Legacy source structure). > > Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail at http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca 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
RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
In my lumped sources put a ton of information under "text of source" in my citations... enough so that a future researcher in my family can locate and duplicate my searches. Here is one example of source tabs and how I fill them out in a source: 1. Source Information: 1841 UK CENSUS - Llangyfelach (Llwynyfwalch) Glamorgan, Wales Richard Owen Bennett, coordinator/editor // Glamorgan Family History Society (Added Author) 1841 census, Glamorgan, P.R.O. piece nos. H.O. 107/1419, 1424, 1426; Swansea Registration District Format Books/Monographs Language English Publication [Wales] : Glamorgan Family History Society, 1997 Physical 6 microfiches. 2. Detail Information: NotesIncludes Llangyfelach Parish, Llandeilo-Talybont Parish, St. John-juxta-Swansea Parish, Swansea Parish. Subjects Wales, Glamorgan, Swansea - Census - 1841 Wales, Glamorgan, Llandeilo Tal-y-bont - Census - 1841 Wales, Glamorgan, Llangyfelach - Census - 1841 Wales, Glamorgan, St. John's - Census - 1841 Title 1841 census, Glamorgan, P.R.O. piece nos. H.O. 107/1419, 1424, 1426; Swansea Registration District Authors Bennett, Richard Owen Beynon (Added Author) Glamorgan Family History Society (Added Author) Note Location Film 1841 census index (3 fiches). FHL BRITISH Fiche 6400288 1841 census transcript (3 fiches). FHL BRITISH Fiche 6400289 3. Comments: NOTE: Three actual physical sources via Latter Day Saints sources: two Fiche and one microfilm. 6400288, 6400289 [fiche] 0464328 [microfilm] CALN #0464328 Arranged by districts (Hamlets) Landore, Morriston, Llangyfelach, Llansamlet, etcl., Covers much more than just Llangyfelach as shown below: Census returns for Caerau, 1841-1891 Great Britain. Census Office Census returns for Michaelston-le-Pit, 1841-1891 Great Britain. Census Office Census returns for Llanedarn, 1841-1891 Great Britain. Census Office Census returns for Llanishen, 1841-1891 Great Britain. Census Office Census returns for Llanguick, 1841-1891 Great Britain. Census Office Census returns for Rhyndwyglydach, 1841-1891 Great Britain. Census Office Census returns for Mawr, 1841-1891 Great Britain. Census Office Census returns for Penderry, 1841-1891 Great Britain. Census Office Census returns for Clase, 1841-1891 Great Britain. Census Office Census returns for Llangyfelach, 1841-1891 Great Britain. Census Office Census returns for Higher Llansamlet, 1841-1891 Great Britain. Census Office Census returns for Lower Llansamlet, 1841-1891 Great Britain. Census Office Census returns for Lisvane, 1841-1891 Great Britain. Census Office Census returns for Roath, 1841-1891 Great Britain. Census Office Census returns for Canton, 1841-1891 Great Britain. Census Office Census returns for Llandaff, 1841-1891 Great Britain. Census Office Census returns of England and Wales, 1841 Great Britain. Census Office 4. Repository: Call number: 6400288, 6400289 [fiche] 0464328 [microfilm] Nothing in my source addresses any single use of the source. That is all located in the event tab under "edit detail" and the three sections: Detail Information, Detail Text, and Comments. Carol -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of RICHARD SCHULTHIES Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 6:43 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) He did, and I sometimes do, but only when it is a unique reference, and not a 'lumper' type. Rich in LA CA --- Jenny M Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Linda McCauley wrote > >Since the Master Source has a space for entering > "Text of Source", I > >don't see how lumpers would ever use that space > (which is a part of the > >Legacy source structure). > 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.30/1027 - Release Date: 9/24/2007 11:27 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.30/1030 - Release Date: 9/25/2007 8:02 AM 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
Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
familyjesse wrote: Mike, I am learning so much from this list on sources. Can you tell me how to select multiple sources and derive a list from them? Simple! From the Master Source List, select your set of Master Sources. You use the Ctrl key to select multiple entries and the Shift key to select a contiguous group. Ctrl key Select an entry with the left mouse button. Then, holding the Ctrl key down, left click on a second entry and so on. Shift key = Select an entry with the left mouse button. Then, holding the Shift key down, left click on a second entry. All entries between and including the first and second should be selected. Now, you can click the Show List button. The list of people should contain all those using one or more of the selected entries. -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg. 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
RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Mike, I think I'm both too. I keep some sources together, particularly those that have hundreds of people and events under them: microfilm numbers, Gendalim 4 and 5, etc., the USA census; but I split the UK census by country: England, Scotland, Wales... I do that mostly because my families are split that way. However, I never put personal references inside my source references. There is a edit detail tab on the event that I use for the personal references, quotations of sources, item details. I am learning so much from this list on sources. Can you tell me how to select multiple sources and derive a list from them? Thanks, Carol -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Fry Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 1:54 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Cathy wrote: > How helpful that list is depends on how you've defined the Master > Source. Split to extreme and it's an irrelevant list as the very few > people using the source are actually named in or obvious from the source. Ah! It would be irrelevant if you select a single Source, but the capability exists to select multiple Sources and derive a list from them. Me! I'm both. A lumper and splitter depending on what the source actually is. BMD certificates: splitter. Census Images: lumper. -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg. 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.30/1027 - Release Date: 9/24/2007 11:27 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.30/1027 - Release Date: 9/24/2007 11:27 AM 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
Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Cathy wrote: How helpful that list is depends on how you've defined the Master Source. Split to extreme and it's an irrelevant list as the very few people using the source are actually named in or obvious from the source. Ah! It would be irrelevant if you select a single Source, but the capability exists to select multiple Sources and derive a list from them. Me! I'm both. A lumper and splitter depending on what the source actually is. BMD certificates: splitter. Census Images: lumper. -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg. 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
Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Hi Linda, That's it - it shows who is using the source. How helpful that list is depends on how you've defined the Master Source. Split to extreme and it's an irrelevant list as the very few people using the source are actually named in or obvious from the source. I can use it to very easily get a list of everyone I've found in a particular census as my Census Source is the whole census for a particular list. I find that useful. There are other ways to get this list but Show list from the source is the easiest. There are lots of different ways of using the features of Legacy. Which ones you'll use and how will depend on what works best for you. We all think in different ways. That's why some people start their Source List Name with Type, others with Location and others with Family. The best way is the way that helps YOU record and find the information quickest. Cathy At 08:30 AM 25/09/2007, you wrote: --- Cathy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How do you use "Show List" when you're a splitter? > > Cathy Cathy, I'm really, really new to Legacy (like 3 weeks) so I haven't begun to uncover all the uses for many functions - that's one reason I started reading this list and it's archives (and I must say it's been very helpful). So, I don't really understand your question. I have been using FTM for years and it seems that "Show List" is similar to the "Source Usage" field in FTM which I used to determine what particular items/events were tied to a specific Master Source. Is there some other use that won't work for splitters? Linda 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
Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
He did, and I sometimes do, but only when it is a unique reference, and not a 'lumper' type. Rich in LA CA --- Jenny M Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Linda McCauley wrote > >Since the Master Source has a space for entering > "Text of Source", I > >don't see how lumpers would ever use that space > (which is a part of the > >Legacy source structure). > 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
Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Hi, Cathy, If I have a separate source for each census year and each locality, I just click Show List -- it just doesn't list as many people as if I had just one source for each census year and state. Does that make sense? -- Pat - Original Message - From: "Linda McCauley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 8:30 PM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) --- Cathy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: How do you use "Show List" when you're a splitter? Cathy Cathy, I'm really, really new to Legacy (like 3 weeks) so I haven't begun to uncover all the uses for many functions - that's one reason I started reading this list and it's archives (and I must say it's been very helpful). So, I don't really understand your question. I have been using FTM for years and it seems that "Show List" is similar to the "Source Usage" field in FTM which I used to determine what particular items/events were tied to a specific Master Source. Is there some other use that won't work for splitters? Linda 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
Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
--- Cathy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How do you use "Show List" when you're a splitter? > > Cathy Cathy, I'm really, really new to Legacy (like 3 weeks) so I haven't begun to uncover all the uses for many functions - that's one reason I started reading this list and it's archives (and I must say it's been very helpful). So, I don't really understand your question. I have been using FTM for years and it seems that "Show List" is similar to the "Source Usage" field in FTM which I used to determine what particular items/events were tied to a specific Master Source. Is there some other use that won't work for splitters? Linda 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
Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Linda McCauley wrote Since the Master Source has a space for entering "Text of Source", I don't see how lumpers would ever use that space (which is a part of the Legacy source structure). I may be wrong (and it's too late for me to be wanting to go off and check it now), but I am fairly certain I have seen one of Geoff's Source Examples where he puts the description of a Web Page in the Source Text on the Master Source tab. -- Jenny M Benson 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
RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Kirsten, Yes that is exactly what I am saying. I guess I have around 5000 files in my computer and on average each will have around 3 censuses and may also have copies of BMDs attached to them. Additionally, of course, I have quite a large number of photos. The thing with Legacy is that it does not store the picture in Legacy but only the path to where you have it stored, hence takes up very little space indeed. The backup of multimedia files can become very large though, and this I burn to a disc and then delete it! Maybe not very good practice but my HD space is getting a bit limited at the moment so this is only a stop-gap until I upgrade. Ron Ferguson _ For Genealogy, Software and Social visit: http://www.fergys.co.uk *Over 650 Surnames from 11 Countries* 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 > Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" > for this) > Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:24:10 -0700 > > Ron: > > Are you saying that you have a picture attached to *every* paper-based > source in your database? Years ago when I was an FTM user I was told that > attaching pictures to the file would make the database too large and slow > the program down drastically so I never developed the habit and have simply > transcribed the pertinent text into "source details" (which admittedly can > be prone to typos). Is there no problem with Legacy if you have hundreds of > pictures attached? > > Kirsten _ Feel like a local wherever you go. http://www.backofmyhand.com 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
RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Hi Kirsten: That was the reason I switched from FTM to Legacy. Apparently attaching photos to FTM continually makes the database larger and larger (at least back in FTM 2005). But because Legacy only *links* to each photo, your database stays the same size whether you have photos attached or not. Rob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kirsten Bowman Sent: September 24, 2007 1:24 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Ron: Are you saying that you have a picture attached to *every* paper-based source in your database? Years ago when I was an FTM user I was told that attaching pictures to the file would make the database too large and slow the program down drastically so I never developed the habit and have simply transcribed the pertinent text into "source details" (which admittedly can be prone to typos). Is there no problem with Legacy if you have hundreds of pictures attached? Kirsten -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of ronald ferguson Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 7:55 AM To: legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Linda, WRT not using the "Text of Source" in the Master Source, for many of us lumpers you are correct and if I wish to include the details of the text (and generally I do not) I would include them in the faclilties in the Detail. I do have the detail text btw, as I add a picture of it to the Source Detail. As you say, Legacy suits both ways of doing things and to me the debates over which is preferable is pretty much a waste of time. To be perfectly clear, this statement does not include showing others the methods :-). Ron Ferguson 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
RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Ron: Are you saying that you have a picture attached to *every* paper-based source in your database? Years ago when I was an FTM user I was told that attaching pictures to the file would make the database too large and slow the program down drastically so I never developed the habit and have simply transcribed the pertinent text into "source details" (which admittedly can be prone to typos). Is there no problem with Legacy if you have hundreds of pictures attached? Kirsten -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of ronald ferguson Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 7:55 AM To: legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Linda, WRT not using the "Text of Source" in the Master Source, for many of us lumpers you are correct and if I wish to include the details of the text (and generally I do not) I would include them in the faclilties in the Detail. I do have the detail text btw, as I add a picture of it to the Source Detail. As you say, Legacy suits both ways of doing things and to me the debates over which is preferable is pretty much a waste of time. To be perfectly clear, this statement does not include showing others the methods :-). Ron Ferguson 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
RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Linda, WRT not using the "Text of Source" in the Master Source, for many of us lumpers you are correct and if I wish to include the details of the text (and generally I do not) I would include them in the faclilties in the Detail. I do have the detail text btw, as I add a picture of it to the Source Detail. As you say, Legacy suits both ways of doing things and to me the debates over which is preferable is pretty much a waste of time. To be perfectly clear, this statement does not include showing others the methods :-). Ron Ferguson _ For Genealogy, Software and Social visit: http://www.fergys.co.uk *Over 650 Surnames from 11 Countries* 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: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 06:44:47 -0700 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" > for this) > To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com > > Hi Cathy, > I am new to Legacy but not to genealogy. I guess I > should first admit that I am a splitter - although I > didn't realize that until I started reading this list. > > > I don't understand your arguement that splitting is > ignoring "the structure of having Master Sources and > Source Details". Since the Master Source has a space > for entering "Text of Source", I don't see how lumpers > would ever use that space (which is a part of the > Legacy source structure). > > For example: I document an individual census record > as follows: Master Source "Census - Hankins, Thomas > L. - 1900". Under "Text of Source", I enter the > county, state, district, names of household members, > relationship, age, etc. from that census record > because to me that is the "text of the source". If I > don't have a complete birth date for Thomas, I would > use the mm/ listed in that census record and > attach this master source as documentation. In the > Source Detail under "Detail Text", I would enter > "Thomas listed as born 6/1858". By entering sources > like this, a footnote/endnote for Thomas' birth date > would show the source as the specific census record > and the detail would explain how that source > specifically documents his birth date. > > From what I'm reading, neither side of this issue is > likely to see the logic of the other but it seems to > me that Legacy's design for sourcing actually supports > either approach making neither right or wrong, simply > different. That kind of flexibility is one of the > things I really like about Legacy. > > Linda > > > --- Cathy wrote: > >> Hi Pat, >> >> Basically it sounds as if you are only using the >> Source Details sections of a source just for >> comments rather than for the true Source Detail. >> >> Taking your example: >> I'd make The Snider Family GenForum a Master >> Source and put the details of a particular posting >> in the Source Detail. >> >> or, to use a more common example as I'm not familiar >> with GenForums. >> >> A Census is a Master Source. (whether you make >> the Master Source the census for a particular >> country (English Census) or for a particular >> country for a particular year (1841 Census) or >> for a state (1860 Census for Michigan) or county >> - depending on how much of a splitter you are). >> Regardless of how you've lumped or split, I think >> a particular census household, belongs in the >> source detail. I put the reference in the Source >> Detail and a transcription of the household in the >> Source Detail text. >> >> To put the actual household in the Master Source >> is to completely ignore the structure of having >> Master Sources and Source Details. It can be done >> and it may suit you better but you need to be >> aware that you aren't using Legacy sourcing as >> designed. >> >> Adding to the confusion, Legacy isn't consistent >> on its use of terminology for the Source Details. >> Sometimes it uses Citation or Citation Details >> for the Source Details and sometimes Citation >> refers to one whole use of a Source - Master source >> plus the details. >> >> Cathy _ Feel like a local wherever you go. http://www.backofmyhand.com 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
Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Hi Linda, I occasionally have a Master Source where it is appropriate to put something in the Master Source Text. For example, that's where I currently have transcriptions of certificates. I have other things like unidentified newspaper cuttings which I have entered as separate master sources as they have nothing to do with one another coming from different countries and relating to different families. The transcripts of those are in the Master Source Text. If I finished transcribing the Birthday Books I have access to belonging to my grandmother and another close relative, it would make sense to keep the transcription in the Master Source Text. I think a full splitter like you has no need of the Source Detail Text. What you've explained as putting there doesn't sound like detail text but comment. However, the important thing is to source so that someone else can find your source or at least understand what it is and where it may be in the case of family sources and both lumpers and splitters do that. You're quite right with respect to me at least. I'll never understand extreme splitting ;-) How do you use "Show List" when you're a splitter? Cathy At 09:44 PM 24/09/2007, you wrote: Hi Cathy, I am new to Legacy but not to genealogy. I guess I should first admit that I am a splitter - although I didn't realize that until I started reading this list. I don't understand your arguement that splitting is ignoring "the structure of having Master Sources and Source Details". Since the Master Source has a space for entering "Text of Source", I don't see how lumpers would ever use that space (which is a part of the Legacy source structure). For example: I document an individual census record as follows: Master Source "Census - Hankins, Thomas L. - 1900". Under "Text of Source", I enter the county, state, district, names of household members, relationship, age, etc. from that census record because to me that is the "text of the source". If I don't have a complete birth date for Thomas, I would use the mm/ listed in that census record and attach this master source as documentation. In the Source Detail under "Detail Text", I would enter "Thomas listed as born 6/1858". By entering sources like this, a footnote/endnote for Thomas' birth date would show the source as the specific census record and the detail would explain how that source specifically documents his birth date. From what I'm reading, neither side of this issue is likely to see the logic of the other but it seems to me that Legacy's design for sourcing actually supports either approach making neither right or wrong, simply different. That kind of flexibility is one of the things I really like about Legacy. Linda 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
Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Hi Cathy, I am new to Legacy but not to genealogy. I guess I should first admit that I am a splitter - although I didn't realize that until I started reading this list. I don't understand your arguement that splitting is ignoring "the structure of having Master Sources and Source Details". Since the Master Source has a space for entering "Text of Source", I don't see how lumpers would ever use that space (which is a part of the Legacy source structure). For example: I document an individual census record as follows: Master Source "Census - Hankins, Thomas L. - 1900". Under "Text of Source", I enter the county, state, district, names of household members, relationship, age, etc. from that census record because to me that is the "text of the source". If I don't have a complete birth date for Thomas, I would use the mm/ listed in that census record and attach this master source as documentation. In the Source Detail under "Detail Text", I would enter "Thomas listed as born 6/1858". By entering sources like this, a footnote/endnote for Thomas' birth date would show the source as the specific census record and the detail would explain how that source specifically documents his birth date. >From what I'm reading, neither side of this issue is likely to see the logic of the other but it seems to me that Legacy's design for sourcing actually supports either approach making neither right or wrong, simply different. That kind of flexibility is one of the things I really like about Legacy. Linda --- Cathy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Pat, > > Basically it sounds as if you are only using the > Source Details sections of a source just for > comments rather than for the true Source Detail. > > Taking your example: > I'd make The Snider Family GenForum a Master > Source and put the details of a particular posting > in the Source Detail. > > or, to use a more common example as I'm not familiar > with GenForums. > > A Census is a Master Source. (whether you make > the Master Source the census for a particular > country (English Census) or for a particular > country for a particular year (1841 Census) or > for a state (1860 Census for Michigan) or county > - depending on how much of a splitter you are). > Regardless of how you've lumped or split, I think > a particular census household, belongs in the > source detail. I put the reference in the Source > Detail and a transcription of the household in the > Source Detail text. > > To put the actual household in the Master Source > is to completely ignore the structure of having > Master Sources and Source Details. It can be done > and it may suit you better but you need to be > aware that you aren't using Legacy sourcing as > designed. > > Adding to the confusion, Legacy isn't consistent > on its use of terminology for the Source Details. > Sometimes it uses Citation or Citation Details > for the Source Details and sometimes Citation > refers to one whole use of a Source - Master source > plus the details. > > Cathy > 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
Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Hello again, I think between all of you, you have answered my questions. I was using the wrong term.. Where I said 'citation' I should have said 'source detail'.. and you do explain how you use it. ;-) The interesting thing is that there are as many ways of using sources and source detail as there are genealogists or family historians! Everyone has a little twist. Tim - Original Message From: Pat Hickin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 9:03:53 AM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Well, actually, I usually just use the "Detail" for page number, or I probably put in the url for this specific post but if the poster has cited a specific source I would definitely put it in the detail because I'd want to be able to see readily that he was doing that. Or if I had 2 emails from the same person on the same date I'd put the time of the email in the detail. For example with a census, I'd have a separate master source for every year, state, and county -- and repository (online or physical) -- and even township (if I had a WHOLE BUNCH for the same county)--and then I'd put the page number in the detail. No, for comments I'd put that in the detail text or comment area, but if I say "citing (another specific source)" I'd want that to appear as part of the citation. You may want to check out www.genforum.com. It's a great way to find others working on the same families, pose queries, etc. I've connected with a number of cousins via Genforum, and the format is great and easily accessible. One warning. There are separate forums for, e.g., Schneider, Snider, and Snyder -- whch can be a bit of a nuisance. -- Pat Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. http://sims.yahoo.com/ 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
Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Well, actually, I usually just use the "Detail" for page number, or I probably put in the url for this specific post but if the poster has cited a specific source I would definitely put it in the detail because I'd want to be able to see readily that he was doing that. Or if I had 2 emails from the same person on the same date I'd put the time of the email in the detail. For example with a census, I'd have a separate master source for every year, state, and county -- and repository (online or physical) -- and even township (if I had a WHOLE BUNCH for the same county)--and then I'd put the page number in the detail. No, for comments I'd put that in the detail text or comment area, but if I say "citing (another specific source)" I'd want that to appear as part of the citation. You may want to check out www.genforum.com. It's a great way to find others working on the same families, pose queries, etc. I've connected with a number of cousins via Genforum, and the format is great and easily accessible. One warning. There are separate forums for, e.g., Schneider, Snider, and Snyder -- whch can be a bit of a nuisance. -- Pat - Original Message - From: "Cathy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 11:40 PM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Hi Pat, Basically it sounds as if you are only using the Source Details sections of a source just for comments rather than for the true Source Detail. Taking your example: I'd make The Snider Family GenForum a Master Source and put the details of a particular posting in the Source Detail. or, to use a more common example as I'm not familiar with GenForums. A Census is a Master Source. (whether you make the Master Source the census for a particular country (English Census) or for a particular country for a particular year (1841 Census) or for a state (1860 Census for Michigan) or county - depending on how much of a splitter you are). Regardless of how you've lumped or split, I think a particular census household, belongs in the source detail. I put the reference in the Source Detail and a transcription of the household in the Source Detail text. To put the actual household in the Master Source is to completely ignore the structure of having Master Sources and Source Details. It can be done and it may suit you better but you need to be aware that you aren't using Legacy sourcing as designed. Adding to the confusion, Legacy isn't consistent on its use of terminology for the Source Details. Sometimes it uses Citation or Citation Details for the Source Details and sometimes Citation refers to one whole use of a Source - Master source plus the details. Cathy At 11:10 AM 24/09/2007, you wrote: I still don't understand. The first time you cite a master source, you have a citation. Then you might cite it a second time, a third time, etc. For example, let's take a Genforum website as a source of info. For Source List Name I have "Snider Family GenForum #1207" For author I have "S . . . , , A. . .<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" For title I have "Schneiders/Sneider on the ship Allen, 17[29], Snider Family GenForum #1207" For publication data, I have #1207 23 Apr 2001 Genealogy.com presents GenForum http://genforum.genealogy.com © 2005 MyFamily.com, Inc. I might cite that specific source for info entered on several different people in my database. (And I might rate some of the info as a "2" for reliability and some as a "4" -- and none of it as a "1" since it's not a primary source.) If the post contains a reference to a primary source (or a secondary account for that matter) I may add in the "detail" : "citing Botetourt County,VA, Will Book A, p295" or something of the sort.) Then if I have another post from the Snyder GenForum, I just pull up that source, make the necessary changes, save it (choose option 2) to a New Master Source (Legacy for reasons unknown to me calls it a "copy"). Does this make sense? -- Pat - Original Message - From: "Tim Willis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 7:16 AM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Hi Pat, Sorry for my vagueness.. I was just wondering that with the splitting method, it appears that you would always use a master source and never(?) use the source citation? Is that correct, if not, when do you use the citation? OR, do I have this all mixed up? Tim Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technica
RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Do not put the details of the event in the Master Source. Keep the Master Source lean and simple. A Police Officer uses the Vehicle Code as a reason to stop a speeder, then he writes a CITATION using the Vehicle code ( example: CVC22350, speed exceeding 55 MPH), as the Master Source. He/She then includes the details such as Your Speed, Location, Time and Conditions on the CITATION. The Master Source remains simple and lean ( CVC22350) and will be used on many other citations with different details, but the citation for excessive speed will always cite the same Master Source. Try this website, it was a help to me. www.progenealogists.com/commoncitations.htm Keep plugging away at this Source stuff and it will become crystal clear, soon. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cathy Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 8:41 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Hi Pat, Basically it sounds as if you are only using the Source Details sections of a source just for comments rather than for the true Source Detail. Taking your example: I'd make The Snider Family GenForum a Master Source and put the details of a particular posting in the Source Detail. or, to use a more common example as I'm not familiar with GenForums. A Census is a Master Source. (whether you make the Master Source the census for a particular country (English Census) or for a particular country for a particular year (1841 Census) or for a state (1860 Census for Michigan) or county - depending on how much of a splitter you are). Regardless of how you've lumped or split, I think a particular census household, belongs in the source detail. I put the reference in the Source Detail and a transcription of the household in the Source Detail text. To put the actual household in the Master Source is to completely ignore the structure of having Master Sources and Source Details. It can be done and it may suit you better but you need to be aware that you aren't using Legacy sourcing as designed. Adding to the confusion, Legacy isn't consistent on its use of terminology for the Source Details. Sometimes it uses Citation or Citation Details for the Source Details and sometimes Citation refers to one whole use of a Source - Master source plus the details. Cathy At 11:10 AM 24/09/2007, you wrote: >I still don't understand. The first time you cite a master source, you have >a citation. Then you might cite it a second time, a third time, etc. > >For example, let's take a Genforum website as a source of info. > >For Source List Name I have > "Snider Family GenForum #1207" >For author I have > "S . . . , , A. . .<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" >For title I have > "Schneiders/Sneider on the ship Allen, 17[29], > Snider Family GenForum #1207" >For publication data, I have > #1207 23 Apr 2001 > Genealogy.com presents GenForum > http://genforum.genealogy.com > C 2005 MyFamily.com, Inc. > >I might cite that specific source for info entered on several different >people in my database. (And I might rate some of the info as a "2" for >reliability and some as a "4" -- and none of it as a "1" since it's not a >primary source.) If the post contains a reference to a primary source (or a >secondary account for that matter) I may add in the "detail" : "citing >Botetourt County,VA, Will Book A, p295" or something of the sort.) > >Then if I have another post from the Snyder >GenForum, I just pull up that source, make the >necessary changes, save it (choose option 2) to >a New Master Source (Legacy for reasons unknown to me calls it a "copy"). > >Does this make sense? > >-- > >Pat > >- Original Message - From: "Tim Willis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: >Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 7:16 AM >Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get >"lumps" for this) > > >Hi Pat, Sorry for my vagueness.. > >I was just wondering that with the splitting method, it appears that you >would always use a master source and never(?) use the source citation? Is >that correct, if not, when do you use the citation? OR, do I have this all >mixed up? > >Tim 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
Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Hi Pat, Basically it sounds as if you are only using the Source Details sections of a source just for comments rather than for the true Source Detail. Taking your example: I'd make The Snider Family GenForum a Master Source and put the details of a particular posting in the Source Detail. or, to use a more common example as I'm not familiar with GenForums. A Census is a Master Source. (whether you make the Master Source the census for a particular country (English Census) or for a particular country for a particular year (1841 Census) or for a state (1860 Census for Michigan) or county - depending on how much of a splitter you are). Regardless of how you've lumped or split, I think a particular census household, belongs in the source detail. I put the reference in the Source Detail and a transcription of the household in the Source Detail text. To put the actual household in the Master Source is to completely ignore the structure of having Master Sources and Source Details. It can be done and it may suit you better but you need to be aware that you aren't using Legacy sourcing as designed. Adding to the confusion, Legacy isn't consistent on its use of terminology for the Source Details. Sometimes it uses Citation or Citation Details for the Source Details and sometimes Citation refers to one whole use of a Source - Master source plus the details. Cathy At 11:10 AM 24/09/2007, you wrote: I still don't understand. The first time you cite a master source, you have a citation. Then you might cite it a second time, a third time, etc. For example, let's take a Genforum website as a source of info. For Source List Name I have "Snider Family GenForum #1207" For author I have "S . . . , , A. . .<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" For title I have "Schneiders/Sneider on the ship Allen, 17[29], Snider Family GenForum #1207" For publication data, I have #1207 23 Apr 2001 Genealogy.com presents GenForum http://genforum.genealogy.com © 2005 MyFamily.com, Inc. I might cite that specific source for info entered on several different people in my database. (And I might rate some of the info as a "2" for reliability and some as a "4" -- and none of it as a "1" since it's not a primary source.) If the post contains a reference to a primary source (or a secondary account for that matter) I may add in the "detail" : "citing Botetourt County,VA, Will Book A, p295" or something of the sort.) Then if I have another post from the Snyder GenForum, I just pull up that source, make the necessary changes, save it (choose option 2) to a New Master Source (Legacy for reasons unknown to me calls it a "copy"). Does this make sense? -- Pat ----- Original Message - From: "Tim Willis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 7:16 AM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Hi Pat, Sorry for my vagueness.. I was just wondering that with the splitting method, it appears that you would always use a master source and never(?) use the source citation? Is that correct, if not, when do you use the citation? OR, do I have this all mixed up? Tim 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
Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
I still don't understand. The first time you cite a master source, you have a citation. Then you might cite it a second time, a third time, etc. For example, let's take a Genforum website as a source of info. For Source List Name I have "Snider Family GenForum #1207" For author I have "S . . . , , A. . .<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" For title I have "Schneiders/Sneider on the ship Allen, 17[29], Snider Family GenForum #1207" For publication data, I have #1207 23 Apr 2001 Genealogy.com presents GenForum http://genforum.genealogy.com © 2005 MyFamily.com, Inc. I might cite that specific source for info entered on several different people in my database. (And I might rate some of the info as a "2" for reliability and some as a "4" -- and none of it as a "1" since it's not a primary source.) If the post contains a reference to a primary source (or a secondary account for that matter) I may add in the "detail" : "citing Botetourt County,VA, Will Book A, p295" or something of the sort.) Then if I have another post from the Snyder GenForum, I just pull up that source, make the necessary changes, save it (choose option 2) to a New Master Source (Legacy for reasons unknown to me calls it a "copy"). Does this make sense? -- Pat - Original Message - From: "Tim Willis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 7:16 AM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Hi Pat, Sorry for my vagueness.. I was just wondering that with the splitting method, it appears that you would always use a master source and never(?) use the source citation? Is that correct, if not, when do you use the citation? OR, do I have this all mixed up? Tim - Original Message From: Pat Hickin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 8:24:23 PM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Tim, I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean when you ask, "One thing I am currious about Pat, with your way, do you EVER have a need to use citations, or do you wind up using them for a different function?" Pat Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html 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
RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
You are on the right track, Tim. The full citation, for a splitter, is often placed in the publication details box of the Master Source. However, I often use the Source Detail for analysis or additional commentary, rather than putting it into the Master Source. For instance, a pension file might be applied as a source to a lot of different events and individuals; if you use it to document the birth year of one of the children, you might want to use the Comments tab on the Source Detail to explain your conclusions about the birth date, based on data in the file. Those conclusions regarding the birth of that one child wouldn't necessarily apply to other events, so you wouldn't want it in the Master Source, where it would attach to everything. (That may have been about as clear as mud.) Janis From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Willis Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 7:17 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Hi Pat, Sorry for my vagueness.. I was just wondering that with the splitting method, it appears that you would always use a master source and never(?) use the source citation? Is that correct, if not, when do you use the citation? OR, do I have this all mixed up? Tim - Original Message From: Pat Hickin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 8:24:23 PM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Tim, I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean when you ask, "One thing I am currious about Pat, with your way, do you EVER have a need to use citations, or do you wind up using them for a different function?" Pat _ Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48252/*http:/mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearc h?refer=1ONXIC> search that gives answers, not web links. 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
Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Hi Pat, Sorry for my vagueness.. I was just wondering that with the splitting method, it appears that you would always use a master source and never(?) use the source citation? Is that correct, if not, when do you use the citation? OR, do I have this all mixed up? Tim - Original Message From: Pat Hickin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 8:24:23 PM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Tim, I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean when you ask, "One thing I am currious about Pat, with your way, do you EVER have a need to use citations, or do you wind up using them for a different function?" Pat Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html 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
Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Tim, I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean when you ask, "One thing I am currious about Pat, with your way, do you EVER have a need to use citations, or do you wind up using them for a different function?" Pat - Original Message - From: "Tim Willis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 1:28 PM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Well, I want to thank everyone for their suggestions on this. I have to finish going through this bible and decide just which way I will go with. I really like this group. You get a good discussion going and you can see the differing opinions (all valid, mind you). Although things get a bit intense sometimes, mostly you get a really good exchange of ideas. One thing I am currious about Pat, with your way, do you EVER have a need to use citations, or do you wind up using them for a different function? Tim - Original Message From: TH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 9:07:16 AM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) "In this particular instance the name of the repository of the original "source" can only be the physical location of the Bible since the original newspaper source itelf is likely to be found in more than one library and NONE of those is where the researcher found the article. (Unless s/he did some double checking.)" Double-checking isn't something we do, huh? Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz 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
Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
I believe I said "unless." - Original Message - From: "TH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) "In this particular instance the name of the repository of the original "source" can only be the physical location of the Bible since the original newspaper source itelf is likely to be found in more than one library and NONE of those is where the researcher found the article. (Unless s/he did some double checking.)" Double-checking isn't something we do, huh? On 9/22/07, Pat Hickin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well maybe both are "where"? If someone says I read it in the NY Times that's a "where" kind of statement and one could have read it while sitting on a park bench. I rarely in scholarly bibliographies see a repository for newspaper articles or anything else that is published, though I can imagine that if the newspaper was old and rare someone may manage to include that info. In this particular instance the name of the repository of the original "source" can only be the physical location of the Bible since the original newspaper source itelf is likely to be found in more than one library and NONE of those is where the researcher found the article. (Unless s/he did some double checking.) Ordinarily repositories are NOT given for published items (except perhaps if they're rare). Pat - Original Message - From: "ronald ferguson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 3:52 AM Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Pat, I'm trying not to split hairs on this but surely where the info was found is the repository and not the source. The source being the name of the original publication. Ron Ferguson _ For Genealogy, Software and Social visit: http://www.fergys.co.uk *Over 650 Surnames from 11 Countries* 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 > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get > "lumps" for this) > Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 00:31:48 -0400 > > Well, I agree when it comes to the final bibliography -- I'm just talking > about the source list name, which is simply for our convenience. I realize > I'm assuming this doesn't make it into the final bibliography, but come to > think about it -- I don't really know that. > > Anyway, I'm assuming also that Leg 7 will be a whole different ballgame. > > Though I do think you have to say WHERE you found the info-- for > UNidentified newspaper clippings, at least. (I don't think that would be > necessary for fully identified newspaper clippings -- at least if you're > positive they're correctly identified -- which would mean the newspaper > name > and date and page number were part of the clipping.) > > Pat > > > - Original Message - > From: "TH" > To: > Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 10:20 PM > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get > "lumps" for this) > > >>I find it odd that people would source obituaries and news articles found >> between the pages of a bible differently than similar items located in a >> notebook or filing cabinet. Why not take the newspaper items out of the >> Bible and file them with the rest of your obituaries and news articles? >> AFter all, the newspapers are the source, not where the articles are >> "filed." >> _ Celeb spotting – Play CelebMashup and win cool prizes https://www.celebmashup.com 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 -- Thad Evotee [EMAIL PROTECTED] Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messag
RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get"lumps" for this)
Cathy, If this appears twice, or distorted, my apologies as I seem to be having some connection problems. My family seems to be much worse than yours as they hardly ever saved records let alone newspaper cuttings. Given the circumstances which you illustrate I would probably do much the same as yourself. Ron Ferguson _ For Genealogy, Software and Social visit: http://www.fergys.co.uk *Over 650 Surnames from 11 Countries* 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> Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get"lumps" for this)> Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:42:50 +0800>> Hi Ron,>> That's true - but your family must have been better than mine if you> haven't hit this problem of unidentified newspaper clippings. The> only clues are their content and where they were found. One of my> great grandmother was a great clipper and sticker of newspaper bits> of news and notices about family and friends as well as other things> that caught her interest. The only date indication is the date of any> deaths she happens to note in between them or mentioned in the> articles. There is no indication which newspapers or magazines she is> clipping unless the clipping itself happens to include the page> headers and that is really rare. So I reference the exercise book of> clippings as the only practical solution. It would take hours of> research (make that weeks) to track down the actual newspapers even> though I know many of them will be the South Australian newspapers.> My grandmother also put aside some newspaper clippings. It also never> occurred to her, or to her correspondents as I think some clippings> were sent from England, to note which newspaper or what date. It was> the information that was interesting.> Rather difficult to know how to source these as they're not in an> organised collection.> Cathy>> Original Message ----> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com> Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may> get"lumps" for this)> Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 08:52:40 +0100>>>>>Pat,>>I'm trying not to split hairs on this but surely where the info was>>found is the repository and not the source. The source being the name>>of the original publication.>>>>Ron Ferguson>>_>>>>For Genealogy, Software and Social visit:>>http://www.fergys.co.uk>>*Over 650 Surnames from 11 Countries*>>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>>> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may>>get "lumps" for this)>>> Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 00:31:48 -0400>>>>>> Well, I agree when it comes to the final bibliography -- I'm just>>talking>>> about the source list name, which is simply for our convenience. I>>realize>>> I'm assuming this doesn't make it into the final bibliography, but>>come to>>> think about it -- I don't really know that.>>>>>> Anyway, I'm assuming also that Leg 7 will be a whole different>>ballgame.>>>>>> Though I do think you have to say WHERE you found the info-- for>>> UNidentified newspaper clippings, at least. (I don't think that>>would be>>> necessary for fully identified newspaper clippings -- at least if>>you're>>> positive they're correctly identified -- which would mean the>>newspaper name>>> and date and page number were part of the clipping.)>>>>>> Pat>>>>>>>>> - Original Message ->>> From: "TH">>> To:>>> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 10:20 PM>>> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may>>get>>> "lumps" for this)>>>>>>>>>>I find it odd that people would source obituaries and news articles>>found>>>> between the pages of a bible differ
Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Well, I want to thank everyone for their suggestions on this. I have to finish going through this bible and decide just which way I will go with. I really like this group. You get a good discussion going and you can see the differing opinions (all valid, mind you). Although things get a bit intense sometimes, mostly you get a really good exchange of ideas. One thing I am currious about Pat, with your way, do you EVER have a need to use citations, or do you wind up using them for a different function? Tim - Original Message From: TH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 9:07:16 AM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) "In this particular instance the name of the repository of the original "source" can only be the physical location of the Bible since the original newspaper source itelf is likely to be found in more than one library and NONE of those is where the researcher found the article. (Unless s/he did some double checking.)" Double-checking isn't something we do, huh? Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz 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
Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
"In this particular instance the name of the repository of the original "source" can only be the physical location of the Bible since the original newspaper source itelf is likely to be found in more than one library and NONE of those is where the researcher found the article. (Unless s/he did some double checking.)" Double-checking isn't something we do, huh? On 9/22/07, Pat Hickin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well maybe both are "where"? If someone says I read it in the NY Times > that's a "where" kind of statement and one could have read it while > sitting > on a park bench. > > I rarely in scholarly bibliographies see a repository for newspaper > articles > or anything else that is published, though I can imagine that if the > newspaper was old and rare someone may manage to include that info. > > In this particular instance the name of the repository of the original > "source" can only be the physical location of the Bible since the original > newspaper source itelf is likely to be found in more than one library and > NONE of those is where the researcher found the article. (Unless s/he did > some double checking.) Ordinarily repositories are NOT given for > published > items (except perhaps if they're rare). > > Pat > > > > > - Original Message - > From: "ronald ferguson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 3:52 AM > Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get > "lumps" for this) > > > > Pat, > I'm trying not to split hairs on this but surely where the info was found > is > the repository and not the source. The source being the name of the > original > publication. > > Ron Ferguson > _ > > For Genealogy, Software and Social visit: > http://www.fergys.co.uk > *Over 650 Surnames from 11 Countries* > 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 > > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get > > "lumps" for this) > > Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 00:31:48 -0400 > > > > Well, I agree when it comes to the final bibliography -- I'm just > talking > > about the source list name, which is simply for our convenience. I > realize > > I'm assuming this doesn't make it into the final bibliography, but come > to > > think about it -- I don't really know that. > > > > Anyway, I'm assuming also that Leg 7 will be a whole different ballgame. > > > > Though I do think you have to say WHERE you found the info-- for > > UNidentified newspaper clippings, at least. (I don't think that would be > > necessary for fully identified newspaper clippings -- at least if you're > > positive they're correctly identified -- which would mean the newspaper > > name > > and date and page number were part of the clipping.) > > > > Pat > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "TH" > > To: > > Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 10:20 PM > > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get > > "lumps" for this) > > > > > >>I find it odd that people would source obituaries and news articles > found > >> between the pages of a bible differently than similar items located in > a > >> notebook or filing cabinet. Why not take the newspaper items out of the > >> Bible and file them with the rest of your obituaries and news articles? > >> AFter all, the newspapers are the source, not where the articles are > >> "filed." > >> > > > _ > Celeb spotting – Play CelebMashup and win cool prizes > https://www.celebmashup.com > > > 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 > > > -- Thad Evotee [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Well maybe both are "where"? If someone says I read it in the NY Times that's a "where" kind of statement and one could have read it while sitting on a park bench. I rarely in scholarly bibliographies see a repository for newspaper articles or anything else that is published, though I can imagine that if the newspaper was old and rare someone may manage to include that info. In this particular instance the name of the repository of the original "source" can only be the physical location of the Bible since the original newspaper source itelf is likely to be found in more than one library and NONE of those is where the researcher found the article. (Unless s/he did some double checking.) Ordinarily repositories are NOT given for published items (except perhaps if they're rare). Pat - Original Message - From: "ronald ferguson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 3:52 AM Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Pat, I'm trying not to split hairs on this but surely where the info was found is the repository and not the source. The source being the name of the original publication. Ron Ferguson _ For Genealogy, Software and Social visit: http://www.fergys.co.uk *Over 650 Surnames from 11 Countries* 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 Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 00:31:48 -0400 Well, I agree when it comes to the final bibliography -- I'm just talking about the source list name, which is simply for our convenience. I realize I'm assuming this doesn't make it into the final bibliography, but come to think about it -- I don't really know that. Anyway, I'm assuming also that Leg 7 will be a whole different ballgame. Though I do think you have to say WHERE you found the info-- for UNidentified newspaper clippings, at least. (I don't think that would be necessary for fully identified newspaper clippings -- at least if you're positive they're correctly identified -- which would mean the newspaper name and date and page number were part of the clipping.) Pat ----- Original Message ----- From: "TH" To: Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 10:20 PM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) I find it odd that people would source obituaries and news articles found between the pages of a bible differently than similar items located in a notebook or filing cabinet. Why not take the newspaper items out of the Bible and file them with the rest of your obituaries and news articles? AFter all, the newspapers are the source, not where the articles are "filed." _ Celeb spotting – Play CelebMashup and win cool prizes https://www.celebmashup.com 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
Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Then uses Moses as the source. On 9/21/07, Jennifer Crockett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Tim said the announcements were PASTED onto pages of the Bible, > not found between the pages. > > Jennifer > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > TH > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2007 12:21 PM > To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may > get "lumps" for this) > > I find it odd that people wouldsource obituaries and news > articles found between the pages of a bible differently than > similar itemslocated in a notebook or filing cabinet. Why not > take the newspaper items out of the Bible and file them with the > rest of your obituaries and news articles? AFter all, the > newspapers are the source, not where the articles are "filed." > > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Tim Willis" < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 9:02 AM > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may > get > "lumps" for this) > > there are also copies of obituaries and > wedding announcements etc pasted onto certain pages > > > > > 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 > > > -- Thad Evotee [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get"lumps" for this)
Hi Ron, That's true - but your family must have been better than mine if you haven't hit this problem of unidentified newspaper clippings. The only clues are their content and where they were found. One of my great grandmother was a great clipper and sticker of newspaper bits of news and notices about family and friends as well as other things that caught her interest. The only date indication is the date of any deaths she happens to note in between them or mentioned in the articles. There is no indication which newspapers or magazines she is clipping unless the clipping itself happens to include the page headers and that is really rare. So I reference the exercise book of clippings as the only practical solution. It would take hours of research (make that weeks) to track down the actual newspapers even though I know many of them will be the South Australian newspapers. My grandmother also put aside some newspaper clippings. It also never occurred to her, or to her correspondents as I think some clippings were sent from England, to note which newspaper or what date. It was the information that was interesting. Rather difficult to know how to source these as they're not in an organised collection. Cathy Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get"lumps" for this) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 08:52:40 +0100 > >Pat, >I'm trying not to split hairs on this but surely where the info was >found is the repository and not the source. The source being the name >of the original publication. > >Ron Ferguson >_ > >For Genealogy, Software and Social visit: >http://www.fergys.co.uk >*Over 650 Surnames from 11 Countries* >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 >> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may >get "lumps" for this) >> Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 00:31:48 -0400 >> >> Well, I agree when it comes to the final bibliography -- I'm just >talking >> about the source list name, which is simply for our convenience. I >realize >> I'm assuming this doesn't make it into the final bibliography, but >come to >> think about it -- I don't really know that. >> >> Anyway, I'm assuming also that Leg 7 will be a whole different >ballgame. >> >> Though I do think you have to say WHERE you found the info-- for >> UNidentified newspaper clippings, at least. (I don't think that >would be >> necessary for fully identified newspaper clippings -- at least if >you're >> positive they're correctly identified -- which would mean the >newspaper name >> and date and page number were part of the clipping.) >> >> Pat >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "TH" >> To: >> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 10:20 PM >> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may >get >> "lumps" for this) >> >> >>>I find it odd that people would source obituaries and news articles >found >>> between the pages of a bible differently than similar items >located in a >>> notebook or filing cabinet. Why not take the newspaper items out >of the >>> Bible and file them with the rest of your obituaries and news >articles? >>> AFter all, the newspapers are the source, not where the articles >are >>> "filed." >>> > > >_ >Celeb spotting Play CelebMashup and win cool prizes >https://www.celebmashup.com > > >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
RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Pat, I'm trying not to split hairs on this but surely where the info was found is the repository and not the source. The source being the name of the original publication. Ron Ferguson _ For Genealogy, Software and Social visit: http://www.fergys.co.uk *Over 650 Surnames from 11 Countries* 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 > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" > for this) > Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 00:31:48 -0400 > > Well, I agree when it comes to the final bibliography -- I'm just talking > about the source list name, which is simply for our convenience. I realize > I'm assuming this doesn't make it into the final bibliography, but come to > think about it -- I don't really know that. > > Anyway, I'm assuming also that Leg 7 will be a whole different ballgame. > > Though I do think you have to say WHERE you found the info-- for > UNidentified newspaper clippings, at least. (I don't think that would be > necessary for fully identified newspaper clippings -- at least if you're > positive they're correctly identified -- which would mean the newspaper name > and date and page number were part of the clipping.) > > Pat > > > - Original Message - > From: "TH" > To: > Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 10:20 PM > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get > "lumps" for this) > > >>I find it odd that people would source obituaries and news articles found >> between the pages of a bible differently than similar items located in a >> notebook or filing cabinet. Why not take the newspaper items out of the >> Bible and file them with the rest of your obituaries and news articles? >> AFter all, the newspapers are the source, not where the articles are >> "filed." >> _ Celeb spotting – Play CelebMashup and win cool prizes https://www.celebmashup.com 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
Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Well, I agree when it comes to the final bibliography -- I'm just talking about the source list name, which is simply for our convenience. I realize I'm assuming this doesn't make it into the final bibliography, but come to think about it -- I don't really know that. Anyway, I'm assuming also that Leg 7 will be a whole different ballgame. Though I do think you have to say WHERE you found the info-- for UNidentified newspaper clippings, at least. (I don't think that would be necessary for fully identified newspaper clippings -- at least if you're positive they're correctly identified -- which would mean the newspaper name and date and page number were part of the clipping.) Pat - Original Message - From: "TH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 10:20 PM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) I find it odd that people would source obituaries and news articles found between the pages of a bible differently than similar items located in a notebook or filing cabinet. Why not take the newspaper items out of the Bible and file them with the rest of your obituaries and news articles? AFter all, the newspapers are the source, not where the articles are "filed." On 9/21/07, Pat Hickin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Good question, Tim, Well, this is one of those instances that don't fit neatly into any kind of category. And I thought Janis had a lot of good ideas and suggestions. For regular handwritten entries I'd use "Doe Family Bible-hand-written entry" for the Master source list name. And I THINK I'd use "Doe Family Bible-newspaper clipping" as the "source list name" for newspaper clippings. That way the two genealogical uses of the Bible would show up right next to each other in the "Master source list names." To tell the truth, I'm not sure how I'd handle it from there -- I like the idea of the title of the individual article going in the title slot, followed by the name of the newspaper (or "unidentiied newspaper clipping), with place and date of publication in the "Publication Facts." Of course, then you'd have several different entries all with the same "source list name" -- I don't like that idea-- so-o-o-o I'd probably have "Doe Family Bible-newspaper clipping--Brown m White" OR "Doe Family Bible-newspaper clipping--Brown, H. obit." Or perhaps I'd say "Doe Family Bible-newspaper clipping--obit--Brown, H" and "Doe Family Bible-newspaper clipping--marr--Brown-White" if I wanted the marriages together and the obits together. In the detail space for newspaper clippings, I'd put in section & page # (if known) or n.p. if I didn't know the page #--or I might put in both the newspaper p# and the location of the clipping in the Bible. As long as I'm in the research stage I just want to be able to find what I've used (and for whom) as quickly and easily as possible. Also I'm thinking that how I handle the sources while this is a work in process is different from how I'd want things to appear in a final bibliography. Really, I wish Legacy would give us an opportunity to sort our sources in several different ways -- by "source list name," by author, by title, by source type, and by family and/or location (for censuses). Pat - Original Message - From: "Tim Willis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 9:02 AM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Very interesting! So Pat... as a splitter, how would you handle the following: I have copies of pages from a family bible, and asside from the handwritten births, marriages and deaths, there are also copies of obituaries and wedding announcements etc pasted onto certain pages. I think of all of these as separate pieces of information (or citations), but they are all included in the main source. If you were sourcing these things, would you split out each citation as it's own source? I.E. Havens, William P. - Obituary in Hill Family Bible Havens, William P. - Other information from another different source.. Hill, Richard - Obituary in Hill Family Bible etc... (actually the "etc" would sort first on the source list) If so, how would you tie all of these together so that you know they all came from the Hill family bible? Use the bible as a repository? My repository for this would have been my 103 year old Great Aunt.. as she possess the bible pages.. Tim - Original Message From: Pat Hickin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:22:14 PM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitt
RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Tim said the announcements were PASTED onto pages of the Bible, not found between the pages. Jennifer From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TH Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2007 12:21 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) I find it odd that people would source obituaries and news articles found between the pages of a bible differently than similar items located in a notebook or filing cabinet. Why not take the newspaper items out of the Bible and file them with the rest of your obituaries and news articles? AFter all, the newspapers are the source, not where the articles are "filed." - Original Message - From: "Tim Willis" < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 9:02 AM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) there are also copies of obituaries and wedding announcements etc pasted onto certain pages 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
Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
I find it odd that people would source obituaries and news articles found between the pages of a bible differently than similar items located in a notebook or filing cabinet. Why not take the newspaper items out of the Bible and file them with the rest of your obituaries and news articles? AFter all, the newspapers are the source, not where the articles are "filed." On 9/21/07, Pat Hickin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Good question, Tim, > > Well, this is one of those instances that don't fit neatly into any kind > of > category. And I thought Janis had a lot of good ideas and suggestions. > > For regular handwritten entries I'd use "Doe Family Bible-hand-written > entry" for the Master source list name. And I THINK I'd use "Doe Family > Bible-newspaper clipping" as the "source list name" for newspaper > clippings. > That way the two genealogical uses of the Bible would show up right next > to > each other in the "Master source list names." > > To tell the truth, I'm not sure how I'd handle it from there -- I like the > idea of the title of the individual article going in the title slot, > followed by the name of the newspaper (or "unidentiied newspaper > clipping), > with place and date of publication in the "Publication Facts." > > Of course, then you'd have several different entries all with the same > "source list name" -- I don't like that idea-- so-o-o-o I'd probably have > "Doe Family Bible-newspaper clipping--Brown m White" OR "Doe Family > Bible-newspaper clipping--Brown, H. obit." Or perhaps I'd say "Doe Family > Bible-newspaper clipping--obit--Brown, H" and "Doe Family Bible-newspaper > clipping--marr--Brown-White" if I wanted the marriages together and the > obits together. > > In the detail space for newspaper clippings, I'd put in section & page # > (if > known) or n.p. if I didn't know the page #--or I might put in both the > newspaper p# and the location of the clipping in the Bible. > > As long as I'm in the research stage I just want to be able to find what > I've used (and for whom) as quickly and easily as possible. > > Also I'm thinking that how I handle the sources while this is a work in > process is different from how I'd want things to appear in a final > bibliography. > > Really, I wish Legacy would give us an opportunity to sort our sources in > several different ways -- by "source list name," by author, by title, by > source type, and by family and/or location (for censuses). > > Pat > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Tim Willis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 9:02 AM > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get > "lumps" for this) > > > Very interesting! > > So Pat... as a splitter, how would you handle the following: > > I have copies of pages from a family bible, and asside from the > handwritten > births, marriages and deaths, there are also copies of obituaries and > wedding announcements etc pasted onto certain pages. I think of all of > these as separate pieces of information (or citations), but they are all > included in the main source. If you were sourcing these things, would you > split out each citation as it's own source? I.E. > > Havens, William P. - Obituary in Hill Family Bible > Havens, William P. - Other information from another different source.. > Hill, Richard - Obituary in Hill Family Bible > etc... (actually the "etc" would sort first on the source list) > > If so, how would you tie all of these together so that you know they all > came from the Hill family bible? Use the bible as a repository? My > repository for this would have been my 103 year old Great Aunt.. as she > possess the bible pages.. > > Tim > > - Original Message > From: Pat Hickin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com > Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:22:14 PM > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get > "lumps" for this) > > > Kirsten wrote> > Another [reason not to split] ]is this: If you enter every record as a > separate master source, you're retyping much of the same information over > . > . . > > Kirsten, No,not at all -- If I had to do that I'd be a lumper too! > > To avoid th retyping, > You simply go to your master source list and > Highlight a source very similar to the new source you want to enter. > Click "Edit." > Make any changes necessary to m
Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Good question, Tim, Well, this is one of those instances that don't fit neatly into any kind of category. And I thought Janis had a lot of good ideas and suggestions. For regular handwritten entries I'd use "Doe Family Bible-hand-written entry" for the Master source list name. And I THINK I'd use "Doe Family Bible-newspaper clipping" as the "source list name" for newspaper clippings. That way the two genealogical uses of the Bible would show up right next to each other in the "Master source list names." To tell the truth, I'm not sure how I'd handle it from there -- I like the idea of the title of the individual article going in the title slot, followed by the name of the newspaper (or "unidentiied newspaper clipping), with place and date of publication in the "Publication Facts." Of course, then you'd have several different entries all with the same "source list name" -- I don't like that idea-- so-o-o-o I'd probably have "Doe Family Bible-newspaper clipping--Brown m White" OR "Doe Family Bible-newspaper clipping--Brown, H. obit." Or perhaps I'd say "Doe Family Bible-newspaper clipping--obit--Brown, H" and "Doe Family Bible-newspaper clipping--marr--Brown-White" if I wanted the marriages together and the obits together. In the detail space for newspaper clippings, I'd put in section & page # (if known) or n.p. if I didn't know the page #--or I might put in both the newspaper p# and the location of the clipping in the Bible. As long as I'm in the research stage I just want to be able to find what I've used (and for whom) as quickly and easily as possible. Also I'm thinking that how I handle the sources while this is a work in process is different from how I'd want things to appear in a final bibliography. Really, I wish Legacy would give us an opportunity to sort our sources in several different ways -- by "source list name," by author, by title, by source type, and by family and/or location (for censuses). Pat ----- Original Message - From: "Tim Willis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 9:02 AM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Very interesting! So Pat... as a splitter, how would you handle the following: I have copies of pages from a family bible, and asside from the handwritten births, marriages and deaths, there are also copies of obituaries and wedding announcements etc pasted onto certain pages. I think of all of these as separate pieces of information (or citations), but they are all included in the main source. If you were sourcing these things, would you split out each citation as it's own source? I.E. Havens, William P. - Obituary in Hill Family Bible Havens, William P. - Other information from another different source.. Hill, Richard - Obituary in Hill Family Bible etc... (actually the "etc" would sort first on the source list) If so, how would you tie all of these together so that you know they all came from the Hill family bible? Use the bible as a repository? My repository for this would have been my 103 year old Great Aunt.. as she possess the bible pages.. Tim ----- Original Message From: Pat Hickin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:22:14 PM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Kirsten wrote> Another [reason not to split] ]is this: If you enter every record as a separate master source, you're retyping much of the same information over . . . Kirsten, No,not at all -- If I had to do that I'd be a lumper too! To avoid th retyping, You simply go to your master source list and Highlight a source very similar to the new source you want to enter. Click "Edit." Make any changes necessary to make the OLD SOURCE into what you want your NEW SOURCE to say. Click "Save" At that point you get a little window that says (In the blue heading): "You are about to make changes to a master source." There are 2 options (in addition to a 'Cancel' button): 1. Apply the changes to ALL references of this master source[.] 2. Apply the changes to a NEW copy of this master source[.] [For no. 1 the 'A' in ALL is underlined; for no. 2 the 'N' in NEW is underlined.] So for your new source, you simply hold down the Alt key and hit 'N.' It couldn't be simpler. (Actually, I think no. 2 should be reworded to say: "Apply the changes to create a NEW master source." ) The need to do VERY LITTLE RETYPING is precisely one of the main reasons why I like being a "splitter." That and the fact that it is so QUICK a
Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
I can't think of a single valid reason for splitting. :-) However, I'm accomplished with Access and cherish the ability to retrieve a wide variety of information quickly from 1 database. The key with any database is consistency. A database is valueless if you can't extract information relatively painlessly. FWIW just one more opinion. Alice - Original Message - From: "Pat Hickin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:22 PM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Kirsten wrote> Another [reason not to split] ]is this: If you enter every record as a separate master source, you're retyping much of the same information over . . . Kirsten, No,not at all -- If I had to do that I'd be a lumper too! To avoid th retyping, You simply go to your master source list and Highlight a source very similar to the new source you want to enter. Click "Edit." Make any changes necessary to make the OLD SOURCE into what you want your NEW SOURCE to say. Click "Save" At that point you get a little window that says (In the blue heading): "You are about to make changes to a master source." There are 2 options (in addition to a 'Cancel' button): 1. Apply the changes to ALL references of this master source[.] 2. Apply the changes to a NEW copy of this master source[.] [For no. 1 the 'A' in ALL is underlined; for no. 2 the 'N' in NEW is underlined.] So for your new source, you simply hold down the Alt key and hit 'N.' It couldn't be simpler. (Actually, I think no. 2 should be reworded to say: "Apply the changes to create a NEW master source." ) The need to do VERY LITTLE RETYPING is precisely one of the main reasons why I like being a "splitter." That and the fact that it is so QUICK and EASY to see (by scrolling through the master source list) whether I've already used this PARTICULAR source AND (via the Option button) the people I've used it with. Of course, you DO have to be VERY careful to chose 'A' or 'N' correctly! Pat ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kirsten Bowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 2:22 PM Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Pat: Lumping vs. splitting has been discussed both in regard to databases over all, i.e. splitting parents and their respective ancestors into two databases, and also regarding master sources. I assume you're referring to lumping or splitting master sources and that's not a question of either/or, but one of degrees. I'm pretty much of a "lumper" with master sources, and with a database of just under 7,000 names I still have about 300 sources. If they were all split, there would be thousands and the list would be unmanageable. So that's one argument. Another is this: If you enter every record as a separate master source, you're retyping much of the same information over and over. An example would be US census images found at Ancestry.com. You could enter each image as a master source (what a nightmare!), or extreme lumping would be to call them all something like "Census." A middle-of-the-road approach would be to group them under Census and split them by year or state or even county. Hope this helps. Kirsten -----Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Pat Hickin Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:21 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Is there a previous email or source on Legacy in which someone has listed the advantages of lumping? As an ardent splitter, I can't think of ANY!! :-) Pat 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 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
Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
IMHO, it used to be advantageous in the days of $L$L$L for hard drive space to be compact.(I bought 10G on drive for $249.00 many years ago). Since the multi G drives, it is the cheapest per Gig ever. We no longer worry about how many K's. Rich in LA CA > Is there a previous email or source on Legacy in > which someone has listed > the advantages of lumping? As an ardent splitter, I > can't think of ANY!! > :-) > > Pat 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
RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Tim, until Pat replies, allow me to say that I think you have a good understanding of the Sourcing concept. LUG members have lots of great ways to do this, Here is how I would document your Bible. Repository: Great Aunt's Name, Address, etc. She may have more than one source so only the location detail is needed here. Source List Name: Hill Family Bible Author: Probably your Great Aunt, list up to 3 Authors Title: The Holy Bible - Periodical Entries of the Hill Family's Births, Deaths and Marriages Publication Facts: List the Address, City,State, Country where the Bible entries were documented. Now , add some info into the "Text of Source" tab, and save it. Now attach this Source to someone and run a family group, or individual report and see how the source citation appears. If it does not read correctly, go back and edit the source and detail until the source citation prints out the way you want it. Joe _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Willis Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 6:03 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Very interesting! So Pat... as a splitter, how would you handle the following: I have copies of pages from a family bible, and asside from the handwritten births, marriages and deaths, there are also copies of obituaries and wedding announcements etc pasted onto certain pages. I think of all of these as separate pieces of information (or citations), but they are all included in the main source. If you were sourcing these things, would you split out each citation as it's own source? I.E. Havens, William P. - Obituary in Hill Family Bible Havens, William P. - Other information from another different source.. Hill, Richard - Obituary in Hill Family Bible etc... (actually the "etc" would sort first on the source list) If so, how would you tie all of these together so that you know they all came from the Hill family bible? Use the bible as a repository? My repository for this would have been my 103 year old Great Aunt.. as she possess the bible pages.. Tim - Original Message From: Pat Hickin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:22:14 PM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Kirsten wrote> Another [reason not to split] ]is this: If you enter every record as a separate master source, you're retyping much of the same information over . . . Kirsten, No,not at all -- If I had to do that I'd be a lumper too! To avoid th retyping, You simply go to your master source list and Highlight a source very similar to the new source you want to enter. Click "Edit." Make any changes necessary to make the OLD SOURCE into what you want your NEW SOURCE to say. Click "Save" At that point you get a little window that says (In the blue heading): "You are about to make changes to a master source." There are 2 options (in addition to a 'Cancel' button): 1. Apply the changes to ALL references of this master source[.] 2. Apply the changes to a NEW copy of this master source[.] [For no. 1 the 'A' in ALL is underlined; for no. 2 the 'N' in NEW is underlined.] So for your new source, you simply hold down the Alt key and hit 'N.' It couldn't be simpler. (Actually, I think no. 2 should be reworded to say: "Apply the changes to create a NEW master source." ) The need to do VERY LITTLE RETYPING is precisely one of the main reasons why I like being a "splitter." That and the fact that it is so QUICK and EASY to see (by scrolling through the master source list) whether I've already used this PARTICULAR source AND (via the Option button) the people I've used it with. Of course, you DO have to be VERY careful to chose 'A' or 'N' correctly! Pat ----- Original Message - From: "Kirsten Bowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 2:22 PM Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) > Pat: > > Lumping vs. splitting has been discussed both in regard to databases over > all, i.e. splitting parents and their respective ancestors into two > databases, and also regarding master sources. I assume you're referring > to > lumping or splitting master sources and that's not a question of > either/or, > but one of degrees. > > I'm pretty much of a "lumper" with master sources, and with a database of > just under 7,000 names I still have about 300 sources. If they were all > split, there would be thousands and the list would be unmanageable. So > that'
Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Very interesting! So Pat... as a splitter, how would you handle the following: I have copies of pages from a family bible, and asside from the handwritten births, marriages and deaths, there are also copies of obituaries and wedding announcements etc pasted onto certain pages. I think of all of these as separate pieces of information (or citations), but they are all included in the main source. If you were sourcing these things, would you split out each citation as it's own source? I.E. Havens, William P. - Obituary in Hill Family Bible Havens, William P. - Other information from another different source.. Hill, Richard - Obituary in Hill Family Bible etc... (actually the "etc" would sort first on the source list) If so, how would you tie all of these together so that you know they all came from the Hill family bible? Use the bible as a repository? My repository for this would have been my 103 year old Great Aunt.. as she possess the bible pages.. Tim - Original Message From: Pat Hickin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:22:14 PM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Kirsten wrote> Another [reason not to split] ]is this: If you enter every record as a separate master source, you're retyping much of the same information over . . . Kirsten, No,not at all -- If I had to do that I'd be a lumper too! To avoid th retyping, You simply go to your master source list and Highlight a source very similar to the new source you want to enter. Click "Edit." Make any changes necessary to make the OLD SOURCE into what you want your NEW SOURCE to say. Click "Save" At that point you get a little window that says (In the blue heading): "You are about to make changes to a master source." There are 2 options (in addition to a 'Cancel' button): 1. Apply the changes to ALL references of this master source[.] 2. Apply the changes to a NEW copy of this master source[.] [For no. 1 the 'A' in ALL is underlined; for no. 2 the 'N' in NEW is underlined.] So for your new source, you simply hold down the Alt key and hit 'N.' It couldn't be simpler. (Actually, I think no. 2 should be reworded to say: "Apply the changes to create a NEW master source." ) The need to do VERY LITTLE RETYPING is precisely one of the main reasons why I like being a "splitter." That and the fact that it is so QUICK and EASY to see (by scrolling through the master source list) whether I've already used this PARTICULAR source AND (via the Option button) the people I've used it with. Of course, you DO have to be VERY careful to chose 'A' or 'N' correctly! Pat ----- Original Message - From: "Kirsten Bowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 2:22 PM Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) > Pat: > > Lumping vs. splitting has been discussed both in regard to databases over > all, i.e. splitting parents and their respective ancestors into two > databases, and also regarding master sources. I assume you're referring > to > lumping or splitting master sources and that's not a question of > either/or, > but one of degrees. > > I'm pretty much of a "lumper" with master sources, and with a database of > just under 7,000 names I still have about 300 sources. If they were all > split, there would be thousands and the list would be unmanageable. So > that's one argument. Another is this: If you enter every record as a > separate master source, you're retyping much of the same information over > and over. An example would be US census images found at Ancestry.com. > You > could enter each image as a master source (what a nightmare!), or extreme > lumping would be to call them all something like "Census." A > middle-of-the-road approach would be to group them under Census and split > them by year or state or even county. > > Hope this helps. > > Kirsten > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Pat > Hickin > Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:21 AM > To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get > "lumps" for this) > > > Is there a previous email or source on Legacy in which someone has listed > the advantages of lumping? As an ardent splitter, I can't think of ANY!! > :-) > > Pat > > > > > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > Archived messages: >
RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Thanks for that explanation, Pat. I was always a bit wary to enter that dark place following a disaster with entering 5 sources simultaneously. Which highlights my only concern about Legacy: No "I want to go back one place before I did that awful thing!!" button. Regards Tom -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pat Hickin Sent: Friday, 21 September 2007 11:22 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Kirsten wrote> Another [reason not to split] ]is this: If you enter every record as a separate master source, you're retyping much of the same information over . . . Kirsten, No,not at all -- If I had to do that I'd be a lumper too! To avoid th retyping, You simply go to your master source list and Highlight a source very similar to the new source you want to enter. Click "Edit." Make any changes necessary to make the OLD SOURCE into what you want your NEW SOURCE to say. Click "Save" At that point you get a little window that says (In the blue heading): "You are about to make changes to a master source." There are 2 options (in addition to a 'Cancel' button): 1. Apply the changes to ALL references of this master source[.] 2. Apply the changes to a NEW copy of this master source[.] [For no. 1 the 'A' in ALL is underlined; for no. 2 the 'N' in NEW is underlined.] So for your new source, you simply hold down the Alt key and hit 'N.' It couldn't be simpler. (Actually, I think no. 2 should be reworded to say: "Apply the changes to create a NEW master source." ) The need to do VERY LITTLE RETYPING is precisely one of the main reasons why I like being a "splitter." That and the fact that it is so QUICK and EASY to see (by scrolling through the master source list) whether I've already used this PARTICULAR source AND (via the Option button) the people I've used it with. Of course, you DO have to be VERY careful to chose 'A' or 'N' correctly! Pat -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 364 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len 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
Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Kirsten wrote> Another [reason not to split] ]is this: If you enter every record as a separate master source, you're retyping much of the same information over . . . Kirsten, No,not at all -- If I had to do that I'd be a lumper too! To avoid th retyping, You simply go to your master source list and Highlight a source very similar to the new source you want to enter. Click "Edit." Make any changes necessary to make the OLD SOURCE into what you want your NEW SOURCE to say. Click "Save" At that point you get a little window that says (In the blue heading): "You are about to make changes to a master source." There are 2 options (in addition to a 'Cancel' button): 1. Apply the changes to ALL references of this master source[.] 2. Apply the changes to a NEW copy of this master source[.] [For no. 1 the 'A' in ALL is underlined; for no. 2 the 'N' in NEW is underlined.] So for your new source, you simply hold down the Alt key and hit 'N.' It couldn't be simpler. (Actually, I think no. 2 should be reworded to say: "Apply the changes to create a NEW master source." ) The need to do VERY LITTLE RETYPING is precisely one of the main reasons why I like being a "splitter." That and the fact that it is so QUICK and EASY to see (by scrolling through the master source list) whether I've already used this PARTICULAR source AND (via the Option button) the people I've used it with. Of course, you DO have to be VERY careful to chose 'A' or 'N' correctly! Pat - Original Message - From: "Kirsten Bowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 2:22 PM Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Pat: Lumping vs. splitting has been discussed both in regard to databases over all, i.e. splitting parents and their respective ancestors into two databases, and also regarding master sources. I assume you're referring to lumping or splitting master sources and that's not a question of either/or, but one of degrees. I'm pretty much of a "lumper" with master sources, and with a database of just under 7,000 names I still have about 300 sources. If they were all split, there would be thousands and the list would be unmanageable. So that's one argument. Another is this: If you enter every record as a separate master source, you're retyping much of the same information over and over. An example would be US census images found at Ancestry.com. You could enter each image as a master source (what a nightmare!), or extreme lumping would be to call them all something like "Census." A middle-of-the-road approach would be to group them under Census and split them by year or state or even county. Hope this helps. Kirsten -Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Pat Hickin Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:21 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Is there a previous email or source on Legacy in which someone has listed the advantages of lumping? As an ardent splitter, I can't think of ANY!! :-) Pat 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
RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
I have a database of only 4,000 - and master sources of almost 1,000. I like being able to improve/change/add to the source once, and know that it has made it to all of the places where it is applicable. As far as retyping goes, it doesn't have to be that way. I (at the suggestion of someone on this list - wish I could remember to give credit) have set up some templates. If I want the 1850 census, I go to that template, and I just have to fill in the county, state, city/township, micropublication and roll. I don't have to remember what order I like it in, to keep it consistent. Then save as a new version of that source. To make splitting work well, you have to be good and consistent in the naming of your sources (the nickname or "in-house" name). I have many sources that are geographically sorted, many that are family name sorted (last, first then hyphen and subject: Walker, HR - homestead proof) and a few that are sorted in other ways. It isn't that big a deal to have a lot of sources, if you make sure that you nickname the source by your most intuitive search. I would never label something "Center Hill Cemetery - Howell Co MO"; it would always be Missouri, Howell - Cemetery, Center Hill." That way all of my Howell Co cemeteries will sort together - easy to scroll and find the right one. It will be (as I have said so many times, so forgive me) really interesting to see what happens with sourcing in the upcoming version of Legacy. It may make lumping and splitting less of an issue. Janis 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
RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Pat: Lumping vs. splitting has been discussed both in regard to databases over all, i.e. splitting parents and their respective ancestors into two databases, and also regarding master sources. I assume you're referring to lumping or splitting master sources and that's not a question of either/or, but one of degrees. I'm pretty much of a "lumper" with master sources, and with a database of just under 7,000 names I still have about 300 sources. If they were all split, there would be thousands and the list would be unmanageable. So that's one argument. Another is this: If you enter every record as a separate master source, you're retyping much of the same information over and over. An example would be US census images found at Ancestry.com. You could enter each image as a master source (what a nightmare!), or extreme lumping would be to call them all something like "Census." A middle-of-the-road approach would be to group them under Census and split them by year or state or even county. Hope this helps. Kirsten -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Pat Hickin Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:21 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Is there a previous email or source on Legacy in which someone has listed the advantages of lumping? As an ardent splitter, I can't think of ANY!! :-) Pat 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
Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Actually, I can probably figure out a way to do this in Access. I was just hoping that I had missed an "easy way" of doing it in Legacy! Sounds simple enough (like most complex things); if you can change things on a source record and have it apply to all instances, that you could do the same thing with a citation. But it appears that citations seem to be multiply defined, where a source is only defined once. Is that true? And, to be honest, with all the talk of file systems and lumping and splitting, I was also hoping that someone else has come accross this sort of thing and maybe had a solution. Tim - Original Message From: joe Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 10:48:31 AM Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) It seems that a lot of Legacy users inquire, request, and need the ability to run custom queries of the Legacy database. Maybe a module could be added to Legacy that resembles MS Access. Joe Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/ 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
Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Is there a previous email or source on Legacy in which someone has listed the advantages of lumping? As an ardent splitter, I can't think of ANY!! :-) Pat - Original Message - From: "Tim Rosenlof" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 11:13 AM Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) This is sent to the wrong Tim. I do believe you want Tim Willis. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cathy Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 6:05 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Hi Tim, Currently it is extremely difficult to edit Source Citation details unless you can search and replace on a particular section. You can't easily add a File ID to the Source Detail or a picture etc. You can't even get a list of people using that particular source detail - only a list of those using the Master Source, and by tagging it and using the Source Report, a printout of what is actually attached to each person. That is the only advantage I can see to being a Source Splitter. I'm not sure whether this will change with the revamp of sources in Legacy 7. There's great advantage in filling in all the relevant sections in the source detail when you first attach the source. Cheers, Cathy At 07:07 AM 20/09/2007, you wrote: I have been toying around with one file system or another, and I am thinking of using the File ID under Citation to identify the location of a copy of a source (say something like.. 'File 123 Located in MRIN file 456', or MRIN456-123..something like that) and have it available for reports. Say this citation already exists in different places in your database, but nothing currently appears in the File ID. And you want to add the location to each citation that you know uses this source (which could cover many different people).. If you are a lumper, say the source is a Family Bible, and the citation is someone's obituary pasted to a page that you copied and filed with the "obituare" (the person who the obituary is about). It seems that if you are a splitter, The obituary in the family bible is all one source, so, you could easily add the location to the File ID on the source record, and when you click save, you have the option to save it where ever that source exists.. but if you are a lumper, it seems you can not do this with citations as they are linked to a specific event/individual.. Am I missing something here, or is there an easy way to add/detract from citations without having to find each place they exist? I see an option for find/replace that could include citation File ID, but it doesn't seem complex enough to add something like this. I suppose you could tag every one using the source, but in the case of the family bible, you would have many hits (47 in my case). Then you would have to weed through which ones are mentioned in the obituary... Any suggestions? Lumping along with a splitting headache, Tim Willis 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
RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
It seems that a lot of Legacy users inquire, request, and need the ability to run custom queries of the Legacy database. Maybe a module could be added to Legacy that resembles MS Access. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cathy Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 6:05 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Hi Tim, Currently it is extremely difficult to edit Source Citation details unless you can search and replace on a particular section. You can't easily add a File ID to the Source Detail or a picture etc. You can't even get a list of people using that particular source detail - only a list of those using the Master Source, and by tagging it and using the Source Report, a printout of what is actually attached to each person. That is the only advantage I can see to being a Source Splitter. I'm not sure whether this will change with the revamp of sources in Legacy 7. There's great advantage in filling in all the relevant sections in the source detail when you first attach the source. Cheers, Cathy At 07:07 AM 20/09/2007, you wrote: >I have been toying around with one file system or another, and I am >thinking of using the File ID under Citation to identify the >location of a copy of a source (say something like.. 'File 123 >Located in MRIN file 456', or MRIN456-123..something like that) and >have it available for reports. Say this citation already exists in >different places in your database, but nothing currently appears in >the File ID. And you want to add the location to each citation that >you know uses this source (which could cover many different >people).. If you are a lumper, say the source is a Family Bible, >and the citation is someone's obituary pasted to a page that you >copied and filed with the "obituare" (the person who the obituary is about). > >It seems that if you are a splitter, The obituary in the family >bible is all one source, so, you could easily add the location to >the File ID on the source record, and when you click save, you have >the option to save it where ever that source exists.. but if you are >a lumper, it seems you can not do this with citations as they are >linked to a specific event/individual.. > >Am I missing something here, or is there an easy way to add/detract >from citations without having to find each place they exist? I see >an option for find/replace that could include citation File ID, but >it doesn't seem complex enough to add something like this. I >suppose you could tag every one using the source, but in the case of >the family bible, you would have many hits (47 in my case). Then >you would have to weed through which ones are mentioned in the obituary... > >Any suggestions? > >Lumping along with a splitting headache, > >Tim Willis 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
Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Don't worry Tim, Tim got the message.. Tim - Original Message From: Tim Rosenlof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 11:13:51 AM Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) This is sent to the wrong Tim. I do believe you want Tim Willis. Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433 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
RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
This is sent to the wrong Tim. I do believe you want Tim Willis. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cathy Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 6:05 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this) Hi Tim, Currently it is extremely difficult to edit Source Citation details unless you can search and replace on a particular section. You can't easily add a File ID to the Source Detail or a picture etc. You can't even get a list of people using that particular source detail - only a list of those using the Master Source, and by tagging it and using the Source Report, a printout of what is actually attached to each person. That is the only advantage I can see to being a Source Splitter. I'm not sure whether this will change with the revamp of sources in Legacy 7. There's great advantage in filling in all the relevant sections in the source detail when you first attach the source. Cheers, Cathy At 07:07 AM 20/09/2007, you wrote: >I have been toying around with one file system or another, and I am >thinking of using the File ID under Citation to identify the >location of a copy of a source (say something like.. 'File 123 >Located in MRIN file 456', or MRIN456-123..something like that) and >have it available for reports. Say this citation already exists in >different places in your database, but nothing currently appears in >the File ID. And you want to add the location to each citation that >you know uses this source (which could cover many different >people).. If you are a lumper, say the source is a Family Bible, >and the citation is someone's obituary pasted to a page that you >copied and filed with the "obituare" (the person who the obituary is about). > >It seems that if you are a splitter, The obituary in the family >bible is all one source, so, you could easily add the location to >the File ID on the source record, and when you click save, you have >the option to save it where ever that source exists.. but if you are >a lumper, it seems you can not do this with citations as they are >linked to a specific event/individual.. > >Am I missing something here, or is there an easy way to add/detract >from citations without having to find each place they exist? I see >an option for find/replace that could include citation File ID, but >it doesn't seem complex enough to add something like this. I >suppose you could tag every one using the source, but in the case of >the family bible, you would have many hits (47 in my case). Then >you would have to weed through which ones are mentioned in the obituary... > >Any suggestions? > >Lumping along with a splitting headache, > >Tim Willis 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
Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
Hi Tim, Currently it is extremely difficult to edit Source Citation details unless you can search and replace on a particular section. You can't easily add a File ID to the Source Detail or a picture etc. You can't even get a list of people using that particular source detail - only a list of those using the Master Source, and by tagging it and using the Source Report, a printout of what is actually attached to each person. That is the only advantage I can see to being a Source Splitter. I'm not sure whether this will change with the revamp of sources in Legacy 7. There's great advantage in filling in all the relevant sections in the source detail when you first attach the source. Cheers, Cathy At 07:07 AM 20/09/2007, you wrote: I have been toying around with one file system or another, and I am thinking of using the File ID under Citation to identify the location of a copy of a source (say something like.. 'File 123 Located in MRIN file 456', or MRIN456-123..something like that) and have it available for reports. Say this citation already exists in different places in your database, but nothing currently appears in the File ID. And you want to add the location to each citation that you know uses this source (which could cover many different people).. If you are a lumper, say the source is a Family Bible, and the citation is someone's obituary pasted to a page that you copied and filed with the "obituare" (the person who the obituary is about). It seems that if you are a splitter, The obituary in the family bible is all one source, so, you could easily add the location to the File ID on the source record, and when you click save, you have the option to save it where ever that source exists.. but if you are a lumper, it seems you can not do this with citations as they are linked to a specific event/individual.. Am I missing something here, or is there an easy way to add/detract from citations without having to find each place they exist? I see an option for find/replace that could include citation File ID, but it doesn't seem complex enough to add something like this. I suppose you could tag every one using the source, but in the case of the family bible, you would have many hits (47 in my case). Then you would have to weed through which ones are mentioned in the obituary... Any suggestions? Lumping along with a splitting headache, Tim Willis 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
[LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get "lumps" for this)
I have been toying around with one file system or another, and I am thinking of using the File ID under Citation to identify the location of a copy of a source (say something like.. 'File 123 Located in MRIN file 456', or MRIN456-123..something like that) and have it available for reports. Say this citation already exists in different places in your database, but nothing currently appears in the File ID. And you want to add the location to each citation that you know uses this source (which could cover many different people).. If you are a lumper, say the source is a Family Bible, and the citation is someone's obituary pasted to a page that you copied and filed with the "obituare" (the person who the obituary is about). It seems that if you are a splitter, The obituary in the family bible is all one source, so, you could easily add the location to the File ID on the source record, and when you click save, you have the option to save it where ever that source exists.. but if you are a lumper, it seems you can not do this with citations as they are linked to a specific event/individual.. Am I missing something here, or is there an easy way to add/detract from citations without having to find each place they exist? I see an option for find/replace that could include citation File ID, but it doesn't seem complex enough to add something like this. I suppose you could tag every one using the source, but in the case of the family bible, you would have many hits (47 in my case). Then you would have to weed through which ones are mentioned in the obituary... Any suggestions? Lumping along with a splitting headache, Tim Willis Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/ 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
