RE: [LegacyUG] Source writer conversion tool

[ronald ferguson]

Frances,
 
You don't, the Help file is in advance of reality, it's not there yet.

 
I'm afraid it's a copy and paste operation and there are a number of ways of 
doing this in the archives - see URL at the end of this post (or any other).


Ron Ferguson

_

*New Tutorial* Using the GIMP Mask
http://www.fergys.co.uk/
View the Grimshaw Family Tree at:
http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/
For The Fergusons of N.W. England See:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/
_









> From: jenkins...@xtra.co.nz
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: [LegacyUG] Source writer conversion tool
> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:10:50 +1300
>
> Hi
> I have some sources in basic format whish i want to change to source writer
> format. The instructions are as follows: "
> Converting Your Source Citations
>
> The Source Template Conversion Tool is reached from the Master Source List
> by clicking the Options button and then choosing Source Template Conversion
> Tool from the submenu. " (legacy help file)
>
> When I click on options in Master source list I do not see Source Template
> conversion tool. Where do i find it?
>
>
>
> Frances
>
_
 25GB of FREE Online Storage – Find out more
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665320/direct/01/


Legacy User Group guidelines:
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer - Master Template Info question

[wba]

Thank you


--- On Tue, 3/3/09, Connie Sheets  wrote:

> From: Connie Sheets 
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer - Master Template Info question
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 10:33 AM
> Will,
> 
> It appears to be a glitch in the software.  In the Evidence
> Explained QuickCheck Models which use the term Collection
> (and on which the Legacy templates are based), the name of
> the collection appears in the full citation, not just the
> bibliography/source list.  See pp. 312 and 318 of EE.
> 
> I would experiment with other church record templates, or
> other data fields in the template you've chosen, to see
> if they will come closer to what you want.  
> 
> Connie
> 
> 
> --- On Tue, 3/3/09, wba  wrote:
> 
> > I used Source Writer to create a Master Source: Church
> > Records > Church record books > Created at Local
> Level
> > > Basic Format.
> > 
> > In "Collection," I entered Parish Registers.
> The
> > term Parish Registers does not appear as part of my
> citation
> > in the Footnote/Endnote; but it does appear under
> > Bibliography. 
> > 
> > Is this a glitch in the software or is this following
> an
> > acceptable standard for documenting church records? I
> would
> > really like to see Parish Records appear in
> Footnote/Endnote
> > if possible.
> > 
> > Thank you
> > 
> > Will
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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] Source Writer - Master Template Info question

[wba]

Okay...  thanks.


--- On Tue, 3/3/09, ronald ferguson  wrote:

> From: ronald ferguson 
> Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Source Writer - Master Template Info question
> To: legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 9:22 AM
> Wil,
>  
> I use the same one except I chose Micro film/fiche which
> enables one the add the name of the Church.
> 
> 
> 
> Ron Ferguson
> 
> _
> 
> *New* Improved Interface for OpenOffice.org Contacts
> Database
> http://www.fergys.co.uk
> View the Grimshaw Family Tree at:
> http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/
> For The Fergusons of N.W. England See:
> http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 05:49:04 -0800
> > From: wba...@yahoo.com
> > Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer - Master Template
> Info question
> > To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> >
> > Hello!
> >
> > I used Source Writer to create a Master Source: Church
> Records> Church record books> Created at Local
> Level> Basic Format.
> >
> > In "Collection," I entered Parish Registers.
> The term Parish Registers does not appear as part of my
> citation in the Footnote/Endnote; but it does appear under
> Bibliography.
> >
> > Is this a glitch in the software or is this following
> an acceptable standard for documenting church records? I
> would really like to see Parish Records appear in
> Footnote/Endnote if possible.
> >
> > Thank you
> >
> > Will
> _
>  25GB of FREE Online Storage – Find out more
> http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665320/direct/01/
> 
> 
> Legacy User Group guidelines:
>http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
> Archived messages:
>   
> http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
> Online technical support:
> http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
> To unsubscribe:
> http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp






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] Source Writer - Master Template Info question

[Connie Sheets]

Will,

It appears to be a glitch in the software.  In the Evidence Explained 
QuickCheck Models which use the term Collection (and on which the Legacy 
templates are based), the name of the collection appears in the full citation, 
not just the bibliography/source list.  See pp. 312 and 318 of EE.

I would experiment with other church record templates, or other data fields in 
the template you've chosen, to see if they will come closer to what you want.  

Connie


--- On Tue, 3/3/09, wba  wrote:

> I used Source Writer to create a Master Source: Church
> Records > Church record books > Created at Local Level
> > Basic Format.
> 
> In "Collection," I entered Parish Registers. The
> term Parish Registers does not appear as part of my citation
> in the Footnote/Endnote; but it does appear under
> Bibliography. 
> 
> Is this a glitch in the software or is this following an
> acceptable standard for documenting church records? I would
> really like to see Parish Records appear in Footnote/Endnote
> if possible.
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Will



  




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] Source Writer - Master Template Info question

[ronald ferguson]

Wil,
 
I use the same one except I chose Micro film/fiche which enables one the add 
the name of the Church.



Ron Ferguson

_

*New* Improved Interface for OpenOffice.org Contacts Database
http://www.fergys.co.uk
View the Grimshaw Family Tree at:
http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/
For The Fergusons of N.W. England See:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/
_









> Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 05:49:04 -0800
> From: wba...@yahoo.com
> Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer - Master Template Info question
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
>
> Hello!
>
> I used Source Writer to create a Master Source: Church Records> Church record 
> books> Created at Local Level> Basic Format.
>
> In "Collection," I entered Parish Registers. The term Parish Registers does 
> not appear as part of my citation in the Footnote/Endnote; but it does appear 
> under Bibliography.
>
> Is this a glitch in the software or is this following an acceptable standard 
> for documenting church records? I would really like to see Parish Records 
> appear in Footnote/Endnote if possible.
>
> Thank you
>
> Will
_
 25GB of FREE Online Storage – Find out more
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665320/direct/01/


Legacy User Group guidelines:
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

RE: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Conversion Tool

[ronald ferguson]

Only the Legacy staff, Roger.



Ron Ferguson

_

Now completely revised
http://www.fergys.co.uk
View the Grimshaw Family Tree at:
http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/
For The Fergusons of N.W. England See:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/
_









> From: ro...@thenavarres.com
> To: legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Conversion Tool
> Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:57:02 -0600
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I’m new to this list, so please forgive me if this has
> been asked before. I’m really excited about the Source Writer in Legacy
> 7. I have thousands of sources created using older versions of Legacy and
> I want to get them converted to the new format. When Legacy 7 was
> announced a conversion tool was promised. Can anyone tell me if the tool
> is still in development, and if so when it might be released?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Roger Navarre
>
>
>
>
_
Choose the perfect PC or mobile phone for you
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/130777504/direct/01/


Legacy User Group guidelines:
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question

[Donna Felina Roach]

Ooops

On my research of North Carolina, United States, the actual register is 
photocopied.  I just assumed that all states were done the same way.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Kaled Sec 
  To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com 
  Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 6:12 AM
  Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question


  I must say I am not a big fan of how we are encouraged to use repository / 
source / citations in Legacy.

  Ideally I would prefer to refer to the GRO as the repository, an individual 
birth certificate as a source and some useful infromation as the citation (for 
example 'named as father...', 'showed to reside at...', 'showed to have 
occupation...').  An additional benefit of this is that a scanned artifact (ie 
birth certificate) can be linked just once, to the source.

  But I like Legacy non the less.

  ...Kaled


  On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Jenny M Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Elizabeth Richardson wrote

  So, Bill, when you look at a book at the library, do you cite the library 
as the source? I have looked at the original State of Nevada Index via 
Ancestry.com. Why would I need to go to Carson City to cite the State of Nevada 
Index?


For any website such as Ancestry I have no problem with a citation along 
the lines of "Ancestry.com, citing the State of Nevada Index."

I haven't a clue about what goes on in Nevada, but in England and Wales, 
there are often several copies of BMD Indexes from the GRO and different 
websites might be using scans of different copies so I think it is important to 
say where I found the copy of the Index I am citing.
-- 
Jenny M Benson


** $10 OFF when you spend $50 or more in our store.
 Use coupon code: 'Legacy2008' at checkout. Offer expires 10/31/08 **
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






  ** $10 OFF when you spend $50 or more in our store.
  Use coupon code: 'Legacy2008' at checkout. Offer expires 10/31/08 **
  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



** $10 OFF when you spend $50 or more in our store.

   Use coupon code: =*!Legacy2008=*" at checkout. Offer expires 10/31/08 **

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] Source Writer Question

[Kay Fordham]

Jennifer -

I shouldn't post messages when tired.  In looking at my last message 
yesterday I realize my source was constructed somewhat differently than 
yours as listed below.  We both used the same template; however, in the 
Credit Line I entered the source listed by Ancestry.com:  citing Nevada 
State Heath Division and so on.  Think it is important to know at a glance 
where their information was gathered so we can more adequately judge 
credibility.  I want to use the marriage book information such as you added 
but need to put it somewhere -- perhaps after the entry for Joe Blow and 
Jane Doe -- but don't want to use the word "citing" again.  Will play around 
with it some more.


Thanks for your input
Kay

Jennifer said:

"Nevada Marriage Index, 1956-2005," database, Ancestry.com
(http://www.ancestry.com/search : accessed 12 Oct 2008), entry for Victor L,
King and Betty J. Hackett, 10 Feb 1998; citing Nevada Marriage Book 210:
C923786, no. 71867.

- Original Message - 
From: "Jennifer Trahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question


Hi, Kay! I used the Internet>Database template and put Ancestry.com as the 
Website title and not the Website Creator. I left Website creator blank. I 
wonder if this is just a bug in the template or if there is some reason 
Website creator does not show up in a footnote. I may have to check out my 
Mills EE book again.


Jennifer

- Original Message 
From: Kay Fordham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 7:52:52 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question

Jennifer -

I have a question on your second example below (index with no image).  The
citation I created was in the same format; however, the creator of the
database, Ancestry.com, was not included between "database" and
"(http://www.ancestry.com/search)"  in the endnote/footnote even though I
entered them as the webpage creator.  They did show up in the bibliography
entry; i.e., "database, Ancestry.com (http://www - - -)."  Which Source
Writer template did you use?

Thanks,
Kay



** $10 OFF when you spend $50 or more in our store.
  Use coupon code: �Legacy2008� at checkout. Offer expires 10/31/08 **
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] Source Writer Question

[Kaled Sec]

I must say I am not a big fan of how we are encouraged to use repository /
source / citations in Legacy.

Ideally I would prefer to refer to the GRO as the repository, an individual
birth certificate as a source and some useful infromation as the citation
(for example 'named as father...', 'showed to reside at...', 'showed to have
occupation...').  An additional benefit of this is that a scanned artifact
(ie birth certificate) can be linked just once, to the source.

But I like Legacy non the less.

...Kaled

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Jenny M Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> Elizabeth Richardson wrote
>
>> So, Bill, when you look at a book at the library, do you cite the library
>> as the source? I have looked at the original State of Nevada Index via
>> Ancestry.com. Why would I need to go to Carson City to cite the State of
>> Nevada Index?
>>
>
> For any website such as Ancestry I have no problem with a citation along
> the lines of "Ancestry.com, citing the State of Nevada Index."
>
> I haven't a clue about what goes on in Nevada, but in England and Wales,
> there are often several copies of BMD Indexes from the GRO and different
> websites might be using scans of different copies so I think it is important
> to say where I found the copy of the Index I am citing.
> --
> Jenny M Benson
>
>
> ** $10 OFF when you spend $50 or more in our store.
>  Use coupon code: 'Legacy2008' at checkout. Offer expires 10/31/08 **
> 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
>
>
>
>



** $10 OFF when you spend $50 or more in our store.
   Use coupon code: ‘Legacy2008’ at checkout. Offer expires 10/31/08 **
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] Source Writer Question

[Jenny M Benson]

Elizabeth Richardson wrote
So, Bill, when you look at a book at the library, do you cite the 
library as the source? I have looked at the original State of Nevada 
Index via Ancestry.com. Why would I need to go to Carson City to cite 
the State of Nevada Index?


For any website such as Ancestry I have no problem with a citation along 
the lines of "Ancestry.com, citing the State of Nevada Index."


I haven't a clue about what goes on in Nevada, but in England and Wales, 
there are often several copies of BMD Indexes from the GRO and different 
websites might be using scans of different copies so I think it is 
important to say where I found the copy of the Index I am citing.

--
Jenny M Benson


** $10 OFF when you spend $50 or more in our store.
  Use coupon code: ‘Legacy2008’ at checkout. Offer expires 10/31/08 **
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] Source Writer Question

[William Anderson]

Elizabeth,

Sorry, I may have phrased my previous response somewhat loosely!  In the case 
you raise, I'd cite that copy of that edition of that book as my source since I 
had examined that copy of that the book. Other editions of the book may have 
different information for all I know.
Any reference to a source the author had used would be commented on, but not 
entered as my source until I had checked that particular source myself.

You may be satisfied that what you've looked at on Ancestry.com is the 
'original State of Nevada Index', but I've been in a situation where microfilm 
which was stated to be of 'official' creation was not and was, in fact, 
erroneous (not deliberately I hasten to add).

I fully realise many may consider that I'm being overcautious.  My own 
preference.

As I said before, we may have to agree to differ on this one.

Bill

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Elizabeth 
Richardson
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 12:00 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question

So, Bill, when you look at a book at the library, do you cite the library as 
the source? I have looked at the original State of Nevada Index via 
Ancestry.com. Why would I need to go to Carson City to cite the State of Nevada 
Index?

Elizabeth
researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson




** $10 OFF when you spend $50 or more in our store.
   Use coupon code: �Legacy2008� at checkout. Offer expires 10/31/08 **
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] Source Writer Question

[Richard and Evita Piepho]

Let me give you all a way to list the source...using Rootsweb as an example and 
using their sub topic "metasearch" for say henry pedersen..and you found 
some data 
   use the following
Rootsweb Meta Search (On line:  The Generations Network, Inc, 2005),  
http://resources.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/metasearch , examined for any 
reference to 1st name Henry and last name Pedersen, accessed 12 Oct 2008.
that is your source "nothing more and nothing less" now your notes to do 
research you need to prove that source but your source for the data you just 
aquired is as listed above.  
Richard > Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:43:39 -0700> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question> To: 
LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com> > Richard:> > I have to disagree 
somewhat. The Nevada Marriage Index at Ancestry.com is strictly an index and 
does not contain images. Therefore, it is not *exactly* like the US census 
records. When you cite digital images, it is different than citing an index or 
transcription. But I do cite Ancestry.com in both citations so that I know 
where to go back to find the digital image or index entry.> And I would also 
say that Ancestry.com is the originator of that particular database, though 
Nevada is the originator of the information that is part of the database. 
Ancestry formatted that information to suit its customers'> needs and 
physically created the database, so I think it would be> incorrect to give 
Nevada credit for the database. > > All:> > I don't understand how any can say 
that they've seen the original State of Nevada index at Ancestry.com. As the OP 
said, Ancestry took two indexes and created one database with both of them. 
Also, the entries I've researched in that particular index at Ancestry.com do 
not have images of the original two indexes. It is strictly a transcription. 
Are there other entries that have images of the index? In that case, then you 
would be citing a digital image of an index and you could put the State of 
Nevada or Clark County as the author of the index. It would look something like 
this:> > Clark County, Nevada, Marriage Index Book 210: 25, Smith-Jones; 
Marriage Bureau, Las Vegas; digital image, "Nevada Marriage Index, 1956-2005," 
Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 1 Aug 2008). > > If you were 
just looking at the index with no image on Ancestry.com, then you would do 
something more like this:> > "Nevada Marriage Index, 1956-2005," database, 
Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com/search : accessed 12 Oct 2008), entry for 
Victor L, King and Betty J. Hackett, 10 Feb 1998; citing Nevada Marriage Book 
210: C923786, no. 71867.> > Jennifer> > > > > - Original Message > 
From: Elizabeth Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: 
LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 6:00:13 
PM> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question> > So, Bill, when you look 
at a book at the library, do you cite the library as > the source? I have 
looked at the original State of Nevada Index via > Ancestry.com. Why would I 
need to go to Carson City to cite the State of > Nevada Index?> > Elizabeth> 
researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson> > > 
- Original Message - > From: "William Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 
To: > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:26 
PM> Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question> > > Elizabeth,> > Does this 
get back to the argument that 'my source' is where I found the > information, 
rather than where the information was, as far as can be deduced > from the 
information available to me, originally created.> > It may be a personal 
preference, but I maintain my source is where I got the > information. As far 
as I'm concerned, anything else is hearsay (albeit > written) until I've 
checked it out.> > In the case below, It is highly probable that the data was 
created by > Nevada, but until the records at Nevada are checked out, it is not 
certain > that such data has been transferred accurately. Perhaps this could be 
> covered by the surety level, but I'm would not be happy with that.> > We may 
have to agree to differ on this one.> > Bill> > -Original Message-> 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Elizabeth > 
Richardson> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:47 PM> To: 
LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer 
Question> > True, this is an index only, not the marriage record documents 
themselves.> The original image of the index is at Ancestry, and was not 
created by > Ancestry. The index was creat

RE: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question

[Richard and Evita Piepho]

Source info... if gotten from Ancestry that is you source... it is a 
database name the source,  name the owner of the site, URL,  date last 
verified by the site. While the source isn't the real document it still is 
your source means you then need to go to their source yourself before you 
can accurately state the information is correct... many things can happen in 
between... you cannot add Nevada to the true source until you have verified it 
for yourself.  repeat ...you should also make notes if you are getting your 
information from the actual document or a transcription etc... Remember there 
can be transmission problems of various sorts between Nevada and Ancestry.  
Ancestry is no different than Uncle Bob's data ...it is a clue in your 
verification of the data you are looking foryou are the detective and you 
must build your case with each clue until you have the actual fact.  true if 
ancestry states it and you have several other sources which state it then it 
becomes fairly certain, unless they all are using the same source and then all 
may be wrong.  you become the detective and lawyer presenting your case for 
that data.  You can not just be satisfied with one third party or second party 
source  that is why the software lets you put more than one source for the 
data so you can determine the information you put into your tree.
Richard > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com> 
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:26:44 
+0100> > Elizabeth,> > Does this get back to the argument that 'my source' is 
where I found the information, rather than where the information was, as far as 
can be deduced from the information available to me, originally created.> > It 
may be a personal preference, but I maintain my source is where I got the 
information. As far as I'm concerned, anything else is hearsay (albeit written) 
until I've checked it out.> > In the case below, It is highly probable that the 
data was created by Nevada, but until the records at Nevada are checked out, it 
is not certain that such data has been transferred accurately. Perhaps this 
could be covered by the surety level, but I'm would not be happy with that.> > 
We may have to agree to differ on this one.> > Bill> > -Original 
Message-> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
Elizabeth Richardson> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:47 PM> To: 
LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer 
Question> > True, this is an index only, not the marriage record documents 
themselves. > The original image of the index is at Ancestry, and was not 
created by Ancestry. The index was created by the State of Nevada and Clark 
County. > Rich is correct, Ancestry is NOT the originator of the index, it is 
the repository.> > Elizabeth> researching the descendants of William and Sarah 
(Patterson) Thompson> > - Original Message -> From: "William Anderson" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: > Sent: Friday, 
October 24, 2008 12:39 PM> Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question> > > 
Rich,> > Sorry, I disagree.> > Whilst I agree that it is unlikely, it is just 
possible that Ancestry.com > has changed the record created by Nevada.> > The 
source, at this juncture, has to be what has been viewed - > Ancestry.com - 
with mention of the sources they say they are relying on, > until such time as 
the 'original' source is personally checked.> > Isn't Genealogy fun!!> > Bill> 
> -Original Message-> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL 
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of RICHARD > SCHULTHIES> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 
9:27 PM> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] 
Source Writer Question> > I disagree. Ancestry.com is not the originator of the 
database, Nevada is > that. Ancestor owns the photocopies and/or transcriptions 
that it created > from the data. It charges for access to that file. But you 
can go to Nevada > and make your own copies (plane fare and hotel room not 
included). Use the > example for US census records, changing the obvious 
differences.> Rich in LA CA> > --- On Thu, 10/23/08, Kay Fordham <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]> wrote:> > > From: Kay Fordham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > Subject: 
[LegacyUG] Source Writer Question> > To: "Legacy User Group" 
> > Date: Thursday, October 23, 2008, 
5:08 PM Using Legacy 7 Deluxe> > 7.0.0.55 Build> >> > Tried the new Source 
Writer for the first time today and love it. I> > have a question about it 
relating to E. Shown-Mills, "Evidence> > Explained." I'm citing an Ancestr

Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question

[Jennifer Trahan]

Hi, Kay! I used the Internet>Database template and put Ancestry.com as the 
Website title and not the Website Creator. I left Website creator blank. I 
wonder if this is just a bug in the template or if there is some reason Website 
creator does not show up in a footnote. I may have to check out my Mills EE 
book again.

Jennifer



- Original Message 
From: Kay Fordham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 7:52:52 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question

Jennifer -

I have a question on your second example below (index with no image).  The 
citation I created was in the same format; however, the creator of the 
database, Ancestry.com, was not included between "database" and 
"(http://www.ancestry.com/search)"  in the endnote/footnote even though I 
entered them as the webpage creator.  They did show up in the bibliography 
entry; i.e., "database, Ancestry.com (http://www - - -)."  Which Source 
Writer template did you use?

Thanks,
Kay

- Original Message - 
From: "Jennifer Trahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question


Richard:

I have to disagree somewhat. The Nevada Marriage Index at Ancestry.com is 
strictly an index and does not contain images. Therefore, it is not 
*exactly* like the US census records. When you cite digital images, it is 
different than citing an index or transcription. But I do cite Ancestry.com 
in both citations so that I know where to go back to find the digital image 
or index entry.
And I would also say that Ancestry.com is the originator of that particular 
database, though Nevada is the originator of the information that is part of 
the database. Ancestry formatted that information to suit its customers'
needs and physically created the database, so I think it would be
incorrect to give Nevada credit for the database.

All:

I don't understand how any can say that they've seen the original State of 
Nevada index at Ancestry.com. As the OP said, Ancestry took two indexes and 
created one database with both of them. Also, the entries I've researched in 
that particular index at Ancestry.com do not have images of the original two 
indexes. It is strictly a transcription. Are there other entries that have 
images of the index? In that case, then you would be citing a digital image 
of an index and you could put the State of Nevada or Clark County as the 
author of the index. It would look something like this:

Clark County, Nevada, Marriage Index Book 210: 25, Smith-Jones; Marriage 
Bureau, Las Vegas; digital image, "Nevada Marriage Index, 1956-2005," 
Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 1 Aug 2008).

If you were just looking at the index with no image on Ancestry.com, then 
you would do something more like this:

"Nevada Marriage Index, 1956-2005," database, Ancestry.com 
(http://www.ancestry.com/search : accessed 12 Oct 2008), entry for Victor L, 
King and Betty J. Hackett, 10 Feb 1998; citing Nevada Marriage Book 210: 
C923786, no. 71867.

Jennifer





** $10 OFF when you spend $50 or more in our store.
   Use coupon code: ‘Legacy2008’ at checkout. Offer expires 10/31/08 **
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





** $10 OFF when you spend $50 or more in our store.
   Use coupon code: �Legacy2008� at checkout. Offer expires 10/31/08 **
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] Source Writer Question

[Kay Fordham]

Jennifer -

I have a question on your second example below (index with no image).  The 
citation I created was in the same format; however, the creator of the 
database, Ancestry.com, was not included between "database" and 
"(http://www.ancestry.com/search)"  in the endnote/footnote even though I 
entered them as the webpage creator.  They did show up in the bibliography 
entry; i.e., "database, Ancestry.com (http://www - - -)."  Which Source 
Writer template did you use?


Thanks,
Kay

- Original Message - 
From: "Jennifer Trahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question


Richard:

I have to disagree somewhat. The Nevada Marriage Index at Ancestry.com is 
strictly an index and does not contain images. Therefore, it is not 
*exactly* like the US census records. When you cite digital images, it is 
different than citing an index or transcription. But I do cite Ancestry.com 
in both citations so that I know where to go back to find the digital image 
or index entry.
And I would also say that Ancestry.com is the originator of that particular 
database, though Nevada is the originator of the information that is part of 
the database. Ancestry formatted that information to suit its customers'

needs and physically created the database, so I think it would be
incorrect to give Nevada credit for the database.

All:

I don't understand how any can say that they've seen the original State of 
Nevada index at Ancestry.com. As the OP said, Ancestry took two indexes and 
created one database with both of them. Also, the entries I've researched in 
that particular index at Ancestry.com do not have images of the original two 
indexes. It is strictly a transcription. Are there other entries that have 
images of the index? In that case, then you would be citing a digital image 
of an index and you could put the State of Nevada or Clark County as the 
author of the index. It would look something like this:


Clark County, Nevada, Marriage Index Book 210: 25, Smith-Jones; Marriage 
Bureau, Las Vegas; digital image, "Nevada Marriage Index, 1956-2005," 
Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 1 Aug 2008).


If you were just looking at the index with no image on Ancestry.com, then 
you would do something more like this:


"Nevada Marriage Index, 1956-2005," database, Ancestry.com 
(http://www.ancestry.com/search : accessed 12 Oct 2008), entry for Victor L, 
King and Betty J. Hackett, 10 Feb 1998; citing Nevada Marriage Book 210: 
C923786, no. 71867.


Jennifer





** $10 OFF when you spend $50 or more in our store.
  Use coupon code: �Legacy2008� at checkout. Offer expires 10/31/08 **
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] Source Writer Question

[RICHARD SCHULTHIES]

And tney will try to create all the templates, as soon as Ancestry stops making 
them (bite my tongue). I am only pointing out that Legacy is not stopping and 
saying 'we made all the 'types' we need, but adding more tools as quick as 
possible. May it never end.
Rich in LA CA


--- On Fri, 10/24/08, Steve Voght <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Steve Voght <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Date: Friday, October 24, 2008, 1:55 PM
> I have to agree with William -- in this case the index was
> explicitly
> created by Ancestry.  True, they used some else's data
> to compile it, but
> there is no such thing as a "Nevada Marriage
> Index" in either Clark County
> or the State of Nevada archives... instead there are pieces
> of this index in
> three different locations, which have been compiled
> together to create this
> index, which is not available elsewhere.
> 
> In this case I think there are two options available --
> first you could cite
> Ancestry.com as the source of the data (and paste the info
> about their
> sources into the comments tab), or you could separate out
> the source into
> two different sources, with Ancestry as the repository.  In
> that case, you
> need to know if the data you are sourcing originally came
> from Clark County
> records, or from State of Nevada records... and I don't
> know if Ancestry is
> specific enough with individual entries for you to make
> that determination
> (though obviously if the marriage took place outside of
> Clark Co., it must
> be the State records.)
> 
> This is the one big problem I have with SourceWriter when
> it comes to
> Ancestry "index" style databases -- oftentimes
> there simply isn't a good
> match!  (for instance, how do you source a Birth Index? 
> It's obviously a
> birth record, but there is simply no choice for text
> databases of birth
> registers at the state/provincial level, which is
> essentially what an index
> is.)
> 
> It would be great if someone at Legacy (or anyone for that
> matter) actually
> went through all the types of databases available at
> Ancestry and compiled a
> best-practices list for what source template to use for
> each type of
> database, because right now it seems as if they're
> using the Mills book to
> design this, without actually looking at what exists in the
> real world.
> 
> -Steve
> 
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Elizabeth Richardson <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > True, this is an index only, not the marriage record
> documents themselves.
> > The original image of the index is at Ancestry, and
> was not created by
> > Ancestry. The index was created by the State of Nevada
> and Clark County.
> > Rich is correct, Ancestry is NOT the originator of the
> index, it is the
> > repository.
> >
> > Elizabeth
> > researching the descendants of William and Sarah
> (Patterson) Thompson
> >
> > - Original Message - From: "William
> Anderson" <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: 
> > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:39 PM
> > Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question
> >
> >
> > Rich,
> >
> > Sorry, I disagree.
> >
> > Whilst I agree that it is unlikely, it is just
> possible that Ancestry.com
> > has changed the record created by Nevada.
> >
> > The source, at this juncture, has to be what has been
> viewed - Ancestry.com
> > - with mention of the sources they say they are
> relying on, until such time
> > as the 'original' source is personally
> checked.
> >
> > Isn't Genealogy fun!!
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of RICHARD
> > SCHULTHIES
> > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:27 PM
> > To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question
> >
> > I disagree. Ancestry.com is not the originator of the
> database, Nevada is
> > that. Ancestor owns the photocopies and/or
> transcriptions that it created
> > from the data. It charges for access to that file. But
> you can go to Nevada
> > and make your own copies (plane fare and hotel room
> not included). Use the
> > example for US census records, changing the obvious
> differences.
> > Rich in LA CA
> >
> > --- On Thu, 10/23/08, Kay Fordham
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >  From: Kay Fordha

RE: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question

[RICHARD SCHULTHIES]

I will agree with what you said. I have no information about what format the 
'Nevada' stuff is, photocopy or transcript. Transcripts are much more changable 
than a photo of a document by the 'owner'. 
Rich in LA CA

--- On Fri, 10/24/08, William Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: William Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Date: Friday, October 24, 2008, 1:39 PM
> Rich,
> 
> Sorry, I disagree.
> 
> Whilst I agree that it is unlikely, it is just possible
> that Ancestry.com has changed the record created by Nevada.
> 
> The source, at this juncture, has to be what has been
> viewed - Ancestry.com - with mention of the sources they say
> they are relying on, until such time as the
> 'original' source is personally checked.
> 
> Isn't Genealogy fun!!
> 
> Bill
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of RICHARD SCHULTHIES
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:27 PM
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question
> 
> I disagree. Ancestry.com is not the originator of the
> database, Nevada is that. Ancestor owns the photocopies
> and/or transcriptions that it created from the data. It
> charges for access to that file. But you can go to Nevada
> and make your own copies (plane fare and hotel room not
> included). Use the example for US census records, changing
> the obvious differences.
> Rich in LA CA
> 
> --- On Thu, 10/23/08, Kay Fordham
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > From: Kay Fordham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question
> > To: "Legacy User Group"
> 
> > Date: Thursday, October 23, 2008, 5:08 PM Using Legacy
> 7 Deluxe 
> > 7.0.0.55 Build
> > 
> > Tried the new Source Writer for the first time today
> and love it.  I 
> > have a question about it relating to E. Shown-Mills,
> "Evidence 
> > Explained."  I'm citing an Ancestry.com
> database entitled "Nevada 
> > Marriage Index, 1956-2005."
> > Ancestry.com, in their Source Information, cites (1)
> their database 
> > Ancestry.com Nevada Marriage Index, 1956-2005 . . . .;
> (2) Nevada 
> > State Health Division, Office of Vital Records, Nevada
> Marriage Index, 
> > 1966-2005 .
> > . . .; and (3) Clark County Nevada Marriage Bureau,
> Clark County 
> > Nevada Marriage Index, 1956-2005 . . . .
> > 
> > Obviously Ancestry.com is the originator of this
> database. 
> > I like to know
> > from whence their data comes.  Should I use in the
> Detail section 
> > "Citing numbers 2 and 3 above."  In
> "Evidence Explained" I'm seeing 
> > this used in some of the image examples but not in
> other databases.
> > 
> > Thanks for any suggestions.
> > 
> > Kay Fordham
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ** $10 OFF when you spend $50 or more in our store.
> >Use coupon code: ‘Legacy2008’ at
> checkout. Offer expires 10/31/08 
> > ** 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
> 
> 
> ** $10 OFF when you spend $50 or more in our store.
>Use coupon code: Legacy2008 at checkout. Offer expires
> 10/31/08 ** 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ** $10 OFF when you spend $50 or more in our store.
>Use coupon code: ‘Legacy2008’ at checkout. Offer
> expires 10/31/08 **
> 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


** $10 OFF when you spend $50 or more in our store.
   Use coupon code: �Legacy2008� at checkout. Offer expires 10/31/08 **
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] Source Writer Question

[Kay Fordham]

Jennifer -

Thanks for including the two examples below.  My initial question involved 
citing the source of the source as indicated in your example of an 
index/database with no images.  I found inconsistencies in "Evidence 
Explained" where the source of the source was cited in one such case and not 
in another, and so I requested confirmation to ensure I understood the 
methodology.  One needs to know where Ancestry got the data -- from state 
records or who knows where.  This is how one decides credibility.


Kay

- Original Message - 
From: "Jennifer Trahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question


Richard:

I have to disagree somewhat. The Nevada Marriage Index at Ancestry.com is 
strictly an index and does not contain images. Therefore, it is not 
*exactly* like the US census records. When you cite digital images, it is 
different than citing an index or transcription. But I do cite Ancestry.com 
in both citations so that I know where to go back to find the digital image 
or index entry.
And I would also say that Ancestry.com is the originator of that particular 
database, though Nevada is the originator of the information that is part of 
the database. Ancestry formatted that information to suit its customers'

needs and physically created the database, so I think it would be
incorrect to give Nevada credit for the database.

All:

I don't understand how any can say that they've seen the original State of 
Nevada index at Ancestry.com. As the OP said, Ancestry took two indexes and 
created one database with both of them. Also, the entries I've researched in 
that particular index at Ancestry.com do not have images of the original two 
indexes. It is strictly a transcription. Are there other entries that have 
images of the index? In that case, then you would be citing a digital image 
of an index and you could put the State of Nevada or Clark County as the 
author of the index. It would look something like this:


Clark County, Nevada, Marriage Index Book 210: 25, Smith-Jones; Marriage 
Bureau, Las Vegas; digital image, "Nevada Marriage Index, 1956-2005," 
Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 1 Aug 2008).


If you were just looking at the index with no image on Ancestry.com, then 
you would do something more like this:


"Nevada Marriage Index, 1956-2005," database, Ancestry.com 
(http://www.ancestry.com/search : accessed 12 Oct 2008), entry for Victor L, 
King and Betty J. Hackett, 10 Feb 1998; citing Nevada Marriage Book 210: 
C923786, no. 71867.


Jennifer



** $10 OFF when you spend $50 or more in our store.
  Use coupon code: �Legacy2008� at checkout. Offer expires 10/31/08 **
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] Source Writer Question

[Donna Felina Roach]

When I make a new source from Ancestry, I go below the search page and there 
is the source cited.  If I go to the record, the specific citation is 
listed.


I just felt like getting rid of my two cents worth.  It does get heavy after 
a while.  :)
- Original Message - 
From: "Wynthner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question


Ancestry has a copy of the original two indexes- note plural but they then 
combined those into ONE database and indexed that database so yes- Amazon 
did create the database that allows you to view the original pages of the 
original two indexes.




--- On Fri, 10/24/08, Elizabeth Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:



From: Elizabeth Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Date: Friday, October 24, 2008, 8:47 PM
True, this is an index only, not the marriage record
documents themselves.
The original image of the index is at Ancestry, and was not
created by
Ancestry. The index was created by the State of Nevada and
Clark County.
Rich is correct, Ancestry is NOT the originator of the
index, it is the
repository.

Elizabeth
researching the descendants of William and Sarah
(Patterson) Thompson

- Original Message - 
From: "William Anderson"

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:39 PM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question


Rich,

Sorry, I disagree.

Whilst I agree that it is unlikely, it is just possible
that Ancestry.com
has changed the record created by Nevada.

The source, at this juncture, has to be what has been
viewed -
Ancestry.com - with mention of the sources they say they
are relying on,
until such time as the 'original' source is
personally checked.

Isn't Genealogy fun!!

Bill

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of RICHARD
SCHULTHIES
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:27 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question

I disagree. Ancestry.com is not the originator of the
database, Nevada is
that. Ancestor owns the photocopies and/or transcriptions
that it created
from the data. It charges for access to that file. But you
can go to Nevada
and make your own copies (plane fare and hotel room not
included). Use the
example for US census records, changing the obvious
differences.
Rich in LA CA

--- On Thu, 10/23/08, Kay Fordham
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Kay Fordham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question
> To: "Legacy User Group"

> Date: Thursday, October 23, 2008, 5:08 PM Using Legacy
7 Deluxe
> 7.0.0.55 Build
>
> Tried the new Source Writer for the first time today
and love it.  I
> have a question about it relating to E. Shown-Mills,
"Evidence
> Explained."  I'm citing an Ancestry.com
database entitled "Nevada
> Marriage Index, 1956-2005."
> Ancestry.com, in their Source Information, cites (1)
their database
> Ancestry.com Nevada Marriage Index, 1956-2005 . . . .;
(2) Nevada
> State Health Division, Office of Vital Records, Nevada
Marriage Index,
> 1966-2005 .
> . . .; and (3) Clark County Nevada Marriage Bureau,
Clark County
> Nevada Marriage Index, 1956-2005 . . . .
>
> Obviously Ancestry.com is the originator of this
database.
> I like to know
> from whence their data comes.  Should I use in the
Detail section
> "Citing numbers 2 and 3 above."  In
"Evidence Explained" I'm seeing
> this used in some of the image examples but not in
other databases.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions.
>
> Kay Fordham
>








** $10 OFF when you spend $50 or more in our store.
  Use coupon code: 'Legacy2008' at checkout. Offer expires 10/31/08 **
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







** $10 OFF when you spend $50 or more in our store.
  Use coupon code: ‘Legacy2008’ at checkout. Offer expires 10/31/08 **
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] Source Writer Question

[Jennifer Trahan]

Richard:

I have to disagree somewhat. The Nevada Marriage Index at Ancestry.com is 
strictly an index and does not contain images. Therefore, it is not *exactly* 
like the US census records. When you cite digital images, it is different than 
citing an index or transcription. But I do cite Ancestry.com in both citations 
so that I know where to go back to find the digital image or index entry.
And I would also say that Ancestry.com is the originator of that particular 
database, though Nevada is the originator of the information that is part of 
the database. Ancestry formatted that information to suit its customers'
needs and physically created the database, so I think it would be
incorrect to give Nevada credit for the database. 

All:

I don't understand how any can say that they've seen the original State of 
Nevada index at Ancestry.com. As the OP said, Ancestry took two indexes and 
created one database with both of them. Also, the entries I've researched in 
that particular index at Ancestry.com do not have images of the original two 
indexes. It is strictly a transcription. Are there other entries that have 
images of the index? In that case, then you would be citing a digital image of 
an index and you could put the State of Nevada or Clark County as the author of 
the index. It would look something like this:

Clark County, Nevada, Marriage Index Book 210: 25, Smith-Jones; Marriage 
Bureau, Las Vegas; digital image, "Nevada Marriage Index, 1956-2005," 
Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 1 Aug 2008). 

If you were just looking at the index with no image on Ancestry.com, then you 
would do something more like this:

"Nevada Marriage Index, 1956-2005," database, Ancestry.com 
(http://www.ancestry.com/search : accessed 12 Oct 2008), entry for Victor L, 
King and Betty J. Hackett, 10 Feb 1998; citing Nevada Marriage Book 210: 
C923786, no. 71867.

Jennifer




- Original Message 
From: Elizabeth Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 6:00:13 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question

So, Bill, when you look at a book at the library, do you cite the library as 
the source? I have looked at the original State of Nevada Index via 
Ancestry.com. Why would I need to go to Carson City to cite the State of 
Nevada Index?

Elizabeth
researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson


- Original Message - 
From: "William Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:26 PM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question


Elizabeth,

Does this get back to the argument that 'my source' is where I found the 
information, rather than where the information was, as far as can be deduced 
from the information available to me, originally created.

It may be a personal preference, but I maintain my source is where I got the 
information. As far as I'm concerned, anything else is hearsay (albeit 
written) until I've checked it out.

In the case below, It is highly probable that the data was created by 
Nevada, but until the records at Nevada are checked out, it is not certain 
that such data has been transferred accurately. Perhaps this could be 
covered by the surety level, but I'm would not be happy with that.

We may have to agree to differ on this one.

Bill

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Elizabeth 
Richardson
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:47 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question

True, this is an index only, not the marriage record documents themselves.
The original image of the index is at Ancestry, and was not created by 
Ancestry. The index was created by the State of Nevada and Clark County.
Rich is correct, Ancestry is NOT the originator of the index, it is the 
repository.

Elizabeth
researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson

- Original Message -
From: "William Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:39 PM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question


Rich,

Sorry, I disagree.

Whilst I agree that it is unlikely, it is just possible that Ancestry.com
has changed the record created by Nevada.

The source, at this juncture, has to be what has been viewed -
Ancestry.com - with mention of the sources they say they are relying on,
until such time as the 'original' source is personally checked.

Isn't Genealogy fun!!

Bill

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of RICHARD
SCHULTHIES
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:27 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question

I disagree. Ancestry.com is not the originator of the database, Nevada is
that. Ancestor owns the photocopies and/or tr

Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question

[Wynthner]

Ancestry has a copy of the original two indexes- note plural but they then 
combined those into ONE database and indexed that database so yes- Amazon did 
create the database that allows you to view the original pages of the original 
two indexes.



--- On Fri, 10/24/08, Elizabeth Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Elizabeth Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Date: Friday, October 24, 2008, 8:47 PM
> True, this is an index only, not the marriage record
> documents themselves. 
> The original image of the index is at Ancestry, and was not
> created by 
> Ancestry. The index was created by the State of Nevada and
> Clark County. 
> Rich is correct, Ancestry is NOT the originator of the
> index, it is the 
> repository.
> 
> Elizabeth
> researching the descendants of William and Sarah
> (Patterson) Thompson
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "William Anderson"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:39 PM
> Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question
> 
> 
> Rich,
> 
> Sorry, I disagree.
> 
> Whilst I agree that it is unlikely, it is just possible
> that Ancestry.com 
> has changed the record created by Nevada.
> 
> The source, at this juncture, has to be what has been
> viewed - 
> Ancestry.com - with mention of the sources they say they
> are relying on, 
> until such time as the 'original' source is
> personally checked.
> 
> Isn't Genealogy fun!!
> 
> Bill
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of RICHARD 
> SCHULTHIES
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:27 PM
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question
> 
> I disagree. Ancestry.com is not the originator of the
> database, Nevada is 
> that. Ancestor owns the photocopies and/or transcriptions
> that it created 
> from the data. It charges for access to that file. But you
> can go to Nevada 
> and make your own copies (plane fare and hotel room not
> included). Use the 
> example for US census records, changing the obvious
> differences.
> Rich in LA CA
> 
> --- On Thu, 10/23/08, Kay Fordham
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > From: Kay Fordham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question
> > To: "Legacy User Group"
> 
> > Date: Thursday, October 23, 2008, 5:08 PM Using Legacy
> 7 Deluxe
> > 7.0.0.55 Build
> >
> > Tried the new Source Writer for the first time today
> and love it.  I
> > have a question about it relating to E. Shown-Mills,
> "Evidence
> > Explained."  I'm citing an Ancestry.com
> database entitled "Nevada
> > Marriage Index, 1956-2005."
> > Ancestry.com, in their Source Information, cites (1)
> their database
> > Ancestry.com Nevada Marriage Index, 1956-2005 . . . .;
> (2) Nevada
> > State Health Division, Office of Vital Records, Nevada
> Marriage Index,
> > 1966-2005 .
> > . . .; and (3) Clark County Nevada Marriage Bureau,
> Clark County
> > Nevada Marriage Index, 1956-2005 . . . .
> >
> > Obviously Ancestry.com is the originator of this
> database.
> > I like to know
> > from whence their data comes.  Should I use in the
> Detail section
> > "Citing numbers 2 and 3 above."  In
> "Evidence Explained" I'm seeing
> > this used in some of the image examples but not in
> other databases.
> >
> > Thanks for any suggestions.
> >
> > Kay Fordham
> >



  



** $10 OFF when you spend $50 or more in our store.
   Use coupon code: ‘Legacy2008’ at checkout. Offer expires 10/31/08 **
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] Source Writer Question

[Elizabeth Richardson]

So, Bill, when you look at a book at the library, do you cite the library as 
the source? I have looked at the original State of Nevada Index via 
Ancestry.com. Why would I need to go to Carson City to cite the State of 
Nevada Index?


Elizabeth
researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson


- Original Message - 
From: "William Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:26 PM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question


Elizabeth,

Does this get back to the argument that 'my source' is where I found the 
information, rather than where the information was, as far as can be deduced 
from the information available to me, originally created.


It may be a personal preference, but I maintain my source is where I got the 
information. As far as I'm concerned, anything else is hearsay (albeit 
written) until I've checked it out.


In the case below, It is highly probable that the data was created by 
Nevada, but until the records at Nevada are checked out, it is not certain 
that such data has been transferred accurately. Perhaps this could be 
covered by the surety level, but I'm would not be happy with that.


We may have to agree to differ on this one.

Bill

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Elizabeth 
Richardson

Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:47 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question

True, this is an index only, not the marriage record documents themselves.
The original image of the index is at Ancestry, and was not created by 
Ancestry. The index was created by the State of Nevada and Clark County.
Rich is correct, Ancestry is NOT the originator of the index, it is the 
repository.


Elizabeth
researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson

- Original Message -
From: "William Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:39 PM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question


Rich,

Sorry, I disagree.

Whilst I agree that it is unlikely, it is just possible that Ancestry.com
has changed the record created by Nevada.

The source, at this juncture, has to be what has been viewed -
Ancestry.com - with mention of the sources they say they are relying on,
until such time as the 'original' source is personally checked.

Isn't Genealogy fun!!

Bill

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of RICHARD
SCHULTHIES
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:27 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question

I disagree. Ancestry.com is not the originator of the database, Nevada is
that. Ancestor owns the photocopies and/or transcriptions that it created
from the data. It charges for access to that file. But you can go to Nevada
and make your own copies (plane fare and hotel room not included). Use the
example for US census records, changing the obvious differences.
Rich in LA CA

--- On Thu, 10/23/08, Kay Fordham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


From: Kay Fordham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question
To: "Legacy User Group" 
Date: Thursday, October 23, 2008, 5:08 PM Using Legacy 7 Deluxe
7.0.0.55 Build

Tried the new Source Writer for the first time today and love it.  I
have a question about it relating to E. Shown-Mills, "Evidence
Explained."  I'm citing an Ancestry.com database entitled "Nevada
Marriage Index, 1956-2005."
Ancestry.com, in their Source Information, cites (1) their database
Ancestry.com Nevada Marriage Index, 1956-2005 . . . .; (2) Nevada
State Health Division, Office of Vital Records, Nevada Marriage Index,
1966-2005 .
. . .; and (3) Clark County Nevada Marriage Bureau, Clark County
Nevada Marriage Index, 1956-2005 . . . .

Obviously Ancestry.com is the originator of this database.
I like to know
from whence their data comes.  Should I use in the Detail section
"Citing numbers 2 and 3 above."  In "Evidence Explained" I'm seeing
this used in some of the image examples but not in other databases.

Thanks for any suggestions.

Kay Fordham





** $10 OFF when you spend $50 or more in our store.
  Use coupon code: �Legacy2008� at checkout. Offer expires 10/31/08 **
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] Source Writer Question

[William Anderson]

Elizabeth,

Does this get back to the argument that 'my source' is where I found the 
information, rather than where the information was, as far as can be deduced 
from the information available to me, originally created.

It may be a personal preference, but I maintain my source is where I got the 
information. As far as I'm concerned, anything else is hearsay (albeit written) 
until I've checked it out.

In the case below, It is highly probable that the data was created by Nevada, 
but until the records at Nevada are checked out, it is not certain that such 
data has been transferred accurately. Perhaps this could be covered by the 
surety level, but I'm would not be happy with that.

We may have to agree to differ on this one.

Bill

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Elizabeth 
Richardson
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:47 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question

True, this is an index only, not the marriage record documents themselves. 
The original image of the index is at Ancestry, and was not created by 
Ancestry. The index was created by the State of Nevada and Clark County. 
Rich is correct, Ancestry is NOT the originator of the index, it is the 
repository.

Elizabeth
researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson

- Original Message -
From: "William Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:39 PM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question


Rich,

Sorry, I disagree.

Whilst I agree that it is unlikely, it is just possible that Ancestry.com 
has changed the record created by Nevada.

The source, at this juncture, has to be what has been viewed - 
Ancestry.com - with mention of the sources they say they are relying on, 
until such time as the 'original' source is personally checked.

Isn't Genealogy fun!!

Bill

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of RICHARD 
SCHULTHIES
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:27 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question

I disagree. Ancestry.com is not the originator of the database, Nevada is 
that. Ancestor owns the photocopies and/or transcriptions that it created 
from the data. It charges for access to that file. But you can go to Nevada 
and make your own copies (plane fare and hotel room not included). Use the 
example for US census records, changing the obvious differences.
Rich in LA CA

--- On Thu, 10/23/08, Kay Fordham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Kay Fordham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question
> To: "Legacy User Group" 
> Date: Thursday, October 23, 2008, 5:08 PM Using Legacy 7 Deluxe
> 7.0.0.55 Build
>
> Tried the new Source Writer for the first time today and love it.  I
> have a question about it relating to E. Shown-Mills, "Evidence
> Explained."  I'm citing an Ancestry.com database entitled "Nevada
> Marriage Index, 1956-2005."
> Ancestry.com, in their Source Information, cites (1) their database
> Ancestry.com Nevada Marriage Index, 1956-2005 . . . .; (2) Nevada
> State Health Division, Office of Vital Records, Nevada Marriage Index,
> 1966-2005 .
> . . .; and (3) Clark County Nevada Marriage Bureau, Clark County
> Nevada Marriage Index, 1956-2005 . . . .
>
> Obviously Ancestry.com is the originator of this database.
> I like to know
> from whence their data comes.  Should I use in the Detail section
> "Citing numbers 2 and 3 above."  In "Evidence Explained" I'm seeing
> this used in some of the image examples but not in other databases.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions.
>
> Kay Fordham
>



** $10 OFF when you spend $50 or more in our store.
   Use coupon code: Legacy2008 at checkout. Offer expires 10/31/08 **
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





** $10 OFF when you spend $50 or more in our store.
   Use coupon code: �Legacy2008� at checkout. Offer expires 10/31/08 **
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] Source Writer Question

[Elizabeth Richardson]

Obviously, we disagree. If you access the original image and you will see 
that it is the government index, not a transcription. (format of this reply 
changed from html to text)


Elizabeth
researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson

- Original Message - 
From: Steve Voght

To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question


I have to agree with William -- in this case the index was explicitly 
created by Ancestry.  True, they used some else's data to compile it, but 
there is no such thing as a "Nevada Marriage Index" in either Clark County 
or the State of Nevada archives... instead there are pieces of this index in 
three different locations, which have been compiled together to create this 
index, which is not available elsewhere.


In this case I think there are two options available -- first you could cite 
Ancestry.com as the source of the data (and paste the info about their 
sources into the comments tab), or you could separate out the source into 
two different sources, with Ancestry as the repository.  In that case, you 
need to know if the data you are sourcing originally came from Clark County 
records, or from State of Nevada records... and I don't know if Ancestry is 
specific enough with individual entries for you to make that determination 
(though obviously if the marriage took place outside of Clark Co., it must 
be the State records.)


This is the one big problem I have with SourceWriter when it comes to 
Ancestry "index" style databases -- oftentimes there simply isn't a good 
match!  (for instance, how do you source a Birth Index?  It's obviously a 
birth record, but there is simply no choice for text databases of birth 
registers at the state/provincial level, which is essentially what an index 
is.)


It would be great if someone at Legacy (or anyone for that matter) actually 
went through all the types of databases available at Ancestry and compiled a 
best-practices list for what source template to use for each type of 
database, because right now it seems as if they're using the Mills book to 
design this, without actually looking at what exists in the real world.


-Steve


On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Elizabeth Richardson 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


True, this is an index only, not the marriage record documents themselves. 
The original image of the index is at Ancestry, and was not created by 
Ancestry. The index was created by the State of Nevada and Clark County. 
Rich is correct, Ancestry is NOT the originator of the index, it is the 
repository.


Elizabeth
researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson

- Original Message - From: "William Anderson" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:39 PM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question


Rich,

Sorry, I disagree.

Whilst I agree that it is unlikely, it is just possible that Ancestry.com 
has changed the record created by Nevada.


The source, at this juncture, has to be what has been viewed - 
Ancestry.com - with mention of the sources they say they are relying on, 
until such time as the 'original' source is personally checked.


Isn't Genealogy fun!!

Bill

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of RICHARD 
SCHULTHIES

Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:27 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question

I disagree. Ancestry.com is not the originator of the database, Nevada is 
that. Ancestor owns the photocopies and/or transcriptions that it created 
from the data. It charges for access to that file. But you can go to Nevada 
and make your own copies (plane fare and hotel room not included). Use the 
example for US census records, changing the obvious differences.

Rich in LA CA

--- On Thu, 10/23/08, Kay Fordham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


From: Kay Fordham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question
To: "Legacy User Group" 
Date: Thursday, October 23, 2008, 5:08 PM Using Legacy 7 Deluxe
7.0.0.55 Build

Tried the new Source Writer for the first time today and love it.  I
have a question about it relating to E. Shown-Mills, "Evidence
Explained."  I'm citing an Ancestry.com database entitled "Nevada
Marriage Index, 1956-2005."
Ancestry.com, in their Source Information, cites (1) their database
Ancestry.com Nevada Marriage Index, 1956-2005 . . . .; (2) Nevada
State Health Division, Office of Vital Records, Nevada Marriage Index,
1966-2005 .
. . .; and (3) Clark County Nevada Marriage Bureau, Clark County
Nevada Marriage Index, 1956-2005 . . . .

Obviously Ancestry.com is the originator of this database.
I like to know
from whence their data comes.  Should I use in the Detail section
"Citing numbers 2

Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question

[Steve Voght]

I have to agree with William -- in this case the index was explicitly
created by Ancestry.  True, they used some else's data to compile it, but
there is no such thing as a "Nevada Marriage Index" in either Clark County
or the State of Nevada archives... instead there are pieces of this index in
three different locations, which have been compiled together to create this
index, which is not available elsewhere.

In this case I think there are two options available -- first you could cite
Ancestry.com as the source of the data (and paste the info about their
sources into the comments tab), or you could separate out the source into
two different sources, with Ancestry as the repository.  In that case, you
need to know if the data you are sourcing originally came from Clark County
records, or from State of Nevada records... and I don't know if Ancestry is
specific enough with individual entries for you to make that determination
(though obviously if the marriage took place outside of Clark Co., it must
be the State records.)

This is the one big problem I have with SourceWriter when it comes to
Ancestry "index" style databases -- oftentimes there simply isn't a good
match!  (for instance, how do you source a Birth Index?  It's obviously a
birth record, but there is simply no choice for text databases of birth
registers at the state/provincial level, which is essentially what an index
is.)

It would be great if someone at Legacy (or anyone for that matter) actually
went through all the types of databases available at Ancestry and compiled a
best-practices list for what source template to use for each type of
database, because right now it seems as if they're using the Mills book to
design this, without actually looking at what exists in the real world.

-Steve

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Elizabeth Richardson <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> True, this is an index only, not the marriage record documents themselves.
> The original image of the index is at Ancestry, and was not created by
> Ancestry. The index was created by the State of Nevada and Clark County.
> Rich is correct, Ancestry is NOT the originator of the index, it is the
> repository.
>
> Elizabeth
> researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson
>
> - Original Message - From: "William Anderson" <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:39 PM
> Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question
>
>
> Rich,
>
> Sorry, I disagree.
>
> Whilst I agree that it is unlikely, it is just possible that Ancestry.com
> has changed the record created by Nevada.
>
> The source, at this juncture, has to be what has been viewed - Ancestry.com
> - with mention of the sources they say they are relying on, until such time
> as the 'original' source is personally checked.
>
> Isn't Genealogy fun!!
>
> Bill
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of RICHARD
> SCHULTHIES
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:27 PM
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question
>
> I disagree. Ancestry.com is not the originator of the database, Nevada is
> that. Ancestor owns the photocopies and/or transcriptions that it created
> from the data. It charges for access to that file. But you can go to Nevada
> and make your own copies (plane fare and hotel room not included). Use the
> example for US census records, changing the obvious differences.
> Rich in LA CA
>
> --- On Thu, 10/23/08, Kay Fordham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  From: Kay Fordham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question
>> To: "Legacy User Group" 
>> Date: Thursday, October 23, 2008, 5:08 PM Using Legacy 7 Deluxe
>> 7.0.0.55 Build
>>
>> Tried the new Source Writer for the first time today and love it.  I
>> have a question about it relating to E. Shown-Mills, "Evidence
>> Explained."  I'm citing an Ancestry.com database entitled "Nevada
>> Marriage Index, 1956-2005."
>> Ancestry.com, in their Source Information, cites (1) their database
>> Ancestry.com Nevada Marriage Index, 1956-2005 . . . .; (2) Nevada
>> State Health Division, Office of Vital Records, Nevada Marriage Index,
>> 1966-2005 .
>> . . .; and (3) Clark County Nevada Marriage Bureau, Clark County
>> Nevada Marriage Index, 1956-2005 . . . .
>>
>> Obviously Ancestry.com is the originator of this database.
>> I like to know
>> from whence their data comes.  Should I use in the Detail section
>> "Citing numbers 2 and 3 above."  In "Evidence Explained" I'm seeing
>&

Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question

[Elizabeth Richardson]

True, this is an index only, not the marriage record documents themselves. 
The original image of the index is at Ancestry, and was not created by 
Ancestry. The index was created by the State of Nevada and Clark County. 
Rich is correct, Ancestry is NOT the originator of the index, it is the 
repository.


Elizabeth
researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson

- Original Message - 
From: "William Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:39 PM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question


Rich,

Sorry, I disagree.

Whilst I agree that it is unlikely, it is just possible that Ancestry.com 
has changed the record created by Nevada.


The source, at this juncture, has to be what has been viewed - 
Ancestry.com - with mention of the sources they say they are relying on, 
until such time as the 'original' source is personally checked.


Isn't Genealogy fun!!

Bill

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of RICHARD 
SCHULTHIES

Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:27 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question

I disagree. Ancestry.com is not the originator of the database, Nevada is 
that. Ancestor owns the photocopies and/or transcriptions that it created 
from the data. It charges for access to that file. But you can go to Nevada 
and make your own copies (plane fare and hotel room not included). Use the 
example for US census records, changing the obvious differences.

Rich in LA CA

--- On Thu, 10/23/08, Kay Fordham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


From: Kay Fordham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question
To: "Legacy User Group" 
Date: Thursday, October 23, 2008, 5:08 PM Using Legacy 7 Deluxe
7.0.0.55 Build

Tried the new Source Writer for the first time today and love it.  I
have a question about it relating to E. Shown-Mills, "Evidence
Explained."  I'm citing an Ancestry.com database entitled "Nevada
Marriage Index, 1956-2005."
Ancestry.com, in their Source Information, cites (1) their database
Ancestry.com Nevada Marriage Index, 1956-2005 . . . .; (2) Nevada
State Health Division, Office of Vital Records, Nevada Marriage Index,
1966-2005 .
. . .; and (3) Clark County Nevada Marriage Bureau, Clark County
Nevada Marriage Index, 1956-2005 . . . .

Obviously Ancestry.com is the originator of this database.
I like to know
from whence their data comes.  Should I use in the Detail section
"Citing numbers 2 and 3 above."  In "Evidence Explained" I'm seeing
this used in some of the image examples but not in other databases.

Thanks for any suggestions.

Kay Fordham





** $10 OFF when you spend $50 or more in our store.
  Use coupon code: �Legacy2008� at checkout. Offer expires 10/31/08 **
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] Source Writer Question

[William Anderson]

Rich,

Sorry, I disagree.

Whilst I agree that it is unlikely, it is just possible that Ancestry.com has 
changed the record created by Nevada.

The source, at this juncture, has to be what has been viewed - Ancestry.com - 
with mention of the sources they say they are relying on, until such time as 
the 'original' source is personally checked.

Isn't Genealogy fun!!

Bill

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of RICHARD 
SCHULTHIES
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:27 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question

I disagree. Ancestry.com is not the originator of the database, Nevada is that. 
Ancestor owns the photocopies and/or transcriptions that it created from the 
data. It charges for access to that file. But you can go to Nevada and make 
your own copies (plane fare and hotel room not included). Use the example for 
US census records, changing the obvious differences.
Rich in LA CA

--- On Thu, 10/23/08, Kay Fordham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Kay Fordham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question
> To: "Legacy User Group" 
> Date: Thursday, October 23, 2008, 5:08 PM Using Legacy 7 Deluxe 
> 7.0.0.55 Build
> 
> Tried the new Source Writer for the first time today and love it.  I 
> have a question about it relating to E. Shown-Mills, "Evidence 
> Explained."  I'm citing an Ancestry.com database entitled "Nevada 
> Marriage Index, 1956-2005."
> Ancestry.com, in their Source Information, cites (1) their database 
> Ancestry.com Nevada Marriage Index, 1956-2005 . . . .; (2) Nevada 
> State Health Division, Office of Vital Records, Nevada Marriage Index, 
> 1966-2005 .
> . . .; and (3) Clark County Nevada Marriage Bureau, Clark County 
> Nevada Marriage Index, 1956-2005 . . . .
> 
> Obviously Ancestry.com is the originator of this database. 
> I like to know
> from whence their data comes.  Should I use in the Detail section 
> "Citing numbers 2 and 3 above."  In "Evidence Explained" I'm seeing 
> this used in some of the image examples but not in other databases.
> 
> Thanks for any suggestions.
> 
> Kay Fordham
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ** $10 OFF when you spend $50 or more in our store.
>Use coupon code: ‘Legacy2008’ at checkout. Offer expires 10/31/08 
> ** 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


** $10 OFF when you spend $50 or more in our store.
   Use coupon code: Legacy2008 at checkout. Offer expires 10/31/08 ** 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





** $10 OFF when you spend $50 or more in our store.
   Use coupon code: �Legacy2008� at checkout. Offer expires 10/31/08 **
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] Source Writer Question

[RICHARD SCHULTHIES]

I disagree. Ancestry.com is not the originator of the database, Nevada is that. 
Ancestor owns the photocopies and/or transcriptions that it created from the 
data. It charges for access to that file. But you can go to Nevada and make 
your own copies (plane fare and hotel room not included). Use the example for 
US census records, changing the obvious differences.
Rich in LA CA

--- On Thu, 10/23/08, Kay Fordham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Kay Fordham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question
> To: "Legacy User Group" 
> Date: Thursday, October 23, 2008, 5:08 PM
> Using Legacy 7 Deluxe 7.0.0.55 Build
> 
> Tried the new Source Writer for the first time today and
> love it.  I have a 
> question about it relating to E. Shown-Mills,
> "Evidence Explained."  I'm 
> citing an Ancestry.com database entitled "Nevada
> Marriage Index, 1956-2005." 
> Ancestry.com, in their Source Information, cites (1) their
> database 
> Ancestry.com Nevada Marriage Index, 1956-2005 . . . .; (2)
> Nevada State 
> Health Division, Office of Vital Records, Nevada Marriage
> Index, 1966-2005 . 
> . . .; and (3) Clark County Nevada Marriage Bureau, Clark
> County Nevada 
> Marriage Index, 1956-2005 . . . .
> 
> Obviously Ancestry.com is the originator of this database. 
> I like to know 
> from whence their data comes.  Should I use in the Detail
> section "Citing 
> numbers 2 and 3 above."  In "Evidence
> Explained" I'm seeing this used in 
> some of the image examples but not in other databases.
> 
> Thanks for any suggestions.
> 
> Kay Fordham
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ** $10 OFF when you spend $50 or more in our store.
>Use coupon code: ‘Legacy2008’ at checkout. Offer
> expires 10/31/08 **
> 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


** $10 OFF when you spend $50 or more in our store.
   Use coupon code: �Legacy2008� at checkout. Offer expires 10/31/08 **
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] Source Writer for Canadian Census

[Teresa Keough]

Will it include the Newfoundland Censuses?
Teresa

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Geoff
Rasmussen
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 2:13 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Source Writer for Canadian Census

Sally,

The next update will contain specific SourceWriter templates for all of the
Canadian censuses, including the recent release of the 1916 Western Canada
census and the 1940 National Registration File.

Thanks,

Geoff Rasmussen
Millennia Corporation
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.LegacyFamilyTree.com
===

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Heeren
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2008 5:00 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer for Canadian Census

I have an 1851 Agricultural census for an individual in Ontario county,
Reach Township.
 
The SourceWriter doesn't have a CANADA, when I use Every Other Country
Except... it doesn't look right.
 
Canada was really England in 1851, it didn't become independent from England
until after WWI but using England isn't correct either.
 
Any suggestions?
 
Sally
 
PS... I've checked archives & there are no messages with this subject since
the SourceWriter came out. 




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] Source Writer for Canadian Census

[Heeren]

Thank you, that's wonderful.  I think Legacy is the best genealogy software 
out there & I have worked with most of them in the last twenty years. 


I do appreciate that it's not that easy to keep adding to & improving on a 
software program that is in use & misuse by thousands.  My son who is a 
software engineer keeps me laughing with the tales from his & his friends 
experiences dealing with a public who always knows what *they* should do. 
They even have a website where they share their stories...but... you 
probably already know about that...LOL


Thank you again,
Sally


Sally,

The next update will contain specific SourceWriter templates for all of the
Canadian censuses, including the recent release of the 1916 Western Canada
census and the 1940 National Registration File.

Thanks,

Geoff Rasmussen
Millennia Corporation
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.LegacyFamilyTree.com
===

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Heeren
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2008 5:00 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer for Canadian Census

I have an 1851 Agricultural census for an individual in Ontario county,
Reach Township.

The SourceWriter doesn't have a CANADA, when I use Every Other Country
Except... it doesn't look right.

Canada was really England in 1851, it didn't become independent from England
until after WWI but using England isn't correct either.

Any suggestions?

Sally

PS... I've checked archives & there are no messages with this subject since
the SourceWriter came out.


__ NOD32 3409 (20080902) Information __

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.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] Source Writer for Canadian Census

[Geoff Rasmussen]

Sally,

The next update will contain specific SourceWriter templates for all of the
Canadian censuses, including the recent release of the 1916 Western Canada
census and the 1940 National Registration File.

Thanks,

Geoff Rasmussen
Millennia Corporation
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.LegacyFamilyTree.com
===

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Heeren
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2008 5:00 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer for Canadian Census

I have an 1851 Agricultural census for an individual in Ontario county,
Reach Township.
 
The SourceWriter doesn't have a CANADA, when I use Every Other Country
Except... it doesn't look right.
 
Canada was really England in 1851, it didn't become independent from England
until after WWI but using England isn't correct either.
 
Any suggestions?
 
Sally
 
PS... I've checked archives & there are no messages with this subject since
the SourceWriter came out. 




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] Source Writer for Canadian Census

[Heeren]

Bah... I meant they went back & forth during the 18th century... and part of 
the 19th... 

Sally

I had some problems too with the population schedule for the 1851 Census. I 
used the template for Census records > All countries except those below... 
> Online, database and images. I had no problem with the master source 
template. But the detail source template does not give a field for the 
township name, enumeration district, or subdistrict. I just did an override 
to fix the problem. For the 1901 Census, I just created a master source 
using the basic source tool. Also, I don't like that the field for county 
is on the detail template and not on the master template. I prefer to have 
master sources for census records broken up by county. Maybe that's just a 
personal preference, though. Anyhow, I think a template for Canada needs to 
be made.


Jennifer


--- On Sun, 8/31/08, Heeren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


From: Heeren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer for Canadian Census
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Date: Sunday, August 31, 2008, 6:59 PM
I have an 1851 Agricultural census for an individual in
Ontario county, Reach Township.

The SourceWriter doesn't have a CANADA, when I use
Every Other Country Except... it doesn't look right.

Canada was really England in 1851, it didn't become
independent from England until after WWI but using England
isn't correct either.

Any suggestions?

Sally

PS... I've checked archives & there are no messages
with this subject since the SourceWriter came out.




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




__ NOD32 3404 (20080901) Information __

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.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] Source Writer for Canadian Census

[Jennifer Trahan]

I had some problems too with the population schedule for the 1851 Census. I 
used the template for Census records > All countries except those below... > 
Online, database and images. I had no problem with the master source template. 
But the detail source template does not give a field for the township name, 
enumeration district, or subdistrict. I just did an override to fix the 
problem. For the 1901 Census, I just created a master source using the basic 
source tool. Also, I don't like that the field for county is on the detail 
template and not on the master template. I prefer to have master sources for 
census records broken up by county. Maybe that's just a personal preference, 
though. Anyhow, I think a template for Canada needs to be made.

Jennifer


--- On Sun, 8/31/08, Heeren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Heeren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer for Canadian Census
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Date: Sunday, August 31, 2008, 6:59 PM
> I have an 1851 Agricultural census for an individual in
> Ontario county, Reach Township.
> 
> The SourceWriter doesn't have a CANADA, when I use
> Every Other Country Except... it doesn't look right.
> 
> Canada was really England in 1851, it didn't become
> independent from England until after WWI but using England
> isn't correct either.
> 
> Any suggestions?
> 
> Sally
> 
> PS... I've checked archives & there are no messages
> with this subject since the SourceWriter came out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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] Source Writer for Canadian Census

[HowlandDavisII]

Jennifer:
 
I wrote directly to Sally and maybe I should not  have.  Here is what I 
said:
Actually from 1841 until 1867, what is now Ontario was called Canada West  
(and Quebec was Canada East).  Prior to 1841, they were Upper Canada and  Lower 
Canada.  So you have something from Reach Township, Ontario  County, Canada 
West (now Ontario).  For your information, you might want to  keep this as a 
favorite: _http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/index.html_ 
(http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/index.html)It is an atlas for all of 
Canada.  Very 
helpful at finding places.  If  it says that it cannot find something, go to a 
partial spelling, of any  sort, to see what pops up.
 
 
Howland Davis





**It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel 
deal here.  
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv000547)




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] Source Writer for Canadian Census

[Heeren]

Yes, Jennifer, that's it exactly.  I was hoping there was a nice neat way 
that I had overlooked.  I think a template for Canada would be great... 
after all, in the 1800's people went back & forth across the border like it 
was all one country. 


Thank you for your response,
Sally
*
I had some problems too with the population schedule for the 1851 Census. I 
used the template for Census records > All countries except those below... 
> Online, database and images. I had no problem with the master source 
template. But the detail source template does not give a field for the 
township name, enumeration district, or subdistrict. I just did an override 
to fix the problem. For the 1901 Census, I just created a master source 
using the basic source tool. Also, I don't like that the field for county 
is on the detail template and not on the master template. I prefer to have 
master sources for census records broken up by county. Maybe that's just a 
personal preference, though. Anyhow, I think a template for Canada needs to 
be made.


Jennifer


--- On Sun, 8/31/08, Heeren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


From: Heeren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer for Canadian Census
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Date: Sunday, August 31, 2008, 6:59 PM
I have an 1851 Agricultural census for an individual in
Ontario county, Reach Township.

The SourceWriter doesn't have a CANADA, when I use
Every Other Country Except... it doesn't look right.

Canada was really England in 1851, it didn't become
independent from England until after WWI but using England
isn't correct either.

Any suggestions?

Sally

PS... I've checked archives & there are no messages
with this subject since the SourceWriter came out.




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




__ NOD32 3404 (20080901) Information __

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.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] Source Writer for Canadian Census

[Heeren]

Thank you, Kathy, I know I can use the old format & input it, that's what 
I've done in the past. 


Now, I'd like to use the SourceWriter for all my new sources but the 
Canadian Agricultural Census seems to be an ungainly fit for it.


Sally
**

I'm not sure what doesn't look right.  I just put things into the fields
provided and arrange them until what comes out looks ok to me.

First was done in version 6 and the 2nd was done using the Sourcewriter.


Old format

[Census - Canada - Ontario - 1851  - Wellington County]
Puslinch Township, Wellington South, Enumeration District 1, page 76 [number
39 also appears]; Microfilm C-11756
John D. Porter Farmer, born Ireland, age 73
John D. Porter Farmer, born Ireland age 32
Robert Porter, Farmer, born Ireland age 30
Ann J. Porter, born Ireland, age 34

Sourcewriter used:
Footnote/Endnote Citation:
1851 Census of Grey County, Ontario, Collingwood Twp, District 11,
Subdistrict 86, p. 15; digital images, The Generations Network, Inc,
Ancestry.com. 1851 Census of Canada East, Canada West, New Brunswick, and
Nova Scotia [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA (www.ancestry.ca);
Alexr Mitchell age 28, born Scotland
Mary Mitchell age 23, born Scotland
John G. Mitchell age 4 born Canada W
James Mitchell age 2 born Canada W

Subsequent Citation:
1851 Census of Grey County, Ontario, Collingwood Twp, District 11,
Subdistrict 86, p. 15.

Bibliography:
Grey County. Ontario. 1851 Census of Grey County. Digital images. The
Generations Network, Inc. Ancestry.com. 1851 Census of Canada East, Canada
West, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA.
www.ancestry.ca : 5 Aug 2008.

--- in my case the Sourcewriter is pulling up info from the Master source
for the 2nd example.  For the first - the Master Source actually is
Census - Canada - Ontario - 1851  - Wellington County and may show on
reports.  I'll be checking.  I haven't gone back to change citations at this
point.

Kathy




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




__ NOD32 3404 (20080901) Information __

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.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] Source Writer for Canadian Census

[Kathy Wallace]

I’m not sure what doesn’t look right.  I just put things into the fields
provided and arrange them until what comes out looks ok to me.

First was done in version 6 and the 2nd was done using the Sourcewriter.


Old format

[Census - Canada - Ontario - 1851  - Wellington County]
Puslinch Township, Wellington South, Enumeration District 1, page 76 [number
39 also appears]; Microfilm C-11756
John D. Porter Farmer, born Ireland, age 73
John D. Porter Farmer, born Ireland age 32
Robert Porter, Farmer, born Ireland age 30
Ann J. Porter, born Ireland, age 34

Sourcewriter used:
Footnote/Endnote Citation:
1851 Census of Grey County, Ontario, Collingwood Twp, District 11,
Subdistrict 86, p. 15; digital images, The Generations Network, Inc,
Ancestry.com. 1851 Census of Canada East, Canada West, New Brunswick, and
Nova Scotia [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA (www.ancestry.ca); 
Alexr Mitchell age 28, born Scotland
Mary Mitchell age 23, born Scotland
John G. Mitchell age 4 born Canada W
James Mitchell age 2 born Canada W

Subsequent Citation:
1851 Census of Grey County, Ontario, Collingwood Twp, District 11,
Subdistrict 86, p. 15. 

Bibliography:
Grey County. Ontario. 1851 Census of Grey County. Digital images. The
Generations Network, Inc. Ancestry.com. 1851 Census of Canada East, Canada
West, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA.
www.ancestry.ca : 5 Aug 2008.

--- in my case the Sourcewriter is pulling up info from the Master source
for the 2nd example.  For the first - the Master Source actually is 
Census - Canada - Ontario - 1851  - Wellington County and may show on
reports.  I'll be checking.  I haven't gone back to change citations at this
point.

Kathy




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] Source Writer for Newspapers > Online archives (issued by the publisher)

[Brian/Support]

Jessica,

The only thing that can be entered for a repository, and this is at the 
Master Source Level, is the Call Number. If "Shelf 1 of master library" 
is the way you find individual items in your library you could enter 
that as the "Call Number" for the sources in your own library. Typically 
the call number would be the number from the repository's catalogue for 
a specific book or document.


Brian
Customer Support
Millennia Corporation
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com

We are changing the world of genealogy!
When replying to this message, please include all previous correspondence.
Thanks.

Jessica Morgan wrote:

Thanks Brian.
Is there not an area where you can make detail notes on a repository
item that does not flow to all instances of that repository?

Example if I want to note that the repository is my personal
library on 1,000 items, the way it is set up now is fine.

If I want to note on 20 of those 1,000 items that they are located on
"Shelf 1 of master library", is there not a place to do that
individually?
I was expecting the notes section on the respository tab to allow me to do that.

Jessica


On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Brian/Support
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

We have a problem report recorded on this issue. The Repository Notes filed
should be greyed out to indicate that you cannot modify the field when
viewing it from the source. As others have indicated you need to open the
repository to edit that field.

Brian
Customer Support
Millennia Corporation
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com

We are changing the world of genealogy!
When replying to this message, please include all previous correspondence.
Thanks.

Jessica Morgan wrote:

I am adding an obituary source using the Source Writer Template of
Newspapers > Online Archives (issued by the publisher).

When in the Repository screen, I cannot type in the Notes field at the
bottom of the box.

Is this normal?

Jess M




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] Source Writer for Newspapers > Online archives (issued by the publisher)

[Jessica Morgan]

Thanks Brian.
Is there not an area where you can make detail notes on a repository
item that does not flow to all instances of that repository?

Example if I want to note that the repository is my personal
library on 1,000 items, the way it is set up now is fine.

If I want to note on 20 of those 1,000 items that they are located on
"Shelf 1 of master library", is there not a place to do that
individually?
I was expecting the notes section on the respository tab to allow me to do that.

Jessica


On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Brian/Support
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have a problem report recorded on this issue. The Repository Notes filed
> should be greyed out to indicate that you cannot modify the field when
> viewing it from the source. As others have indicated you need to open the
> repository to edit that field.
>
> Brian
> Customer Support
> Millennia Corporation
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com
>
> We are changing the world of genealogy!
> When replying to this message, please include all previous correspondence.
> Thanks.
>
> Jessica Morgan wrote:
>>
>> I am adding an obituary source using the Source Writer Template of
>> Newspapers > Online Archives (issued by the publisher).
>>
>> When in the Repository screen, I cannot type in the Notes field at the
>> bottom of the box.
>>
>> Is this normal?
>>
>> Jess M
>
>
>
>
> 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] Source Writer for Newspapers > Online archives (issued by the publisher)

[Brian/Support]

We have a problem report recorded on this issue. The Repository Notes 
filed should be greyed out to indicate that you cannot modify the field 
when viewing it from the source. As others have indicated you need to 
open the repository to edit that field.


Brian
Customer Support
Millennia Corporation
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com

We are changing the world of genealogy!
When replying to this message, please include all previous correspondence.
Thanks.

Jessica Morgan wrote:

I am adding an obituary source using the Source Writer Template of
Newspapers > Online Archives (issued by the publisher).

When in the Repository screen, I cannot type in the Notes field at the
bottom of the box.

Is this normal?

Jess M





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] Source Writer for Newspapers > Online archives (issued by the publisher)

[Dede Holden]

If you want to add notes to a repository, you need to click on Edit in the
Repository window, then choose the Notes tab.  Once you enter notes using
the Notes tab, they will then appear in this Notes window when you look at
the repository.

Dede Holden

On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Jenny M Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> Jessica Morgan wrote
>
>> I am adding an obituary source using the Source Writer Template of
>> Newspapers > Online Archives (issued by the publisher).
>>
>> When in the Repository screen, I cannot type in the Notes field at the
>> bottom of the box.
>>
>> Is this normal?
>>
>
> I think it's a bug.
> --
> 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] Source Writer for Newspapers > Online archives (issued by the publisher)

[Jenny M Benson]

Jessica Morgan wrote
I am adding an obituary source using the Source Writer Template of 
Newspapers > Online Archives (issued by the publisher).


When in the Repository screen, I cannot type in the Notes field at the 
bottom of the box.


Is this normal?


I think it's a bug.
--
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] Source Writer for Newspapers > Online archives (issued by the publisher)

[Linda McCauley]

Click on Edit for the Repository and add your notes from there.  In
the source window, it simply displays that is in the Repository notes
field.

Linda M.

On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Jessica Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am adding an obituary source using the Source Writer Template of
> Newspapers > Online Archives (issued by the publisher).
>
> When in the Repository screen, I cannot type in the Notes field at the
> bottom of the box.
>
> Is this normal?
>
> Jess M
>
>
>
> 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] Source Writer - Death Certificates

[Kirsten Bowman]

Karima:

Why wouldn't you use the death records template and select "held at
local/county level" option?

As I'm getting familiar with SourceWriter, I'm beginning to think that there
could be 2-3 "correct" templates to use for a given source and in some
instances it may not matter which one you select as long as the resulting
citation is formatted the way you want.

Kirsten

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Quest
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 10:08 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer - Death Certificates


I can't seem to figure out which template to use for recording copies of
original death certificates that I have obtained from County Clerks.  Can
someone help me with this?

Thanks in advance,

Karima






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] Source Writer - Death Certificates

[Geoff Rasmussen]

Karima,

Death Records > Death Certificate > Local/County level > Original.

The term "original" is probably a bit misleading for now. We'll come up with
better phrasing in the future. But this is the specific template that was
intended for your situation.

Thanks,

Geoff Rasmussen
Millennia Corporation
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.LegacyFamilyTree.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Quest
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 10:08 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer - Death Certificates

I can't seem to figure out which template to use for recording copies of 
original death certificates that I have obtained from County Clerks.  Can 
someone help me with this?

Thanks in advance,

Karima





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] Source Writer option

[Tim Rosenlof]

It's got my vote.

Tim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Robert57P via Gmail
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 6:58 PM
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer option
> 
> 
> I remember this being asked, but don't recall it ever being answered.
> 
> If one has OPTIONS, CUSTOMIZE, SOURCES and has "SOURCEWRITER" 
> ticked in 
> lower left, then you are "forced" to always use Sourcewriter. 
>  No way to use 
> the "basic" system when you are updating someone - without 
> leaving that 
> person and coming back to these options and then returning to 
> the person.
> 
> HOWEVER, if you select BASIC SOURCE SYSTEMS on the options 
> screen, AND if 
> you check the box "ask which system to use . . . ", then when 
> you try to add 
> a new source you get a pop-up box that asks which method you 
> want to use 
> (Basic or SourceWriter).
> 
> LEGACY Support - maybe a better way??:  There's a lot of 
> space by that "ADD 
> A NEW SOURCE" button.  Why not make 2 buttons there:
> ADD A NEW SOURCE-BASIC
> ADD A NEW SOURCE-SOURCEWRITER
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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] Source Writer option

[Geoff Rasmussen]

Bob,

We have an idea in mind for this

Thanks,

Geoff Rasmussen
Millennia Corporation
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.LegacyFamilyTree.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert57P
via Gmail
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 5:58 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer option

I remember this being asked, but don't recall it ever being answered.

If one has OPTIONS, CUSTOMIZE, SOURCES and has "SOURCEWRITER" ticked in 
lower left, then you are "forced" to always use Sourcewriter.  No way to use

the "basic" system when you are updating someone - without leaving that 
person and coming back to these options and then returning to the person.

HOWEVER, if you select BASIC SOURCE SYSTEMS on the options screen, AND if 
you check the box "ask which system to use . . . ", then when you try to add

a new source you get a pop-up box that asks which method you want to use 
(Basic or SourceWriter).

LEGACY Support - maybe a better way??:  There's a lot of space by that "ADD 
A NEW SOURCE" button.  Why not make 2 buttons there:
ADD A NEW SOURCE-BASIC
ADD A NEW SOURCE-SOURCEWRITER

Bob





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] Source Writer Templates

[Ruth Nerud]

You need to ask someone who can help you. The LUG cannot - put in a request 
to Millennium through your Home Page for this enhancement.


Ruth A. (Sconza Testa) Nerud
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

- Original Message - 
From: "Don Cook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Templates



As reluctant as I am to ask for new "goodies" at this time, I will!

I think it would be real neat if we could add our own Source Templates in 
a manner similar to adding new Event Definitions.


Don

--
From: "Geoff Rasmussen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 8:43 AM
To: 
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Templates


Jan,

These will come with time. I'm not going to say "tomorrow" nor "soon". I
think we've learned from that. It could be done now but with a little
thinking. We'll try to get it so it doesn't require any thinking to enter
these. :)

Thanks,

Geoff Rasmussen
Millennia Corporation
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.LegacyFamilyTree.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jan 
Bennett

Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 7:31 AM
To: legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Templates

Anyway, now to my question - does anyone know if there are plans to be
able to add templates to the source writer such as UK Census, UK Civil
Registrations etc.
A very giddy Jan






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] Source Writer Templates

[Don Cook]

As reluctant as I am to ask for new "goodies" at this time, I will!

I think it would be real neat if we could add our own Source Templates 
in a manner similar to adding new Event Definitions.


Don

--
From: "Geoff Rasmussen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 8:43 AM
To: 
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Templates


Jan,

These will come with time. I'm not going to say "tomorrow" nor "soon". 
I

think we've learned from that. It could be done now but with a little
thinking. We'll try to get it so it doesn't require any thinking to 
enter

these. :)

Thanks,

Geoff Rasmussen
Millennia Corporation
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.LegacyFamilyTree.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jan 
Bennett

Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 7:31 AM
To: legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Templates

Anyway, now to my question - does anyone know if there are plans to be
able to add templates to the source writer such as UK Census, UK Civil
Registrations etc.
A very giddy Jan






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] Source Writer Templates

[Wendy Howard]

Hi Jan,

> does anyone know if there are plans to be able to add templates
> to the source writer such as UK Census, UK Civil Registrations etc.

I expect by now you will have seen Geoff's post on this subject, where 
he said:


"Hopefully this next week we'll be creating specific templates for the 
UK vital registrations. This will make it easier to format. We'll 
release this in a free update."


He sent it about an hour and a half before you sent your post, so with 
the timing irregularities we're seeing with mail delivery on this list, 
it probably hadn't arrived in your mail box when you wrote.  I'm 
repeating it here in case it has been missed.


I'm looking forward to them, too.  :-)

Kind Regards,
Wendy Howard
--
Kaiwaka, Northland, New Zealand
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wendyh65/ 





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] Source Writer Templates

[Jenny M Benson]

Don Cook wrote
I think it would be real neat if we could add our own Source Templates 
in a manner similar to adding new Event Definitions.


You can pretty much do that now - just use the old style of Sourcing 
rather than the SourceWriter.  Create the Source any way you want it and 
next time you want one similar, but not quite the same, make a copy of 
it, rename and alter as required.

--
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] Source Writer

[Cathy]

Evidence took little to no notice of the ways in which computers 
store information so mixed "Master Source" and "Source Detail" 
information up for many source types. I found it impossible to even 
think of implementing much of it although Mills principles re 
sourcing are excellent. Evidence Explained is a little pedantic in 
some places for me, but at least the Sources follow a more logical 
order of "Master Source" and "Source Detail". She does follow 
accepted academic conventions as well as providing ways of sourcing 
less common material.


Cathy

At 12:08 PM 7/06/2008, you wrote:
Thanks for the response, Kirsten, though it's definitely not the one 
I wanted.  I was really looking forward to the Source Writer.  If 
the goal post is going to be moved every ten years or so, I'll just 
live in the past.




Kirsten Bowman wrote:

Kris:
I can't detail the reasons for the differences you mention, but only to say
this:  I have both _Evidence!_ and _Evidence Explained_.  In comparing the
two at the outset, I found so many differences that I finally put away the
earlier version and just go by the later one.  I would expect that what
you're seeing just follows the later version rather than being anything that
you're doing wrong.
Kirsten
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kris
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 12:16 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer

It's my understanding that Source Writer is designed to format source
citations according to "Evidence Explained" -- which I don't have.  I
have "Evidence!" from 1997.  I didn't think there would be much
difference, but so far there is.  Since no one's complained til now, I
figure I must have done something wrong.
Example of a death certificate cite from the 1997 book:
Floyd Finley Shown, death certificate no. 59-0224 (1959), Tennessee
Department of Public Health, Nashville.
Cite with Source Writer:
Tennessee Department of Public Health, death certificate 59-0224 (1959),
Floyd Finley Shown; Tennessee Department of Public Health, Nashville.
I haven't found a source yet that's cited the way I would expect.  Is
the 1997 book just plain obsolete?  Am I missing something obvious?  I
know I can keep doing things the way I was "BS" (before Seven), but I
was really looking forward to using the Source Writer.





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] Source Writer

[Robert Carneal USA]

The Source Conversion Tool hasn't been released yet.
Robert

Scott Failmezger wrote:
Does anyone know where the Source Conversion Tool is? It is not under 
Master Lists, Sources, Options as stated in the help.


Scott Failmezger

- Original Message - From: "Kris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer


Thanks for the response, Kirsten, though it's definitely not the one 
I wanted.  I was really looking forward to the Source Writer.  If the 
goal post is going to be moved every ten years or so, I'll just live 
in the past.




Kirsten Bowman wrote:

Kris:

I can't detail the reasons for the differences you mention, but only 
to say
this:  I have both _Evidence!_ and _Evidence Explained_.  In 
comparing the
two at the outset, I found so many differences that I finally put 
away the

earlier version and just go by the later one.  I would expect that what
you're seeing just follows the later version rather than being 
anything that

you're doing wrong.

Kirsten

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kris
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 12:16 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer


It's my understanding that Source Writer is designed to format source
citations according to "Evidence Explained" -- which I don't have.  I
have "Evidence!" from 1997.  I didn't think there would be much
difference, but so far there is.  Since no one's complained til now, I
figure I must have done something wrong.

Example of a death certificate cite from the 1997 book:

Floyd Finley Shown, death certificate no. 59-0224 (1959), Tennessee
Department of Public Health, Nashville.

Cite with Source Writer:

Tennessee Department of Public Health, death certificate 59-0224 
(1959),

Floyd Finley Shown; Tennessee Department of Public Health, Nashville.

I haven't found a source yet that's cited the way I would expect.  Is
the 1997 book just plain obsolete?  Am I missing something obvious?  I
know I can keep doing things the way I was "BS" (before Seven), but I
was really looking forward to using the Source Writer.





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] Source Writer

[Scott Failmezger]

Does anyone know where the Source Conversion Tool is? It is not under Master 
Lists, Sources, Options as stated in the help.


Scott Failmezger

- Original Message - 
From: "Kris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer


Thanks for the response, Kirsten, though it's definitely not the one I 
wanted.  I was really looking forward to the Source Writer.  If the goal 
post is going to be moved every ten years or so, I'll just live in the 
past.




Kirsten Bowman wrote:

Kris:

I can't detail the reasons for the differences you mention, but only to 
say
this:  I have both _Evidence!_ and _Evidence Explained_.  In comparing 
the
two at the outset, I found so many differences that I finally put away 
the

earlier version and just go by the later one.  I would expect that what
you're seeing just follows the later version rather than being anything 
that

you're doing wrong.

Kirsten

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kris
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 12:16 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer


It's my understanding that Source Writer is designed to format source
citations according to "Evidence Explained" -- which I don't have.  I
have "Evidence!" from 1997.  I didn't think there would be much
difference, but so far there is.  Since no one's complained til now, I
figure I must have done something wrong.

Example of a death certificate cite from the 1997 book:

Floyd Finley Shown, death certificate no. 59-0224 (1959), Tennessee
Department of Public Health, Nashville.

Cite with Source Writer:

Tennessee Department of Public Health, death certificate 59-0224 (1959),
Floyd Finley Shown; Tennessee Department of Public Health, Nashville.

I haven't found a source yet that's cited the way I would expect.  Is
the 1997 book just plain obsolete?  Am I missing something obvious?  I
know I can keep doing things the way I was "BS" (before Seven), but I
was really looking forward to using the Source Writer.




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] Source Writer

[Allen Prunty]

That is only one of three different ways your source is used.

I like this new way better... it's more in line with the way colleges are 
requiring students to document sources now.


Allen

--
From: "Kris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 3:15 AM
To: 
Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer


It's my understanding that Source Writer is designed to format source
citations according to "Evidence Explained" -- which I don't have.  I
have "Evidence!" from 1997.  I didn't think there would be much
difference, but so far there is.  Since no one's complained til now, I
figure I must have done something wrong.

Example of a death certificate cite from the 1997 book:

Floyd Finley Shown, death certificate no. 59-0224 (1959), Tennessee
Department of Public Health, Nashville.

Cite with Source Writer:

Tennessee Department of Public Health, death certificate 59-0224 (1959),
Floyd Finley Shown; Tennessee Department of Public Health, Nashville.

I haven't found a source yet that's cited the way I would expect.  Is
the 1997 book just plain obsolete?  Am I missing something obvious?  I
know I can keep doing things the way I was "BS" (before Seven), but I
was really looking forward to using the Source Writer.






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] Source Writer

[Kris]

Hi, Geoff -- Thanks for the explanation.  I guess it's my turn to whine 
-- the "new" cites just make no sense to me.  I've seen some examples 
here of cites that go on and on and on -- but don't really say much. 
The second example of the death certificate cite is a small example of 
that.  It says the same thing twice, and doesn't "read" logically to me.


I guess that's why she gets the big bucks and the kewl letters after her 
name.  ;-)


Geoff Rasmussen wrote:

There were some fundamental changes between the two versions. In the 1997
version, many citations began with the subject (name of the person), such as
your example. Census records also come to mind. The templates in the
SourceWriter were based on Evidence Explained.

Thanks,

Geoff Rasmussen
Millennia Corporation
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.LegacyFamilyTree.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kris
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 12:16 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer

It's my understanding that Source Writer is designed to format source
citations according to "Evidence Explained" -- which I don't have.  I
have "Evidence!" from 1997.  I didn't think there would be much
difference, but so far there is.  Since no one's complained til now, I
figure I must have done something wrong.

Example of a death certificate cite from the 1997 book:

Floyd Finley Shown, death certificate no. 59-0224 (1959), Tennessee
Department of Public Health, Nashville.

Cite with Source Writer:

Tennessee Department of Public Health, death certificate 59-0224 (1959),
Floyd Finley Shown; Tennessee Department of Public Health, Nashville.

I haven't found a source yet that's cited the way I would expect.  Is
the 1997 book just plain obsolete?  Am I missing something obvious?  I
know I can keep doing things the way I was "BS" (before Seven), but I
was really looking forward to using the Source Writer.




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] Source Writer

[Mary Figgins]

I have to admit, Kris, that I like layout of the older one better.  As a 
splitter that is the format I use for all my sources.  The individual 
information, followed by the larger information.  For census records that 
would be - John B. Smith household.  1900 census, Missouri, Lafayette 
County, Lexington, ED ___, page. ___.  

Mary Beth

--- On Fri, 6/6/08, Kris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Kris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Date: Friday, June 6, 2008, 11:08 PM

Thanks for the response, Kirsten, though it's definitely not the one I 
wanted.  I was really looking forward to the Source Writer.  If the goal 
post is going to be moved every ten years or so, I'll just live in the 
past.



Kirsten Bowman wrote:
> Kris:
> 
> I can't detail the reasons for the differences you mention, but only
to say
> this:  I have both _Evidence!_ and _Evidence Explained_.  In comparing the
> two at the outset, I found so many differences that I finally put away the
> earlier version and just go by the later one.  I would expect that what
> you're seeing just follows the later version rather than being
anything that
> you're doing wrong.
> 
> Kirsten
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kris
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 12:16 AM
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer
> 
> 
> It's my understanding that Source Writer is designed to format source
> citations according to "Evidence Explained" -- which I don't
have.  I
> have "Evidence!" from 1997.  I didn't think there would be
much
> difference, but so far there is.  Since no one's complained til now, I
> figure I must have done something wrong.
> 
> Example of a death certificate cite from the 1997 book:
> 
> Floyd Finley Shown, death certificate no. 59-0224 (1959), Tennessee
> Department of Public Health, Nashville.
> 
> Cite with Source Writer:
> 
> Tennessee Department of Public Health, death certificate 59-0224 (1959),
> Floyd Finley Shown; Tennessee Department of Public Health, Nashville.
> 
> I haven't found a source yet that's cited the way I would expect. 
Is
> the 1997 book just plain obsolete?  Am I missing something obvious?  I
> know I can keep doing things the way I was "BS" (before Seven),
but I
> was really looking forward to using the Source Writer.



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] Source Writer Templates

[Geoff Rasmussen]

Jan,

These will come with time. I'm not going to say "tomorrow" nor "soon". I
think we've learned from that. It could be done now but with a little
thinking. We'll try to get it so it doesn't require any thinking to enter
these. :)

Thanks,

Geoff Rasmussen
Millennia Corporation
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.LegacyFamilyTree.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jan Bennett
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 7:31 AM
To: legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Templates

Anyway, now to my question - does anyone know if there are plans to be
able to add templates to the source writer such as UK Census, UK Civil
Registrations etc.
A very giddy Jan




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] Source Writer

[Kris]

Thanks for the response, Kirsten, though it's definitely not the one I 
wanted.  I was really looking forward to the Source Writer.  If the goal 
post is going to be moved every ten years or so, I'll just live in the 
past.




Kirsten Bowman wrote:

Kris:

I can't detail the reasons for the differences you mention, but only to say
this:  I have both _Evidence!_ and _Evidence Explained_.  In comparing the
two at the outset, I found so many differences that I finally put away the
earlier version and just go by the later one.  I would expect that what
you're seeing just follows the later version rather than being anything that
you're doing wrong.

Kirsten

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kris
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 12:16 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer


It's my understanding that Source Writer is designed to format source
citations according to "Evidence Explained" -- which I don't have.  I
have "Evidence!" from 1997.  I didn't think there would be much
difference, but so far there is.  Since no one's complained til now, I
figure I must have done something wrong.

Example of a death certificate cite from the 1997 book:

Floyd Finley Shown, death certificate no. 59-0224 (1959), Tennessee
Department of Public Health, Nashville.

Cite with Source Writer:

Tennessee Department of Public Health, death certificate 59-0224 (1959),
Floyd Finley Shown; Tennessee Department of Public Health, Nashville.

I haven't found a source yet that's cited the way I would expect.  Is
the 1997 book just plain obsolete?  Am I missing something obvious?  I
know I can keep doing things the way I was "BS" (before Seven), but I
was really looking forward to using the Source Writer.




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] Source Writer

[Geoff Rasmussen]

There were some fundamental changes between the two versions. In the 1997
version, many citations began with the subject (name of the person), such as
your example. Census records also come to mind. The templates in the
SourceWriter were based on Evidence Explained.

Thanks,

Geoff Rasmussen
Millennia Corporation
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.LegacyFamilyTree.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kris
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 12:16 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer

It's my understanding that Source Writer is designed to format source
citations according to "Evidence Explained" -- which I don't have.  I
have "Evidence!" from 1997.  I didn't think there would be much
difference, but so far there is.  Since no one's complained til now, I
figure I must have done something wrong.

Example of a death certificate cite from the 1997 book:

Floyd Finley Shown, death certificate no. 59-0224 (1959), Tennessee
Department of Public Health, Nashville.

Cite with Source Writer:

Tennessee Department of Public Health, death certificate 59-0224 (1959),
Floyd Finley Shown; Tennessee Department of Public Health, Nashville.

I haven't found a source yet that's cited the way I would expect.  Is
the 1997 book just plain obsolete?  Am I missing something obvious?  I
know I can keep doing things the way I was "BS" (before Seven), but I
was really looking forward to using the Source Writer.




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] Source Writer

[Kirsten Bowman]

Kris:

I can't detail the reasons for the differences you mention, but only to say
this:  I have both _Evidence!_ and _Evidence Explained_.  In comparing the
two at the outset, I found so many differences that I finally put away the
earlier version and just go by the later one.  I would expect that what
you're seeing just follows the later version rather than being anything that
you're doing wrong.

Kirsten

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kris
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 12:16 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer


It's my understanding that Source Writer is designed to format source
citations according to "Evidence Explained" -- which I don't have.  I
have "Evidence!" from 1997.  I didn't think there would be much
difference, but so far there is.  Since no one's complained til now, I
figure I must have done something wrong.

Example of a death certificate cite from the 1997 book:

Floyd Finley Shown, death certificate no. 59-0224 (1959), Tennessee
Department of Public Health, Nashville.

Cite with Source Writer:

Tennessee Department of Public Health, death certificate 59-0224 (1959),
Floyd Finley Shown; Tennessee Department of Public Health, Nashville.

I haven't found a source yet that's cited the way I would expect.  Is
the 1997 book just plain obsolete?  Am I missing something obvious?  I
know I can keep doing things the way I was "BS" (before Seven), but I
was really looking forward to using the Source Writer.









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