Anne wrote:
I would like someone to share with me how they would create a master source
(using the new source writer), for a marriage found in the index at this
website below.
Anne,
As Phil said, the Mid Kent database seems well well done. Thus, my next two
sentences are not meant to reflect
If your birthday was 1 jan 1900 then on 1 jan 1901 you would have entered
your 2nd year.
But on 1 Jan 1901 you would celebrate your first birthday and be considered
one year old until your second birthday on 1 Jan 1902.
This is a cultural thing, and it will be incorrect for 1/2 the world, even
I have a certificate from the US War Department, Army Service Forces, Corps
of Engineers regarding a family member, who was most likely a civilian,
participating in the Manhattan District, Tennessee Eastman Corporation,
production of the Atomic Bomb in WWII. It's dated 1945. Would you show this
Ron wrote:
Having used a 'Church Record' master source with a source detail for a
'Baptism Certificate' and entered an 'Issue date' in the 09/08/1949 format
expecting it to appear in the record (and subsequent descendant report) as
08 Sep 1949.
Ron, you've received several good answers by now,
Just one thing about the letter template in Legacy. It assumes that the
'holder' of the letter is the recipient, which of course need not
necessarily be the case - but then I suppose one should use the 'historical'
letter template. The default also refers to the holder of the letter by
surname
, I think one has to look at the media in which one is making the
presentation. Perhaps ideally this shouldn't matter, but it does, and I
would contend that web pages are much more a visual form than a book.
I also find that there is nothing worse than a web page full of written
detail, and I am
David wrote:
This is specifically to do with the 'Letter' template, but may well be
applicable to other templates. If you fill in the field boxes 'correctly',
at the end of the Footnote/Endnote Citation, the information could read:
privately held by Brookes and the Subsequent Citation could read
Ron wrote:
It would seem to be that our different reasons for publishing (in whatever
form) lead to different conclusions as to what standard of sourcing is
appropriate for the published output. This inevitably poses the question as
to what should be stored in our respected sources. A decision
Elizabeth R. wrote:
I used that example because ... There was an assertion that ESM showed
differences in the citation. . . . I must admit that I don't have Evidence
Explained so I can't look it up.
Elizabeth, I smiled at this one. You'd never believe how many times my jaw
has dropped off my
Ron F. wrote:
one of the considerations which I made when deciding how to deal with
census. What is the source for a census? In Britain, The government? It
wasn't their information, they only collected it. without going through all
the administrative layers we end up with the householder who
Ward wrote:
I would like Millennia to carefully think through the rules for
abbreviating
source details in footnotes, ... Of course, the solution could
also enable user options for more or less aggressive abbreviation rules.
And that is the best of all worlds--when software gives us the
Ron,
This is the follow up message I promised. Side diversions came along in
the meanwhile. (Someone actually presented me with real dead people to
think about, instead of dull, dry theory :).
You wrote:
one day I would love to debate with you the extent to which the detail of
standardisation
Elizabeth R. wrote:
I cannot tell you what a breath of fresh air this post is to
me. Much of my frustration with my understanding of EE has to do with the
handling of census records.
Elizabeth, I wish you had posed this question to me earlier. As I mentioned
in one or another message yesterday,
Ron wrote:
However, we are beginning to part company here, your points:
That's fine. If two people think exactly alike, something's wrong :).
1) I take it that you are referring to sources being included in charts
such as the Ancestor Chart. I have no strong feelings about the *option*
being
Wynther wrote:
Just as one shouldn't try to paint the Mona Lisa with a chain saw, neither
should one try to sculpt a David with a paint brush.
Gee, that's what a lot of people said, back in the technological dark ages,
when rumors began about a preposterous idea of a relational database
We could see this coming, and it is why I would imagine most are like me,
and extremely selective as to which Source Writer templates are used. Mrs
Mills has a lot to answer for!!
Beyond a doubt, I do, Mr. Ferguson. g However, I doubt that this will be
one of those issues for which I will one
Thanks, Ron, for your insight--virtually all of which I agree with. We
obviously share a set of core values. As always, though, the devil in the
details.
One of the fascinating things about genealogy--and one of its strengths,
IMO--is the extent to which its practitioners are drawn from so many
Elizabeth Richardson wrote:
People ought to be able to think this stuff through.
Name of document, author of document, enough additional information so that
the next person can look at it too. Do you really need 5 screens of drop
down menus to record this? Absolutely not! ... keep it simple,
18 matches
Mail list logo
