Elizabeth,
It depends upon how I'm using the report as to whether I need to edit it. For
my own use, or to share with certain cousins, no.
If/when I finally get around to applying for certification or submitting an
article for consideration for publication, then yes, I will have to do
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
Hi everyone,
Firstly, before I start, please understand that in relation to many who are
members of the LUG, I spend much less time on family history and secondly,
my area of expertise definitely lies elsewhere. I have not followed this
thread fully, but have been delighted to read a couple of
/
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 04:15:47 -0600
Ron,
This is the follow up message I promised. Side diversions came along in
the meanwhile. (Someone
/
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 04:15:47 -0600
Ron,
This is the follow up message I promised. Side diversions came along in
the meanwhile. (Someone
Bowman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 10:47 PM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Elizabeth (Richardson):
I don't think there *is* a different standard for citing a published book
in
a brick and mortar
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
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
@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 1:44 AM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
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
or not the duplicate
citation had resulted from using the source clipboard.
Ward
- Original Message -
From: Ward Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Connie,
I had
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Elizabeth Richardson
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 1:34 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Kirsten, I used that example because of a discussion in this group within
the last 2
]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 9:49 AM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Elizabeth:
I believe that discussion was based on a misinterpretation. I do have
_EE_
and it's pretty clear on citation of published books. In fact, I
, 2008 11:05 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Thanks, Kirsten. Subsequent posts from ESM herself have been very
enlightening! It would seem that misinterpretation and confusion abound.
Elizabeth
researching the descendants
Ward Walker wrote:
Before I forward this to Legacy Support, does anyone have a
suggestion for the desired program logic for omitting
certain source _detail_ fields for subsequent citations of
the master source?
Here is my suggestion, which may or may not be practical to
implement:
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Ward Walker wrote:
Before I forward this to Legacy Support, does anyone have a
suggestion for the desired program logic
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,
]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:04:30 -0600
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
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
Elizabeth M. wrote:
2. Work on the word-processing capability, so we don't
have to import into
other software to create readable biographies, adequate
discussions of
problems, and proper punctuation--after which we still have
the problem of
stuffing the genie back into the bottle.
I am
I fully agree!
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.
Perhaps what is really needed is a third party full bodied, fully customizable,
user friendly report generator
--- On Tue, 12/9/08, ronald ferguson
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
heavily on the detail text will have a lot
of trouble with this.
Ward
- Original Message -
From: Connie Sheets [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 11:37 AM
Subject: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Using
://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 13:23:18 -0500
Connie,
I had had trouble
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
Ms. Mills' succinct and practical statement about the practicality of
stringent standards for sourcing is most welcome.
I continue to pull for Legacy to become the academic software of choice for
genealogists; it has much to recommend it. I drifted to Legacy (as I have
often said) more or less by
I wish I had thought to add to my previous post that Ron is clearly a Legacy
guru. Regardless of our differences of opinion regarding sourcing, he is the
go-to guy for anything about Legacy.
Janis
On 12/7/08 6:46 PM, Janis L Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ms. Mills' succinct and practical
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 6:19 PM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
We could see this coming, and it is why I would imagine most are like me,
and extremely selective as to which Source
PM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
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
Thank-you for the sublime articulation. We're not used to people who
even know how to spell. g
-
JL
JLog - simple computer technology for genealogists
http://www.jgen.ws/jlog
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Beyond a doubt, I do, Mr. Ferguson. g However, I doubt that this will be
one of those
://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 17:19:00 -0600
We could see
:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 2:19 PM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation
Issue
We could see this coming, and it is why I would
imagine most are like me,
and extremely selective as to which Source
.
Elizabeth
researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson
- Original Message -
From: Wynthner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
In other
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,
Richardson
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 5:08 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Perhaps the standards should be changed. They are convoluted and are
difficult to understand and follow. For example, a different standard
entries
Using 7.0.0.76
My apologies if this has already been asked/answered, but I could not find
exactly what I'm looking for in the archives.
I am trying to figure out why the Master Source Subsequent Citation does not
print as it is shown onscreen when there are multiple citations in a report (in
40 matches
Mail list logo
