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
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
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.
Okay... thanks.
--- On Tue, 3/3/09, ronald ferguson ronfe...@msn.com wrote:
From: ronald ferguson ronfe...@msn.com
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
Thank you
--- On Tue, 3/3/09, Connie Sheets clshee...@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Connie Sheets clshee...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer - Master Template Info question
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 10:33 AM
Will,
It appears
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
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 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
, 10 Feb 1998; citing Nevada Marriage Book 210:
C923786, no. 71867.
- Original Message -
From: Jennifer Trahan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question
Hi, Kay! I used
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
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
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
, it is the
repository.
Elizabeth
researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson
- Original Message -
From: William Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:39 PM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Source Writer Question
Rich
, 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
: 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
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
(Patterson) Thompson
- Original Message -
From: William Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
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
[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
and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson
- Original Message -
From: William Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
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
]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
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
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
@legacyfamilytree.com
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
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
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
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
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. g
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
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
Im not sure what doesnt 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,
Thank you, Kathy, I know I can use the old format input it, that's what
I've done in the past. g
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
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. g
Thank you for your response,
Sally
*
I
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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:
: 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
: [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
]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
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
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
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
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
: Saturday, June 07, 2008 8:43 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
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
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]
, Lafayette
County, Lexington, ED ___, page. ___.nbsp;
Mary Beth
--- On Fri, 6/6/08, Kris lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]gt; wrote:
From: Kris lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]gt;
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Writer
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Date: Friday, June 6, 2008, 11:08 PM
Thanks for the response
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
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,
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
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
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
57 matches
Mail list logo
