I have been through the archives and can not find what I thought was
there.
In the past I think there have been conversations about how you have
deal with unlinked people.
For instance I have 45 entires for Patrick CULLODEN coming from marriage
licences, LDS, directories, entries in Registry of
The reason I had the thought as below was so that I could print out a
dropdown chart and compare them all along in a straight line which then
might allow me to move them up or down a generation.
This has been my ongoing problem since I first started with Legacy not
being able to sort a list and
Valerie,
I see that you are a member of The Guild for One Name Studies and as such you
are likely to come across this question with increasing frequency, as do I with
my researches into the Fergusons.
I do not see what can be gained by creating a father, nor do I quite understand
what you
Thanks Reg, that sounds like a good idea. I will check out the Affiliateinfo
email.
Myrna
in windy, but sunny Mexico
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Today's Legacy tip is entitled How to include Alternate Names in the Index
View
Read it:
- via the Legacy News RSS feed
- in the Legacy News section of the Legacy Home tab within Legacy 6
- directly at
http://legacynews.typepad.com/legacy_news/2008/02/legacy-tip---ho.html
Thanks,
Geoff
I have some serious census sourcing clean-up that needs to be done, to bring
them into conformity with the Mills templates. I had done a great deal of it
prior to hearing that Legacy 7 will offer better Mills sourcing
capabilities. I have been putting the census clean-up on the back burner, so
to
I'm curious of this answer too. I'm currently debating myself on this.
My current project is converting a 300+ bound volume of family history
on my mother's side to a Legacy database. Where I've found documented
AKA's I've entered those. But I also found myself entering some AKA's
for unnamed
Michele,
Since it means Also Known As I have always taken it to mean another name by
which a person was also known, as distinct from a name by which they might
possibly (or possibly not) have been known.
Ron Ferguson
_
For
Valarie -
I understand your question/problem because I have over 30 John Trump
individuals that are unlinked in my database.
What I have done is enter each with a unique suffix identifier (eg, [A],
[B], [AA], etc) so that I can keep them seperate and easily identify them in
the name list, etc.
Personally, I only use what I've found on documents, or as in those whom
I've known, I will include nicknames and/or other names by which they
were known. My grandfather, for instance, was Luther Ambrose Snurr, but
everyone called him Jim. So I've added that into the AKA's even though
it
Valerie,
You can sort as you want using Access or Open Office. You can also get close by
using FindSearch for say, Surname and then Given Name and using Print to give
the final results
Ron Ferguson
_
For Genealogy,
I have the same problem. For the moment Im continuing to enter my sources
as I always have done, and I hope that there will be some sort of merge that
will let me change the master source format for all existing sources (as
today where you make a change and have the option of making a new source
People seem to do the AKA's differently - kind of a personal choice thing.
I put married names into AKA's, and I also put in any spelling variations,
nicknames, and total misspellings that I have FOUND used for a person. I
don't put in spelling variations that are common for the surname, if I
I am in exactly the same place with census sources, Janis.
I have split them too much in the past and would like to lump them more as I
clean up these entries and add others. At present, I'm simply noting the
census finds I have (that aren't already entered as sources) in the research
notes
I have absolutely major census clean-up to do - a 5,000 person database and not
one census cited well enough for another person to locate the original. The
ease of citing sources in Legacy is one of the things I like best about it. I
watched Geoff's video on sources, and, although I do not cite
Janis,
When I first started with the LUG last July the following was in the Legacy
news for July 27th 2007 Legacy version 7 is getting closer to its release.
We're still putting on the finishing touches. After that statement I started
slowing down entering new people. I learned a little
My question is how do you decide which of the various names one has
is in the main entry and which are AKAs if you did not know the
person? I have relatives who sometimes use a first name, sometimes a
middle name (in the census) and I do not have birth records for
them. I also have a great
Valerie:
There have been some brief discussions on this topic but they might be
disguised under a different subject line. For my own one-name study I have
a couple of different methods of handling unlinked individuals.
1) A definite family cluster can, of course, be added to Legacy as a small
I use the one which is most reliable it would be most often used
in the census, birth, death, and/or marriage records.
Joseph
_
Georgia wrote:
My question is how do you decide which of the various names one has is
in the/ main/ entry and which are AKAs if you did not know the
Janis:
This wait for v.7 could bring back the Limbo as a dance fad!
I was also re-working sources but stopped. Now I'm picking around the edges
by cleaning up locations, grouping and sorting Master Sources, correcting
repositories, and other little housekeeping chores that possibly won't be
What happens then when you find another family in the 1930 census? Don't you
run the risk of having the details from the first source overwrite those of
the second?
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Elizabeth Richardson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have absolutely *major* census clean-up to do
Personally, I record the ones I know were in use, even though they don't
show up on any official documents.
Two examples:
I was researching an uncle who was U.S. Army tank commander, KIA in Europe
in WWII. As you know, most of those official records were destroyed in a
fire. Someone in
There's a difference between Source Detail and Source Detail Text. The
first is for the source itself, the second for an individual instance of
the first.
JL
JLog - simple computer technology for genealogists
http://www3.telus.net/Jgen/jlog.html
Randolph Clark wrote:
What happens then when
- Original Message
From: Keith Bage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 12:29:22 PM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Organising unlinked people
Valerie,
I am a fellow member of the Guild of One-Name studies and wonder if you have
asked
Valerie,
I am a fellow member of the Guild of One-Name studies and wonder if you have
asked this question on their forum. You may get answers there more in line
with recording one name studies.
Whilst adding in Legacy is one possibility is is possibly not the most ideal
place to do this. Most
I would record only names that I have documented evidence of, with the
exception of adding the married name of females.
I would not add all the possible variations of spellings for instance,
unless verified as actually being used or your name list will be swamped.
Regards
Keith
-Original
I have been wanting the Version 7 improved source templates but at the same
time dreading it! I will end out having to look up a gazillion census
records just to get all of the required info off of them that I didn't get
the first time around :) :) :)
michele
Legacy User Group
I don't enter anything in Source Detail Text. I enter detail in the Source
Detail through the Source Clipboard. When I save my source to the clipboard,
in this case the 1930 census, it is set up to prompt for detail. I can keep
the detail that is already entered or I can change it. I am
That is a pedigree collapse. My 2 children are 8th, 9th, 13th and 14th
cousin from each other. Then it works it way back through my wifes line.
It took me hours if not days to unlink different ancestors to find what
you are looking for the Look at the help file under relationship
calculator.
-Tim
I guess I didn't really understand. I think you mean that in the Source
Detail Text I could add the information to a 1930 census entry, for
instance, Line 24. Have you run into many source types where you would use
this additional layer of detail?
Elizabeth
Researching the descendants of
Tim, you've GOT to be from ARKANSAS!!! GRIN
_
Tim Rosenlof wrote:
That is a pedigree collapse. My 2 children are 8th, 9th, 13th and 14th
cousin from each other. Then it works it way back through my wifes line.
It took me hours if not days to unlink different ancestors to find what
you
This has been an interesting discussion on citing sources. I'm still working
toward a better understanding of the way Legacy works. I decided to look at the
help file about the Source Detail and Source Detail Text and found the
following:
You might find a book or bible that contains hundreds
I'm confused. Is there no way to include the detail text of the source in
the sources portion of a given report or am I missing something?
Jon Raymond
St Paul Park, MN
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~raymond/
**Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL
It might depend on which report, (I don't know them all) but for
instance a Desc Book report does not include that option. If you want
to print out a list of sources that include the Detail Text, which might
be for another genealogist, not just a regular reader, you can do that
with a Source
JL,
That the detail text doesn't appear on all reports makes no sense to me.
If one adds a source citation to an event and adds detail text, there is a
check box that states: add this Text to the Source Citation on Reports.
The implication here is that the detail text will appear in
Elizabeth,
For me the thing is that the more I have studied the Mills sourcing, the
more I agree with it. It is somewhat simpler, and more to the point (for me)
than the recommended ancestry source.
Your source (below) didnt specify state and county, so I am thinking that
you are a lumper,
At 03:06 PM 27/02/2008, you wrote:
A couple years back I noticed a Relationship Indicator problem (or not).
I showed a 9th Great-Grandfather in Family View. When I clicked on
his parents I got a 8th Great-Granduncle married to a 10th
Great-Grandmother. The 8th Great-Granduncle was also a
Whoops. Well, there you go. Misplaced period causes wrong format. I have
just fixed it.
(A good argument for pdf-ing reports before printing reports...)
The source should have looked like this:
1. 1930 U.S. census, Howell County, Missouri, population schedule,
Chapel Township, ED 46-3,
Thats true. But for a Bible detailing many people, I would be more likely
to create a master source, transcribe the data, then scan and attach the
original pages as jpgs. As I attached this very complete source to a
variety of people, I might, for convenience, lift the particular sentence or
The determination to include the text on reports is made on the screen
where the Master or Detail text is entered, not on Report Options.
Don
- Original Message -
From: JLB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It might depend on which report, (I don't know them all) but for
instance a Desc Book report
As Leto II once said:
Once you start including undocumented possibilities in your database you enter
a neverending world of parallel universes; each of which will be replete with
possible errors. Down that path lies madness!
(GRIN!)
- Original Message
From: Michele Lewis [EMAIL
There is a box to check on the Detail Text tab Add this Text to the Source
Citation on Reports, but you would have to check that on each entry. There
is no general provision for it's inclusion - at least not now. Keep in mind
I'm referencing the Detail Text tab of the Detail information, not
Me, too, Michelle. Honestly, I write the most meticulous sources these days
(well - I am still learning, but I really work hard at it). But I
occasionally run across an old one that says something like:
Howell Co Mo marriage license. Viewed it.
Didn't copy it, didn't record the specific data
I don't want that detail text to appear in a formal document, because I want
my sources to conform to convention. For my own in-house reports, however, I
do kind of like to see all that detail, despite the ridiculous amounts of
paper that it might require
Janis
-Original Message-
On the Source Detail text tab, there is a box near the bottom, which you can
check to add that detail to the source, or uncheck to prevent that text from
being attached to the Source.
Janis
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL
I looked again. There's an add to the Source Citation on Reports on
each screen (Information, Text, Comments, Pictures.) Each one would
have to be checked to include everything into Sources and it does work.
JL
JLog - simple computer technology for genealogists
You're right. I hadn't thought of that. Nevertheless, the source
detail text does not show up on a Desc Book report under Sources.
However, since the Source Detail Text is what I've already put under
Notes (General, Birth, Death, etc) I would not want it also showing at
the end of a report.
Depending upon where I get my information - US Census rcords seem to
have very different numbers. For some - the only numbers I could get
might read:
Series T623, Roll 1393, Page 59
while for another it might read:
Family History Library # 1255207, NA Film # T9-1207, Page 523D
and yet for
The State and County are included as part of the citation, but at the end of
the entry if the citation refers to an event other than the census event
itself. The census event includes the state and county, so I see no reason to
duplicate that information in the source, as a researcher would
Yes, I probably said that I had found in documents - but I would have
recorded those nicknames in the AKA's as well (or maybe used the nickname
feature of the main name if they were pretty much used all the time) -
I'd probably put in a few people as sources (or the person themself as the
For every application on my computer including, Legacy Charting Companion
and FTM, I can print in color. However, in all Legacy applications I cannot
print in color. When in Legacy, I set the printer to color, go to the report,
then go back and check, and the color is deselected and BW
I don't write the numbers at all. I keep the documents themselves in
digital form.
JL
JLog - simple computer technology for genealogists
http://www3.telus.net/Jgen/jlog.html
GeoSci wrote:
Depending upon where I get my information - US Census rcords seem to
have very different numbers. For
If your interest in citing a source is to allow others to find it, then I
would consider a citation such as
1930 US Census, Chicago, Lincoln County, Illinois, HeritageQuest, link
here, series, roll, page, line
Others will have their own preferences (order of state, county, township,
etc).
John
I don't know how much difference there is in the Setup functions between
Legacy 4 and Legacy 6, but I'm guessing that it hasn't changed much.
At the top of the Legacy window, click File, then Print Setup. Verify
that the correct printer is selected, then click Properties.
In Legacy 6, selecting
You seem to have different publications for the same census. If that were my
case, I would create a Master Source record for each because the publication
information is different. Then, your detail information will directly tie to
the publication information you cite.
I do have some paper
If you save a copy of the usr files and any report formats you save,
then you can always recover if you lose your settings.
usr files are found in the Legacy program folder. Report format saves
are wherever you chose to save them.
Cathy
At 11:10 PM 26/02/2008, you wrote:
I remember
Hi Ron,
If you use General Notes for a Biography and wish it to be headed
like that, in Book Reports, you simply change the Wording for General
Notes (or Research Notes etc) on the Wording tabs.
It sounds as if webpages don't have that facility as you're more
familiar with web pages from
In addition to the check boxes on each tab when you are entering a
source, you can set defaults for new sources by using Options
Customise - Sources tab and choose the options. If you also click the
reset button, you override all previous settings and set them as the
checkbox indicates.
If
Keith,
The information offered is essentially the same. The
first one is usually from Heritage Quest Online, and
is self explanatory. Series #, Roll #, Page #.
The Family History Library gives the same information,
but in a different way. This is also the format for
the Family search 1880
Keith:
I think Elizabeth Shown Mills' _Evidence Explained_ is an invaluable
reference tool for formatting source citations but I also think some of the
formats are extreme overkill and can be far too time-consuming. If you're
expecting to publish a book or an article, or if you're a professional
60 matches
Mail list logo
