CE: Exactly. And if your source reposes in some unique place then it's appropriate to include that information with the citation. But if your source is _The Dictionary of Canadian Biography_, then the publisher's information is sufficient and the repository would be redundant, although it can be noted for your own reference. I don't think there's any real disagreement in what we're saying.
Kirsten -----Original Message----- From: CE Wood [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 3:58 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] BMD announcement respository? Kirsten Bowman wrote: "....It's just not a proper element of a source citation." Kristen, it ISN'T part of the source citation! In Reports, you have to check the box to include it. In Family View, Sources, you have to click on the Repository tab to see it. What you enter as the repository is where your source, reposes. It is not the source, and is NOT part of the source citation. It is additional information that you can add TO the source citation. It enables you or someone else to know where the source can be found. CE Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
