Connie, I never took what you said as a criticism, and even if I had, I can take it (I was in public life for a few years!). Neither have I any problem with people discussing, or promoting the use of, Mrs Mills and her sourcing systems.
In my previous post I said: >> There is no standard wording in the UK for sourcing, simply it must be >> clear, accurate, concise >> and reproducable by others. Below is the output from one of the templates I use (taken from my website - I have removed the html styling): "Free BMD, BMD Indexes Database (N.p.: n.p., n.d.), volume 20, page 182, Dec quarter 1840, Barton and Chorlton district; citing the General Register Office's England and Wales Civil Registration Indexes. Repository: Free BMD, England, [I insert the URL here] Cit. Date: 10 Feb 2009." Comparing this with what *I* require, it is accurate, reproducable (ie. others can find it), not quite concise and certainly not clear. Unless one is familiar with Evidence explained how would one know what "(N.p.: n.p., n.d.), " means? I don't need to enter these fields, ever, because it is attached to an Event with these details in it. Please don't post to tell me how to improve it, since that is my intention, but I haven't got round to it as yet, and I don't use this template now. Actually, compared with some of my other sources this one is pretty verbose, usually I have less detail, just the basics. Anyhow that is why I do not get involved in the details of sourcing. To be honest, I probably prefer the old style sourcing but now have too many using Source writer to consider reverting back. Ron Ferguson _____________________________________________________ *New* Tutorial: Add Location Pins to Google Earth http://www.fergys.co.uk Includes the family tree for Alan J Grimshaw And the Fergusons of N.W. England ____________________________________________________ Connie Sheets wrote: > Ron, > > I have no problem whatsoever with your approach; nothing I ever post > should be interpreted as a criticism of you or your approach. It's > just not for me in all circumstances. One of the things I love about > Legacy is its versatility and ability to meet the desires and needs > of both lumpers and splitters and those of us who think we are > moderate on the issue. > > Although I'm not an expert by any means, I do try to share what I > have learned from Mrs. Mills and other US teachers about source > citation practices, for those who may wish to pursue that avenue. > > Connie > > > Ron Ferguson <ronfergy....@tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > >> Connie, >> >> I do not recognise the word "correct" in this context. >> There is no standard >> wording in the UK for sourcing, simply it must be clear, >> accurate, concise >> and reproducable by others. Which is why, although a very >> strong advocate of >> sourcing, I do not get involved in the details of >> sourcing on this list >> especially when it comes down to dotting "i's"and crossing >> "t's" - no >> interest at all I'm afraid! BTW. I would imagine that >> Facebook does store >> the records in a database, otherwise they would be pretty >> well inaccessible. >> >> BTW I am predominately a lumper (and fairly mega at that), >> but was trying to >> keep to the same format as Scott, as it was his question >> and not mine! Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
