James: I would argue that the *newspaper* is the source, regardless of where you found it reproduced. The name of the newspaper would then be the lead element in your citation and other researchers, as you say, could find it in whatever repository they choose. Actually, with published materials it isn't strictly necessary to include a repository in the citation. For my own purposes I usually do note the location in the source details on the clipboard. After the text I add something like [[online at Genealogy Bank]] or even include the exact link in case I need to go back later. This would be especially convenient if you found various obits from the same newspaper posted at different sites. You'd have the newspaper listed only once as a Master Source, but the individual source details would tell you where you found each one.
Kirsten -----Original Message----- From: James Cook [mailto:jc1...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 8:46 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: [LegacyUG] Compound Sources Wondering about how to dealing with compound sources in Source Writer? I'm working with several newspapers currently, and they are falling into this compound area for me. Of course there is the newspaper's information itself - place, title, page and column stuff. But then there is the place where I found it - NewspaperArchive, GenealogyBank or Obituaries, or microfilm at the local research center. When choosing the Source Writer template, it is possilble to choose either the newspaper or the archive as the driver. I initially started with the archive, so would enter a Master Source for that, and then each detail prompts for a "citing" field, which is more or less free-from for the newspaper bits. While this seems to be the 'best fit' as far as Source Writer prompting goes, it is also possible to start with the newspaper as the driver. In that case, I enter a Master Source for the newspaper and, perhaps breaking form a bit, choose the option something about 'online database by the publisher' (not in front of it just now). I choose that option because it gives me prompt for the main URL and another field that defaults to a value of "online archives". In these fields I enter the URL to the archive (which may not be the publisher), such as www.newspaperarchives.com, and edit the default to say something like "NewspaperARCHIVES online archives" instead. That is all in the Master Source that way. Now, the details prompts pertain only the the article in question. I think I prefer the second method. If the end goal of citations is for someone else to retrace your research if they so choose, it seems to me the newspaper would get higher billing than the archive I found it in (they might not have a subscription, or live in a different country from my research center or who knows). I also like that the various newspapers are listed in my Master Source list instead of just archives - but my tendencies are towards splitting. So I ask what the thoughts are on one way vs the other? It seems Legacy would nudge me down the first path (I say so because the template prompts seem to fit more exactly), but at least my logic says the second is better. Thoughts? 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/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
