An important consideration should be what you want as the lead element in the citation. Fortunately Legacy provides the flexibility to choose the method that produces the result you want.
Kirsten -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 3:30 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: RE: [LegacyUG] Compound Sources To add yet another opinion: I use GenealogyBank and the specific collection (i.e.: Historical Newspapers) as the master source, then the specific newspaper, date, page, etc. for the details. The reasoning being that the actual source which I am accessing is GenealogyBank, which in turn is referencing/citing the original source. On , Kirsten Bowman <[email protected]> wrote: > 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:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 8:46 AM > > To: [email protected] > > 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/[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 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
