The problem that I describe goes back to the introduction of the SourceWriter. You can see in the LUG archives several discussions about it.
I don’t know where you are getting those labels, like ‘Media’, ‘Title’, and ‘Publication’ in your citations. I don’t see them in my census sources, as imported into TNG. Could Ancestry be adding those? One thing to watch for: TNG incorrectly starts each citation with the Master Source List Name. In Legacy, this name is for internal use by the Legacy user and never appears in a citation. It is in the GEDCOM. I don’t know what Ancestry does with it. Ward From: Brian L. Lightfoot Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 11:50 AM To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Source Citations - Part Deux I have to admit that while I may have followed the previous conversations about how Legacy was supposedly mishandling SourceWriter citations, this is the first time I’ve seen the actual damage result. And now I’m wondering just when this mis-hap started to occur. I never noticed it when v8 first came out but I never was looking for it until several updates later. And the strange thing is that I believe that v7.5 did properly handle SourceWriter citations. If that is true, then what the heck happened in v8 to scramble this info? Brian in CA From: Ward Walker [mailto:wnkwal...@rogers.com] Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 4:55 PM To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Citations - Part Deux This is due to the way Legacy mashes a SourceWriter source into a Basic style source, during the export to GEDCOM. As you know, such a transformation is necessary. The problem is that some of the more complex S/W templates produce their Legacy citations by intermixing fields from the master source and the detail source. But the simplistic export algorithm just groups all the master fields together and all the detail fields together. They go into separate places in the GEDCOM file. This is why I have been asking Legacy for years to implement a smarter algorithm. It won’t be easy, but the need is to preformat the citation before export, and then put pretty well the whole thing in the detail portion of the GEDCOM source. You would lose the economy of storing the master data once for multiple citations, but that is a small price to pay, considering the mess that we have now – as your example illustrates. It’s embarrassing to see these garbled sources on Ancestry or TNG or in your cousin’s database. Our only other choice, right now, is to not use SourceWriter. Ward From: Brian L. Lightfoot Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 2:07 PM To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Citations - Part Deux I said there were two problems with source citations containing extraneous characters so this is the second problem I’ve noticed. Here is the previous example of a citation from a GEDCOM that appears on Ancestry’s servers: Title: 1880 U.S. census, FamilySearch\i0, index and images Publication: https://familysearch.org/search/collection/1417683: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d. Page: T9, roll 0398, Gore Township, Sumner County, Kansas, enumeration district (ED) 189, p. 8D, dwelling 64, family 67,... Besides the extraneous “\iO” characters, there is another major formatting issue with the citation. It appears to me that this census event is being treated as a PUBLICATION. The italics got turned off because of a carriage return between “images” and “Publication” so nothing else is in italics. But all of the source info is being treated as the name of a publication and all of the specific into is being treated as a Page number. Notice that is says “Page: T9, roll 0398, Gore Township, Sumner County, Kansas, enumeration district (ED) 189,” and then the actual page number which normally appears in the citation, “p. 8D, dwelling 64….” Once again, this formatting problem appears on every Census Event, regardless of year. Here is how the same exact citation appears on WEB PAGES created in Legacy: 1880 U.S. census, population schedule, Gore Township, Sumner County, Kansas, enumeration district (ED) 189, p. 8D, dwelling 64, family 67, Daniel Lightfoot and Susannah Arnsberger; index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/search/collection/1417683 : accessed 23 Dec 2013); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm T9, roll 0398. Seems they got that right, so I suspect problems within the GEDCOM created by Legacy. Anyone? Brian in CA 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://support.legacyfamilytree.com 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
