Kirsten, I used that example because of a discussion in this group within
the last 2 weeks. The discussion centered on whether you would use the book
from a certain publisher that you (the poster, I don't recall who that was)
found in a library or whether you would use a different citation
-
MailEnable: You are not permitted to post to the list
(LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com).
This list may be password protected, or you may need to have previously
subscribed to
the list in order to post to
Elizabeth R. wrote:
I used that example because ... There was an assertion that ESM showed
differences in the citation. . . . I must admit that I don't have Evidence
Explained so I can't look it up.
Elizabeth, I smiled at this one. You'd never believe how many times my jaw
has dropped off my
Ron F. wrote:
one of the considerations which I made when deciding how to deal with
census. What is the source for a census? In Britain, The government? It
wasn't their information, they only collected it. without going through all
the administrative layers we end up with the householder who
Ward wrote:
I would like Millennia to carefully think through the rules for
abbreviating
source details in footnotes, ... Of course, the solution could
also enable user options for more or less aggressive abbreviation rules.
And that is the best of all worlds--when software gives us the
-
MailEnable: You are not permitted to post to the list
(LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com).
This list may be password protected, or you may need to have previously
subscribed to
the list in order to post to
-
MailEnable: You are not permitted to post to the list
(LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com).
This list may be password protected, or you may need to have previously
subscribed to
the list in order to post to
Ron,
This is the follow up message I promised. Side diversions came along in
the meanwhile. (Someone actually presented me with real dead people to
think about, instead of dull, dry theory :).
You wrote:
one day I would love to debate with you the extent to which the detail of
standardisation
-
MailEnable: You are not permitted to post to the list
(LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com).
This list may be password protected, or you may need to have previously
subscribed to
the list in order to post to
I guess there are no plans to correct this issue. I would have thought by now,
if no one at Millennia has the expertise to correct this issue, then an outside
expert would have been hired to get to the bottom of this problem.
Regards,
Ron Bernier
Woonsocket, RI
On furthur studying in my family DB, I have noticed that on the 'preview', that
if the month has six 'weeks' (boxes) height, then the amount of names on each
date is only 3 lines. I have not printed yet. Since my people who only have
month/year in the birth field have printed in the bottom edge
Elizabeth M - I cannot tell you what a breath of fresh air this post is to
me. Much of my frustration with my understanding of EE has to do with the
handling of census records. The simplicity I seek is to be able to have one,
and one only, 1900 US census source (which I have done in spite of my
Well, I hope you're wrong. This sure is annoying. However, I' m
not surprised. I have filed two different support requests in the
past couple weeks, and have not received a response on either one of
them. In one case, Legacy locks up and crashes when I try to edit a
location. Had to
I thoroughly enjoyed the philosophical discussions that resulted from this
thread. Now back to observations about how the current Legacy implementation
is behaving and should behave.
BTW, I discovered that when I change the footnote option for Descendant
Narrative Reports from footnotes on
Elizabeth:
I believe that discussion was based on a misinterpretation. I do have _EE_
and it's pretty clear on citation of published books. In fact, I believe I
responded to that thread, but the discussion (and misinterpretation)
continued.
Kirsten
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
Thanks, Kirsten. Subsequent posts from ESM herself have been very
enlightening! It would seem that misinterpretation and confusion abound.
Elizabeth
researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson
- Original Message -
From: Kirsten Bowman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
Elizabeth:
Agreed on both counts. The first pass through _EE_ can leave you dizzy just
from the sheer number of variables, and Legacy's source templates are
designed to try and accommodate all of those. I think where we sometimes go
wrong is in trying to fill in *all* the template fields and
I was trying to see the source detail output in the Descendant Book Report
and Descendant Narrative Book Report because Ward suggested in the other
thread that the program fails to identify detail differences and omits them
in subsequent citations. This would be a major problem for me to say
Some on the list have mentioned entering x's into source template fields in
order to see the options on the follow-on screens. For the templates I use
most often I do something similar but with a twist: I enter all of the
actual field names in the blanks on the template, then save the result in
Wow, what a great idea, Kirsten. That's a definite adoptable one.
--- On Mon, 12/8/08, Kirsten Bowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Kirsten Bowman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [LegacyUG] Hint For Using Templates
To: LegacyUserGroup LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Date: Monday, December 8,
Ward Walker wrote:
Before I forward this to Legacy Support, does anyone have a
suggestion for the desired program logic for omitting
certain source _detail_ fields for subsequent citations of
the master source?
Here is my suggestion, which may or may not be practical to
implement:
-
Hi Jenny,
After getting your first response I double checked all the options for the
Individual Report, and I can't see the option to use and / or remove quoted
names. Where do you see it?
Cheers,
Jan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
What you describe sounds inconsistent, but I couldn't reproduce your
results. (Using Deluxe, latest build.) When I say 1 for Descendant Book,
I only get one generation, no children.
Re: subsequent citations:
I found that my old Basic Source footnotes were all full citations with no
short
Connie,
For the fields of the master source, there is no problem or ambiguity when
the short form gets used. The master never changes from citation to
citation. Your only bug is that the short form (subsequent citation) is
being used in some reports and not in others. It should be used
-
MailEnable: You are not permitted to post to the list
(LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com).
This list may be password protected, or you may need to have previously
subscribed to
the list in order to post to
Kirsten,
Yes, I did exactly the same thing to figure it out but there were some
templates that would not print out exactly as I wanted in the Event
field, Chronology display and Ancestor Books. Did you have this
problem? I ended up giving up my Event preferences for Census records
and City
Elizabeth R. wrote:
I cannot tell you what a breath of fresh air this post is to
me. Much of my frustration with my understanding of EE has to do with the
handling of census records.
Elizabeth, I wish you had posed this question to me earlier. As I mentioned
in one or another message yesterday,
Elizabeth,
I have been out all day today, so have yet to really appreciate your previous
post, but will reply tomorrow.
However, we are beginning to part company here, your points:
1) I take it that you are referring to sources being included in charts such as
the Ancestor Chart. I have
Hugh:
I had an easier time of it because for reports I use the Descendant Book
Report almost exclusively and don't use Events at all. Since source
citations behave differently on different reports, everyone's results will
vary considerably. So you're exactly right: We all use the program
Ron wrote:
However, we are beginning to part company here, your points:
That's fine. If two people think exactly alike, something's wrong :).
1) I take it that you are referring to sources being included in charts
such as the Ancestor Chart. I have no strong feelings about the *option*
being
Elizabeth M. wrote:
2. Work on the word-processing capability, so we don't
have to import into
other software to create readable biographies, adequate
discussions of
problems, and proper punctuation--after which we still have
the problem of
stuffing the genie back into the bottle.
I am
-
MailEnable: You are not permitted to post to the list
(LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com).
This list may be password protected, or you may need to have previously
subscribed to
the list in order to post to
I fully agree!
Just as one shouldn't try to paint the Mona Lisa with a chain saw, neither
should one try to sculpt a David with a paint brush.
Perhaps what is really needed is a third party full bodied, fully customizable,
user friendly report generator
--- On Tue, 12/9/08, ronald ferguson
Hello Rich,
Thankyou for your suggestions-and yes it was a 6 week month that was causing
me the problems-but also it made me notice I had the year 2006 instead of
2009-and also by changing the Family file I was working with, it somehow
then put in the person it was missing out-the only problem now
Wynther wrote:
Just as one shouldn't try to paint the Mona Lisa with a chain saw, neither
should one try to sculpt a David with a paint brush.
Gee, that's what a lot of people said, back in the technological dark ages,
when rumors began about a preposterous idea of a relational database
I have been playing around with Individual Reports and Family Reports in
preparation for sending some info to a group of new found cousins and
discovered the following problems:
1. Indiv Rpt:
Whether or not any notes are checked on the Include tab, Marriage Notes
show up
If Show other
36 matches
Mail list logo
