Jump to content


Kathy Fowler

Member Since 05 Mar 2005
Offline Last Active Aug 25 2006 10:18 PM
-----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Obit. Transcriptions

12 January 2006 - 06:24 PM

I, too, have an Obituary fact. I treat errors in the original document in different ways.

When it's a simple typographical error of a harmless word, I correct it. If someone typed "Chruch" and meant "Church," I'll put in, say, "First United Methodist [Church] of Rome." This is a case where actually including the original error makes no sense.

But if the error is a date or the misspelling of a place or person's name, I'll type the original, generally with the correction in brackets afterwards: "He is survived by his aunt, Bettie Ross [Hoss]." Or "She is survived by her daughter, Mary Smith, of Falrico [Valrico], Fl."

I figure I'm sort of obligated to fix errors that might lead other researchers astray (try finding "Falrico" on a map; and if you're looking for Bettie Ross in Rome, Georgia, you won't find her--except where she's been mis-indexed in the county's cemetery book). But if I'm quoting an obituary (or any other source), I'm obligated to quote it correctly and to indicate any changes I've made to the text.

Sometimes I do just use "sic," but only when it's obvious what the correct text should be. So I could put "First United Methodist Chruch [sic] of Rome." But I think it reads more clearly the way I've given it above. And I don't have to worry about spell-check accidentally correcting "Chruch" somewhere, leaving me with the confusing "First United Methodist Church [sic] of Rome."

In Topic: Sort Sources by bibliography format, please

11 January 2006 - 08:04 PM

QUOTE(craigg @ Jan 11 2006, 05:17 PM) View Post

...In the meantime, you could create a dummy person and attach all of your sources to this person and then create a narative report for this person, specifying a bibliography with out reference numbers in the source options window.


I practiced with an existing person who had a few different sources attached to her info. If I choose bibliography without reference numbers, the sources used print in alphabetical order. Nice.

If I choose bibliography with reference numbers, the sources used no longer print in alphabetical order. I'm not sure where the reference numbers come from. I think RM numbers the sources in the order they're used, but doesn't repeat any source that is used more than once. Heaven knows what order sources would appear in if I just tacked all my sources onto a dummy person.

And footnote order, of course, is just what it says, with Ibid. and repetitions as necessary.

In Topic: Ancestor Book

11 March 2005 - 11:35 AM

I think the option to print repeated names is needed. Otherwise (on the Charles of Wales chart), if you're looking at the 9th generation, you're missing person 200, so you divide that by 2, look back for person 100, you're missing that person, so you divide again to finally figure out that you're not missing that branch. (Easy enough for person 200, not so fun for ancestors with less easily divisible numbers as you go higher up your tree.)

The thing is, if you print an ancestor tree back a lot of generations, you expect lots of names, and having repeated names isn't a problem. But an ancestor chart is most useful for checking which branches you are missing, and a chart that lops off duplicated branches makes that checking much more difficult than it needs to be. The option to include duplicate branches is available on the box charts (where duplicate branches can really increase the size of a chart). It would be useful to have them on more-readable text reports.

In Topic: Ancestor Book

11 March 2005 - 12:39 AM

I just created a quick-and-dirty family tree for Charles, Prince of Wales. His father and mother are cousins, so that gives Charles duplicate ancestral lines. (Philip and Elizabeth are both descended from Victoria and Albert; and Victoria and Albert were cousins. Also, Elizabeth and Philip are descended from Christian IX of Denmark.) Here's what you get for Charles's ancestors [Go Reports...Narrative Reports...Ancestors):

First Generation
1. Charles of Wales was born in 1949.

Second Generation
2. Philip was born in 1921.
3. Elizabeth II was born in 1926.

Third Generation
4. Andrew of Greece was born in 1882. He died in 1944.
5. Alice was born in 1885. She died in 1969.
6. George VI was born in 1895. He died in 1952.
7. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was born in 1900. She died in 2002.

Fourth Generation
8. George I Greece was born in 1845. He died in 1913.
9. Olga Konstantinovna was born in 1851. She died in 1926.
10. Louis of Battenberg was born in 1854. He died in 1921.
11. Victoria of Hesse was born in 1863. She died in 1950.
12. George V was born in 1865. He died in 1936.
13. Mary of Teck was born in 1867. She died in 1953.

Fifth Generation
16. Christian IX Denmark was born in 1818. He died in 1906.
17. Louisa of Hesse-Kassel was born in 1817. She died in 1898.

22. Louis IV of Hesse was born in 1837. He died in 1892.
23. Alice was born in 1843. She died in 1878.
24. Edward VI was born in 1841. He died in 1910.
25. Alexandra of Denmark was born in 1844. She died in 1925.

Sixth Generation
32. William of Holstein was born in 1757. He died in 1831.
33. Louise of Hesse-Kassel was born in 1789. She died in 1867.
34. William of Hesse-Kassel was born in 1787. He died in 1867.
35. Charlotte of Denmark was born in 1789. She died in 1864.

46. Albert of Saxe-Coburg was born in 1819. He died in 1861.
47. Victoria of Great Britain was born in 1819. She died in 1901.
48. Albert of Saxe-Coburg is the same as person number 46.
49. Victoria of Great Britain is the same as person number 47.
50. Christian IX Denmark is the same as person number 16.
51. Louisa of Hesse-Kassel is the same as person number 17.


Seventh Generation
92. Ernest I of Saxe-Coburg was born in 1784. He died in 1844.
93. Louise of Saxe-Gotha was born in 1800. She died in 1831.
94. Edward Duke of Kent was born in 1767. He died in 1820.
95. Victoria of Saxe-Coburg was born in 1786. She died in 1861.

Eighth Generation
184. Francis of Saxe-Coburg was born in 1750. He died in 1806.
185. Augusta of Reuss-Ebersdorf was born in 1757. She died in 1831.
190. Francis of Saxe-Coburg is the same as person number 184.
191. Augusta of Reuss-Ebersdorf is the same as person number 185.

Notice couple 16/17 (5th generation). Their parents print as 32-33/34-35 (6th generation). But when the couple appears again as couple 50/51 (6th generation), their parents do NOT print as 100-101/102-103 in the 7th generation. So it looks like you're missing ancestors 100-103, even though they're not missing from the file...the duplicate ancestors have dropped off the ancestor report. (And I don't see any option to make RM repeat duplicate lines for that report.)

The same "dropped lines" issue shows for Victoria's ancestors and Albert's--who should be listed twice in the 7th generation, not just once. So the 7th generation actually is missing ancestors 96 through 103, all of whom are in the database.

In Topic: Sources, citations, census images etc.

05 March 2005 - 10:42 PM

I make each household for each census a separate source (your choice number 2). Yes, that's lots of sources, but it seems to be the best choice for me. I may have some census data from microfilm, some from census CDs--and for some years I may have data from both sources. If each household is reported as a separate source, I can make my source citation exactly right for each household, include a typed transcript of the data--and attach an image if I have one; then I just cite that source for each member of the household.

One disadvantage of your choices 1 and 3--aside from having to cut-and-paste data for each citation--is the issue of how to export part of your database and have just the source data that's relevant. If each household gets its own citation, you won't be dragging along a lot of census data for another part of the database that you're not exporting.

I don't hesitate to use a single image file for multiple census sources--say, when Dad and the eldest son are on the same census page as heads of separate households. I'll have the Dad-census, the Son-census, and the same image file for both. And I (usually) name my census sources after the head of the household, like this:

QUOTE
Dunn, James Gordon. 1880 U.S. Census, Clayton County, Georgia. Census Place: District 1088, Clayton, Georgia. Source: FHL Film 1254140, National Archives Film T9-0140, page 501B. (CD)


The exception to this is if I have a census where the head of the household is not my family member. For one census where the family member was an employee at an inn, I listed the census under the family member's name--rather than the innkeeper's--and just included the innkeeper's name in the actual citation.

Finally, I don't hesitate to flesh out the names in the source citation; "James Gordon Dunn," cited here, was just "J.G. Dunn" on the CD. But I have too many common and repeated names. So I flesh out the name as needed on the source list, while the "actual text" box reports exactly what the original source said.