APG-L ArchivesArchiver > APG > 2003-02 > 1044123986
From: Mills <>
Subject: Re: [APG] A Dumb Question
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 12:26:26 -0600
> is there a customary way to avoid redundant source information in a
> report? For example, you might find dozens of obituaries in the same
> each coming from a different date/edition of the paper. For example:
> Omro Herald, 12 May 1945, Page 2, Column 3
> Omro Herald, 3 Jan 1952, Page 3, Column 1
> Omro Herald, 21 Oct 1955, Page 11, Column 4
> Can the repetition of "Omro Herald" be avoided?
Jerry, if you have several of these in a row, the "customary" practice
**in a written work** is to say
1. *Omro Herald*, 12 May 1945, p. 2, col. 3.
2. Ibid., 3 Jan. 1952, p. 3, col. 1.
3. Ibid., 21 Oct. 1955, p. 11, col. 4.
But if, say, the 2nd and 3d citations were your notes 9 and 13, and other
sources are cited in between, then ibid won't work because ibid means "in
the same place as immediately above."
> If so, can the date, page, and column
> information be considered a "sub-source" or something like that? (I'm just
> ways to make data entry easier.)
Aha! Data entry! Data entry for SOURCES! The terrible problem for which no
easy fix seems to exist <g>.
You can't, of course, enter "ibid" into your source templates the way you
would type it if you were writing a paper. But it seems to me that data
entry here is just about as simple as you can get. *Omro Herald* is the
source. Then the day/page/col. no. is the citation detail that you enter for
Now I'm wondering about something, Jerry. Last night, when you asked about
whether you had to include x, y, and z in your "report," were you referring
to (a) a client report; or (b) the genealogical summary (aka "report") that
computer software automatically prints from the data we enter? Because we
had been discussing client reports, I assumed you meant "client report" and
responded from that angle. But now I'm wondering if I jumped to the wrong