TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L Archives

Archiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2011-07 > 1310146637


From: <>
Subject: Re: [TGF] 2d try: help with source list hierarchy, please
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 12:37:17 -0500
References: <mailman.745.1310108467.26404.transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com><201107081340.p68DeYCP012232@mail.rootsweb.com><043501cc3d88$fe443030$facc9090$@comcast.net><201107081657.p68GvJiJ005709@mail26c25.carrierzone.com>
In-Reply-To: <201107081657.p68GvJiJ005709@mail26c25.carrierzone.com>


Judy, you've also done a good job of underscoring why citation is an art,
not a science---and why there is no one-size-fits-all formula. :)

Elizabeth


-----Original Message-----
From: JG Russell [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 11:57 AM
To: ;
Subject: RE: [TGF] 2d try: help with source list hierarchy, please

I am in fact thinking of the word-processor-only issue here, and
thinking in terms of having to add the repository information to the
end of each entry. Then again I suppose I could just cut-and-paste
from the footnotes and then edit the elements and punctuation to
source list format or cut and paste the repository information from
the prior entry. I may also have to try one time to use TMG and the
repeat key for the repository and see what the report looks like and
how much editing that requires to produce a decent source list. Lots
of options!

Thanks so much for your thoughts. Getting back to the original
question, I don't think I like the way the 3-em dash makes the list
look when it replaces more than one element, and doubt I will ever
use it for more than one. If I personally find it confusing as to how
much it replaces, I can't imagine a reader -- and particularly a lay
reader -- would be any less confused.

-- Judy

At 12:06 PM 7/8/2011, wrote:
>Your reasoning explains why there are various approaches to organizing a
>source list.
>
>On the other hand, I'm not sure I'm following your explanation of how this
>reduces retyping, given that it IS the source list we've been discussing,
>rather than reference notes, which is the primary form that genealogists
>use.
>
>The mechanical process does differ, depending upon whether we are working
>within genealogical software of a word processor; but with a gen program,
we
>still have to type the full data once for each new source we use,
regardless
>of the arrangement of the source list. Or are you working solely in a word
>processor?


This thread: