Compiler as source

[bonniesamuel 0]

How do you cite yourself, the researcher and compiler, as source? Is there a proper format?

thanks, Bonnie

[Guest Michael Dietz]

How do you cite yourself, the researcher and compiler, as source? Is there a proper format?

thanks, Bonnie

 

Bonnie:

I use the standard Interview source type. I set up the source definition with the following values:

 

Abbreviation -> Personal Knowledge

Title -> Personal Knowledge of Charlene (Bell) Dietz or Michael Dietz

Informant -> Charlene (Bell) & Michael Dietz

Interviewer -> Charlene (Bell) & Michael Dietz

Interview Date -> Continous

Informant Address -> New Mexico

 

I then place our personal repository definition in the attachments. The repository fields are the normal values including:

 

Abbreviation -> Charlene & Michael's Collection

Name - Other -> Charlene (Bell) & Michael Dietz's Collection of Genealogical Items

Addressee -> Charlene & Michael Dietz

The rest of the fields are our mailing address.

 

The Repository Memo field contains:

Personal knowledge and collection of research articles, papers, notes, copies, artifacts, photographs, momentos, documents, books, CDs, etc., related to the ancestral and descendant genealogy of Charlene Elizabeth Bell and Michael Jackson Dietz Sr.

 

When citing ourselves I use the Citation Detail for any explanation or comment related to the specific item being cited. This could include such things as when we received the item, the veracity of the item (especially in today's use of PhotoShop), etc.

Works just fine for me.

Mike

[bonniesamuel 0]

Thanks very much, Mike. This is a perfect solution.

[Wiley 0]

A related question: I'm handling the genealogy for a somewhat large family. I get notes from various family members informing me of corrections and additions to their family line. "Management" wants me to record by whom and when that infomation was submitted for each person updated.

 

None of the pre-defined TagTypes really satisfy me, as explaned below, and I would prefer not to use 'citations'. I have been trying to build new a TagType with little sucess.

 

What I'm looking for is one that will have the person being updated as constant, the person submitting the updates also as a constant. What I'm getting is that when looking at the Person pane for the updated person I see the "Updated {date} {who updated}". However, when I switch to the {who updated} person I get "Updated {date} {person updated}".

 

Is there a way to create a 'one sided' TagType? One that will be visible on the {person updated} but not on the {who updated}.

[Terry Reigel 0]

Tags appear in the Tag Box of each person who is entered in the tag - you cannot have the tag not appear for one of the persons in the tag.

[Michael Hannah 0]

Is there a way to create a 'one sided' TagType? One that will be visible on the {person updated} but not on the {who updated}.

Hi Wiley,

 

This is really a completely different topic, so in future would you please post something like this as a new topic? It will help other users notice the new topic, and you will get more answers.

 

As Terry said, the tag itself will always be in the Details list of both Principals. Further it will always be in the Details list of every Witness if you have "Show witnessed events" checked in Preferences -- Program Options -- Tag Box. Unfortunately the "Show witnessed events" option is all or nothing for all types of tags. You cannot turn it off for only one tag type. However, depending upon your data and personal viewing preferences, if "who updated" are always Witnesses then turning all witnessed events off may work for you.

 

Alternatively, it is possible to hide the name of a Principal on a tag. This might help if "who updated" is a Principal on the tag. The name can be hidden if the ID number of that Principal is entered with a leading exclusion marker (a single dash '-') and you do not have "Show excluded data" checked on Preferences -- Program Options -- Tag Box. For example if you have two Principals, person A and person B, and put a dash in front of person B's ID number in that tag, then when viewing person A's Details you will not see the name of Person B displayed next to that tag. And person B's name will not display next to that tag when viewing the Details of any person who is a Witness to that tag. For further details on what data can be excluded with exclusion markers see the TMG Help topic "Exclude Information".

 

These are the only tricks I can think of that might be of some help.

 

Hope this gives you ideas,

[Virginia Blakelock 0]

Could you enter the updater/date information in, say, M2 and/or M3 (split memo fields) of the tags which you added or updated? This info would only appear in the detail view of the updated Person but the updater info could be output in a List of Events, with columns for the updated person, tag label, date of update, and updater's name.

 

Virginia

[Wiley 0]

Thanks for the suggestions everyone. I've got something that will work. Virginia's suggestion pointed me in the direction I needed. I did try Michael's but it just didn't quite work the way I wanted. (Michael: My question about a 'one sided tag' was not a separate question but just a different way of asking the same question.)

 

I made a copy of the History tag, changed the 'Label' to "Update", 'Roles and Sentences' as "Updated: <[M]> <[D]> <[WO]>", and 'Display witnessed tag' marked for 'Using the label above'.

 

In use, the date is the date subbmitted, I put the submitter ID information (Name, Reference and RIN) in the memo field, the witness is the individual the tag is attached to (but is not used), the citation is the source of the information (in my case they are some form of email) with what what was changed in the citation memo.

 

When looking at the Person pane it shows as "Update {date} (w); ; {submitter info from the Memo}". I have not been able to eliminate the '(w); ;' but that is a minor annoyance.

 

By doing a 'List of...' report for Update tags I can get all those people who have been updated so I don't miss any. And 'Management' is happy to have sources and citations.

 

Thanks again all.

John