More questions

[jrw 0]

The switch to a new program has given me a fascinating opportunity to revist the genesis of my interest in genealogy. I began when i was 16 with paper and moved to rootsIII and finally TMG. In the transition i realize the stuff that is the most poorly documented is the stuff I knew best when I was young. Examples include having birth records from almost all my 2nd cousins but none of my first cousins or sibs.

 

All of which brings me to my next list of questions

1. A name is a name is a name?

Schaefers as the family name of my grandmother. This is derived from Scheiffers in germany (variously spelled) and a number of the families went with Schaefer or Schaeffer. I notice a person at the top of the individual view has a name. Which variant is the best to choose? the name he commonly went by? name on birth record? name on death record? census name? Do you use name variant tags for all the names? if so how do you choose a date and where do you put them?

 

 

2. Genealogies published for family use only. I have several in a variety of formats.

a. A book format published for family distribution only. No copy in FHL. No publisher info. I know who wrote it. No documentation but mostly done when the people featured were still alive. Probably a 2 and list as a book, publisher etc unknown?

b. A photocopies collection of 200 pages with filler material about the area the families came from. Also no publisher? list as book? info unknown? or manuscript? Again dealt mostly with living folks and information mosty accurate

c. A photocopied genealogy apparently prepared for my great aunt, a silent film actress by a professional genealogist, showing ancestry to adam? Book? Manuscipt?

d. Pages of genealogy material forwarded to me by other folks working on the family

e. Assume i create a link for each person mentioned in the above with surety 2 for the current ones, surety 1 for the professional job?

 

 

3. Stories from the above

I was given verbal permission in the 1970s by most of the authors (all long dead) to use their material. I assume i can freely quote the material giving credit to the authors?

 

4. Letters mostly undated. Stacks and stacks of them received in the course of correspondence. debating scanning them in vs quoting them..

 

Havent got much new stuff done but getting somewhere with the old. All i can ask

jrw

[Terry Reigel 0]

1. A name is a name is a name?

Schaefers as the family name of my grandmother. This is derived from Scheiffers in germany (variously spelled) and a number of the families went with Schaefer or Schaeffer. I notice a person at the top of the individual view has a name. Which variant is the best to choose? the name he commonly went by? name on birth record? name on death record? census name? Do you use name variant tags for all the names? if so how do you choose a date and where do you put them?

The name at the top of the Person View is simply a Name Tag that has been marked as primary. The first one you enter is made primary by default. You can make any other name tag primary by selecting it and pressing the * key, clicking the [ * ] button, or using the Edit menu.

 

While some users enter a name variation for every variation found, even those clearly in error, I see no need to do that. I try to create name tags for the variations I think were actually used - birth name, nick name, married name, a name adopted after a change like immigration. Plus, for families that changed spelling, I create a "standard" surname tag so I can find the person in the Picklist without having to remember which variation a particular person used.

 

In my view, the one to make primary has much to do with your desired output. The primary name will appear as the first name in all reports. It will also be the default name in narrative reports for each tag which produces the name in it's text. But you can choose to use any other name you have recorded for these events. Some users like the primary name to be the one the person went by, and add another name tag for the "formal" name. Others prefer to start with the formal name, and add a nick-name or "went-by" tag. It's your choice.

 

There is no need to have all the name variations you create print in reports. I never print married names or my standard name tag, but do print nicknames and changes of name.

 

The date is used when the name was adopted at a particular time and you want to record that. Generally it's left blank.

 

My article on Name Variations may help.

[Terry Reigel 0]

2. Genealogies published for family use only. I have several in a variety of formats.

a. A book format published for family distribution only. No copy in FHL. No publisher info. I know who wrote it. No documentation but mostly done when the people featured were still alive. Probably a 2 and list as a book, publisher etc unknown?

Yes, I'd treat it as a book. Mills says that if the author is known but not shown in the work you put the author's name in square brackets. I'd think the publisher is either unknown (you can leave it blank and TMG will fill that in in the notes) or "self-published."

 

I'd add a note in the Comments field on the "Supplemental" tab about what you know of the circumstances and sources, and add the [COMMENTS] source element to the Full Footnote template if its not already there.

 

In my view sources don't have sureties -- they apply only to specific citations (yes, I know there's a default surety on the source definition screen - I think it should be ignored). So, for each citation you make to the source, I think you need to evaluate how likely it is that the creator of the source had good information about that particular fact. Typically that varies from item to item.

 

As to the actual numbers to enter - that's pretty much a call for each user. There is no objective standard, and they are for you use only - there's no practical way to include them in output, in my view.

 

A photocopies collection of 200 pages with filler material about the area the families came from. Also no publisher? list as book? info unknown? or manuscript?

I've created a manuscript-like source for this type of thing, giving its provenance. I try to describe each item in the CD when I cite it.

c. A photocopied genealogy apparently prepared for my great aunt, a silent film actress by a professional genealogist, showing ancestry to adam? Book? Manuscipt?

If it looks like one of those. Or a Research Report.

d. Pages of genealogy material forwarded to me by other folks working on the family

I'd use manuscript unless it's a FGS or some other recognizable format.

e. Assume i create a link for each person mentioned in the above...

A link? I don't know what you mean.

[jrw 0]

Really do appreciate the thoughtful replies Terry. Am trying to master one type of source at a time then move to another. Think i have the birth and death things down

jrw

[Terry Reigel 0]

You're welcome, jrw.

 

Terry

[jrw 0]

For the reposity would you then use yourself? Far as i know no library has them

 

Also link was a bad choice of works. Source tag for each person would have been what i mean

jrw

[Terry Reigel 0]

For the reposity would you then use yourself? Far as i know no library has them

For unique items that you hold you could make yourself the repository. Another approach is to add a "copy held by [some source element]" term in the full footnote. Then enter yourself in that element. One advantage of this (if you use a "people" source element) is you can enter another copy of yourself in the data set, then enter the ID# of that "you." Now, by changing the name you enter there, you can change the way it reads for all such sources. You can enter your name different ways, or change it to "author" if you prefer that wording. And you can change it again any time.

Also link was a bad choice of works. Source tag for each person would have been what i mean

I still don't understand what you are suggesting. Create a source for each of the documents you mentioned? Or are you talking about entering each of the authors as people in your data set? Or something else?

[jrw 0]

Ok i get all the part about modifying the full footnote including the part about a copy held by [some source element]. I entered Schaefer Traun Source in the brackets. I dont understand what you mean by making a people source element. Is there a command for that?

 

As to the link statement, what i am trying to get at is once the source is created do i use this as a source for each relationship mentioned in the book, adding a source to each BMD etc?

 

jrw

[Terry Reigel 0]

Ok i get all the part about modifying the full footnote including the part about a copy held by [some source element]. I entered Schaefer Traun Source in the brackets. I dont understand what you mean by making a people source element. Is there a command for that?

Sorry, I was using a sort of short hand that didn't communicate well. Let me try again...

 

Create a template for full footnote that includes the following phrase:

 

...copy held by [PRESENT OWNER]...

 

Then, on the General tab of the source definition, you will see the element "Present owner." In field for that element enter the ID# of yourself in your data base. Or better, create a second entry of yourself, say as person ID# 100. Then just enter 100 in the Present owner field. It will automatically pick up whatever name you enter for person #100. That could be your full name, or it could be a shortened version, or it could be "author" as you prefer.

 

I've suggested here that you use the standard [PRESENT OWNER] element. That will in many cases work fine, but that element is in the "Second Person" group, and can't be used if your source templates already use another element in that same group. But you can use any "person" element - what do I mean by that? Any element that is expected to have a person's name entered in it. That's important because the use of the ID# only works for "person" elements. They include Author, Editor, Complier, Second Person ... any that you would expect to normally enter a person into.

 

For more on Source Elements, groups, etc., see my article on Working with Source Elements and Groups.

As to the link statement, what i am trying to get at is once the source is created do i use this as a source for each relationship mentioned in the book, adding a source to each BMD etc?

Yes. Step one is to create the source. That does nothing more than create a description of the source - it does not link it to any person or facts. Then, you "cite" the source in every tag which contains information you obtained from that source. Is that what you are asking? You may find my Source Tutorial helpful here.

[Michael Hannah 0]

1. A name is a name is a name?

Schaefers as the family name of my grandmother. This is derived from Scheiffers in Germany (variously spelled) and a number of the families went with Schaefer or Schaeffer...

For surnames with various spellings, some have chosen to add a non-primary custom tag in the Name group (e.g. NameStand) for every person whose primary name tag is a different spelling. Adding this tag identifies the standard spelling of the surname that they choose to use in their database. By having this custom name tag, all such people in the database will sort within that standard surname in lists like the Project Explorer as long as you do not limit the list to primary names only. Of course, since it is a separately named tag you can selectively choose whether to include it in various reports.

 

Another method I have heard about is to create a custom tag in the Other group (e.g. Surname) with P1 this individual and P2 a "pseudo" person entered into the database. This "pseudo" surname person would have their primary NameVar tag with just the surname and a suffix of "SURNAME". This "person" could then have tags, such as all the various NameVars for that surname, and documentation about that surname, linked in this single place to document all the information you have found about this surname and its variations. The Details view of this person will also show all the people you have linked via the custom tag, and if you use the "real" person's birth as the date for the tag they will show in chronological order. Of course, since it is a separately named tag you can selectively choose whether to include it in various reports. And if you use a flag to distinguish this person as "pseudo" from "normal" people, you can choose whether to include this person in various reports.

 

Hope this gives you ideas,