In message <[email protected]om>, Jude via <[email protected]> writes: >Thanks all for your input. I have been using names, but will think about >having there name and also adding the number. Looking through my text files >I like the names as I do not remember the numbers. When I have more than >one file on a person I will save as this: Willard Crandall Obituary or >Willard Crandall biography. > >Jude [] I only have a small handful of text files - mainly things I've inherited from others' research; I mainly use BK's internal notes. But the same question arises for other filetypes - in my case images of documents. I have subdirectories (folders) below my PICS directory; currently I have ones called baptisms, births, burials, census-info (that has further subdirectories), deaths, director.ies (for trade directories etc.), manifest.s, obits, passport, probate, stones, and a few specific ones. Within those, I use mainly the BK numbers - sometimes (without good reason) with a year added. In the marriage.s folder, if it's the page from the BMD registers it only has one BK number, if it's from the actual marriage register, it has two (e. g. "780-781"). Not necessarily the best solution: just what I do. I suppose the main question is, what do you anticipate _doing_ with your files? I nearly always access mine via BK, so it doesn't really matter what I call them. I still think it'd be useful if BK accepted _relative_ paths for files (for backwards compatibility it could tell by whether the second character in the link is ":", or the first was "\", or similar), but we've had this discussion before, and it doesn't, so I assume there's a good reason. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Never make the same mistake twice...there are so many new ones to make!