I don't see a problem, as such, doing it the way you want to. I, however, think it would be a lot cleaner and less confusing to a reader to have, in your example, "12 Nov 1800" in the date field, "Stainland, Yorkshire, England" in the Locations field and everything else in the event Notes area. This accomplishes two things; first, it makes it easier for a reader to pick out the essential information in the main text without the entry being too wordy, with an easy reference to a footnote for the details, and second, it allows you to use the Stainland, Yorkshire, England as a location in another entry without having to delete everything else first. David Youse -----Original Message----- From: Carole Edwards Caruso Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 7:29 AM To: bk@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [BK] Number of Characters Allowed Thanks for all the thoughts on the this matter. And thank you, John, for explaining the difficulty of changing the number of characters allowed. We each have our own needs and ways of doing our genealogy. When I need more room, I will add the event twice so it will appear: Buried: 12 Nov 1800 at Stainland, Yorkshire, England Buried: in Providence United Reformed Church Cemetery, Beestonley Lane, Section 3 , Lot 387 Does anyone see any problem with this? Carole Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Make new event or events, Burial 1, Burial 2, Interment 1, Interment 2,or anything you care to. Explanations could be in the notes section. John has made the program very adaptable for us to use in ways that suit individual needs. HIP HIP HORRAY for JOHN! On 5/27/2012 3:39 PM, David Youse wrote: > I don't see a problem, as such, doing it the way you want to. I, however, > think it would be a lot cleaner and less confusing to a reader to have, in > your example, "12 Nov 1800" in the date field, "Stainland, Yorkshire, > England" in the Locations field and everything else in the event Notes area. > > This accomplishes two things; > first, it makes it easier for a reader to pick out the essential information > in the main text without the entry being too wordy, with an easy reference > to a footnote for the details, and > second, it allows you to use the Stainland, Yorkshire, England as a location > in another entry without having to delete everything else first. > > David Youse > > >

In message <F980176D56E9487E816D2C6DD8F7C157@DavidHP>, David Youse <dhyouse@comcast.net> writes: >I don't see a problem, as such, doing it the way you want to. I, however, >think it would be a lot cleaner and less confusing to a reader to have, in >your example, "12 Nov 1800" in the date field, "Stainland, Yorkshire, >England" in the Locations field and everything else in the event Notes area. That's what I do. One of the reasons being that it keeps all the Stainland events together if I ask for a list of locations-with-events. > >This accomplishes two things; >first, it makes it easier for a reader to pick out the essential information >in the main text without the entry being too wordy, with an easy reference >to a footnote for the details, and >second, it allows you to use the Stainland, Yorkshire, England as a location >in another entry without having to delete everything else first. [] That's another good point. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf once described by Eccentrica Golumbits as the best bang since the big one ... (first series, fit the second)