I am in a quandry and need advice. What do you use as a source when you found the record/info on an LDS film? I have seen: FHL Film No. FHC Film No. LDS Film No. I am inclined to use FHL (Family History Library), but what is the correct one to use? OK, now what do you use when it was a census film you read at a Natl Archives? -- Helen

There's actually a field in the Source template for FHL film number and item number. For any other call numbers, such as films at the National Archives, you'd use the Call # and Roll # fields in the Source template. Does this answer your question? At 06:02 PM 5/3/01 -0700, helen graves wrote: >I am in a quandry and need advice. > >What do you use as a source when you found the record/info on an LDS >film? > >I have seen: > >FHL Film No. >FHC Film No. >LDS Film No. > >I am inclined to use FHL (Family History Library), but what is the >correct one to use? > >OK, now what do you use when it was a census film you read at a Natl >Archives? > >-- Helen > > >============================== >Visit Ancestry.com for a FREE 14-Day Trial and enjoy access to the #1 >Source for Family History Online. Go to: >http://www.ancestry.com/subscribe/subscribetrial1y.asp?sourcecode=F11HB Liz Kelley Kerstens, CGRS, CGL Ancestor Detective, LLC http://www.ancestordetective.com Creator of Clooz, http://www.clooz.com Editor of Genealogical Computing, http://www.ancestry.com

> What do you use as a source when you found the record/info on an LDS > film? > FHL Film No. > FHC Film No. > LDS Film No. FHL is "family history library" and FHC is "family history center." The FHC is a *physical location* and has nothing to do with the name of the film you view. It is the local center that arranges the loan of the film from the FHL -- only one exists, in Salt Lake City. Everyone will have their own ideas, I'm sure. That's what makes the list great, because we can share and ease our way along. My first inclination was to say "FHL" film number, but then as I shared the meaning of those acronyms I realized some folks might find that confusing and think you viewed the film on-site in Salt Lake City; no? So then I thought that, well, it would be better to use "LDS" for your film number source names. That said -- and just to add another layer of possible confusion <g> to this upcoming discussion, I thought about my own purposes. And this is what I would do: I'd use the NAME OF THE DOCUMENT-BOOK-WHATEVER as the source name. I'd use the film number in the other fields of the master source information. (In fact, I just opened Clooz to double-check and yes, I verified that the Source information you fill in includes a special field/box to insert the film number. That aside, the reason (even if Liz didn't give a special field to list the film) I'd use the name "Patron Batch Sheet" or "St. Agnes Baptismal Records" et cetera is because I lack the ability to remember numbers, especially in long lists of them, and know what that number means. Does that make sense? In other words, if I had a list of documents "LDS 0103650" and then LDS 163854 and then LDS 847326 -- I wouldn't have a single clue as to what that document contains in the way of useful information for me. > > OK, now what do you use when it was a census film you read at a Natl > Archives? Again, I'd use the listing of what it was I viewed: the 1860 census or the state 1845 census, etc. Following suit to my prior comments, I'd first give it an identifier that helps me easily ascertain just what the document contains. First I give the file name a label that begins with the first four letters of the family most included in that document (let's use the census from Missouri in 1860, for example). The family I'd be looking for is MOREAU, so the document identification number would start out MORE and then I'd put a space and then the first three letters of the type of record, in this case "Cen" and then I'd follow the sequential-numbering most easily associated with this program. Therefore, an 1860 census document for Moreau in Missouri would be: MORE Cen 001. I don't bother with a state identifier or a year identifier in this labeling because Liz's census hub will show me that in the other columns to the right of this label: Year, County, State, Country. Why clutter up the ID for this census listing with information that will easily be available to me? Why not include other identifiers that will make it easier for this poor old, getting-vaguer-with-every-year memory to simply click on a document I want without having to spend valuable, diminishing brain cells to consciously *think* if this is the right document? :-) I settled on this system of labeling because I'd just spent almost four months selecting a system that worked best for me based on a book by Sharon DeBartelo Carmack, something like "Organizing your family search" that was available at my local public library. I'd color coded files: yellow for my husband's paternal line (dirt farmers....), green for his maternal line (Irish), red for my paternal (here for the War of Independence) and blue for my maternal (so English....). Each family has a group of files in the appropriate color-coding fashion. So my husband's maternal line (Duffy, for the direct line) would be as follows: DUFFY Birth Records DUFFY Census Records DUFFY Church Records DUFFY City Directories DUFFY Death Records DUFFY Genealogy - Fam. Grp Sheets/Hobbyist Info DUFFY Genealogy - Published articles, etc. DUFFY Immigration & Naturalization DUFFY Land Records and so on, including Military Newspaper Obituaries, Wills and Probates School Records Tax Records Hmm, I still sometimes think: If I have a church baptismal record but don't have a government birth record, where should it go, in the "birth" or "church" file? So things aren't perfect, but I found during my office career that there's as many types of filing logic as there are people that have access to files (or more, sometimes, it seems .... <g>) The bottom line is that you decide what works logically for *you* and you stick to it. This is why I'm enjoying having Clooz: I'm rummaging through fewer "files" to find something, it's easy to "take with me" lots more information, and when I "shut the file drawer" it pops back into the place I selected. <g> As for the paper files, yes, I print out a copy of the Clooz input for that document and put that print-out in the file for, say, the bride in the marriage listing (I put that document into the groom's surname files, since that's the accepted practice for family group sheets and other genealogy pedigrees, etc.). For those instances -- back to the census report -- where I have found a mother-in-law, say, of the family head listed in that dwelling (i.e., the mother of his wife) -- where the last name of one person listed in that census record won't logically be kept in that [surname] Census file, I simply have a log sheet that I keep in the front of each file and comment on it "See [surname] Census." Again, the beauty of Clooz: Now I can put a simple number at the end of that notation and the darned documents have a place to "call their own"! And when I do need to refer back to the original (much less frequent a necessity now, once it's in Clooz -- I have the information at my disposal right now, without ruffling through the files and perhaps thereby being pulled off track), I pull out the document and -- of course <g> -- leave it on my desk for a day or two. After the pile's gotten out of control <g>, I simply have to grab all my family documents, sit in front of the television with the kids and absentmindedly sort by surname into piles, then grab each surname pile and sort by type of document. At a commercial or after the program is over, I can take a group of these treasure clues and quickly put them back where they're needed. (I always found filing so tedious -- and still do -- that this makes it easy, and at the same time I give my kids the example that they can do something worthwhile even when they want to be in front of the boob tube.) Anyway, this is working great for me. I find it better and more sensical than much of what I dealt with for 20 years at work. When and if I can return, I have lots and lots of ideas on my volunteer and worklife filing to implement. :-) Marianne