<<snipped>> to treat each record as a separate Source is only going to give you a headache with the number of sources you will end up with. <<snipped>> Ah - the eternal argument between the Splitters and Lumpers! David and I will have to agree to disagree on this. To be honest Ray, it probably depends on how you've arranged the rest of your sources. If you have a single source record entitled (say) "England & Wales Birth Registrations 1837 to date", or a single source record entitled "1851 Census England & Wales", then it makes no sense to split up other things like the Ancestry Apprenticeship images and you may as well have one source record. If you've got individual birth certificates, or individual census schedules, then it would be more consistent to have individual source records for each apprenticeship. Personally, I'm a Splitter 98% of the time and I don't have any headache with 2,955 sources for my 2,641 individuals. Whether you lump sources up into big things like one source for "1851 Census England & Wales" or split them down into individual records for each schedule, you _will_ have the same number of citations in the yellow pane to the right (usually) of your individual. What I find is that if I need to go back and check something about a document, it's easier to find stuff inside Source Records (just do Edit/Find Record or hit the binoculars icon). It's **** difficult to find stuff written inside citations. (And I just worked out I have 32,810 citations!) So, I split my sources so I can put the text to be found inside the Source Record. It really is up to you - are you being consistent? Have you got sensible names for your source records to help you find them again even without "Find Record"? I'd just encourage people to think about splitting source down because the numbers aspect of sources is seriously not a problem, while the numbers aspect for citations is! Adrian B