Head Geek <headgeek@Kubuntu.local> wrote: > JD <jd4x4@ wrote: >> "Nigel Bufton" <nigel@bufton.org> wrote: >>> I see nothing here that is not self-explanatory. What is it in the >>> OP's question that I am not understanding? > > I saw nothing there that recommended what and how much to put in > <SOURCE_ORIGINATOR>, <SOURCE_DESCRIPTIVE_TITLE>, > <SOURCE_FILED_BY_ENTRY>, <SOURCE_PUBLICATION_FACTS>, > or <TEXT_FROM_SOURCE> for census or any other particular > source. > >> :-) Dunno. I thought maybe it had more to do with what sort of text was >> appropriate but I wasn't totally sure myself. That's why I thought the >> auto-generated Ancestry entry might be of help. > > It was helpful in that it showed one more entity's answer to the > question. I poked around maybe a dozen online sites that let you > see their GEDCOM, and it seems a mere "1930 Census" is the most > popular answer. To me that's not enough. But neither do I feel > that I need to say enough for a new arrival from Betelgeuse IV > to find it blind-folded. Yeah, while looking at the Ancestry example I noticed that there was some duplication between the master and the detail cites that I wouldn't do if I were entering them. Good point about which country, though. For sure I'd want the main repository info in the master. Most of my s/w appends the detail lines to the master details, so that really leaves (microfilm)roll: and page:, state : (if applicable) & enumeration district, etc to put in each detail cite. I'm by no means an expert, btw.. just a novice. But I'd be grateful if I could go right to the page somehow.

JD <jd4x4@ wrote: > I'm by no means an expert, btw.. just a novice. But I'd be grateful if I > could go right to the page somehow. Another irritation. Most indexes will tell you a page number to go to. BUT, every page in every film I've used had a hand-written page number AND a rubber-stamped page number that aren't the same. Some of them have one written number x'd out and another written in. (In addition to the stamped number)