Head Geek 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. important to have day and month of any census for comparison with vital records Hugh W -- For genealogy and help with family and local history in Bristol and district http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brycgstow/ http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks GENEALOGE http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG