> I believe with Word, instead of selecting "Paste" you can select > "Paste Special" and then double-click on the option to save as > "unformatted text" you can eliminate the steps for converting from > table to text and changing fonts. > > I am not quite sure, either, how you are using the FamilySearch 1880 > listings. The LDS 1880 census material is an index and is not a > "source document." > > "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com> Oh, it's more than an index! We may find it convenient to think of it as just an index if we have the ability to immediately cross-check the microfilm. And the microfilm is indeed greatly to be preferred: The LDS database omits some facts and disguises others. If a family was sufficiently well off to keep live-in help, the census taker would put "Servant" in the relationship column; the LDS database calls them "Other." What the LDS database can do that an every-name index cannot is give a preview of the associates that show themselves in response to your query. By examining them, you get a better idea which records pertain to your ancestry before you turn to the film reels or the online images. The database deviates from standards in one other respect. It keys citations to page number-letter (e. g., 234A) rather than the enumeration district (ED)-sheet style endorsed by the National Archives. It is also not the way the films *and* the online image collections are arranged. If your ancestor lived in a large urban area in 1880, transferring from LDS to one of these requires entering the LDS film number to see which EDs are on that film, then checking each ED for the appropriate page, Austin W. Spencer "Austin W. Spencer" <AustinWSpencer@sdc.cox.net>