You're right - the whole point of sourcing and citing (just like footnotes in a research paper) is to inform the reader where that original record can be found for further research. I have found a great deal of information simply by searching out sources and citations found in books and other locations. So in your example, if I want to see the original records, I wouldn't have clue where to look. However, if you added a blurb providing the source of the original records, researchers could go back and find the material. No different than with a source that tells you that a will is with specific county court records in a specific will book and on a specific page, e.g., Louisa County, VA Court Records, Will Book K, pp 273-275. Then, no matter where those court records end up (starting in the court house, ending up in a centralized records administration or the state library) you would know exactly what you were looking for in order to see that original record. Family history library films are terrific, and I've certainly used them, but I've found many records that were simply unreadable on the microfilm, and I had to go back and use a copy of the original. Knowing the original source was critical. I also agree that sourcing is being treated like an arcane process - I'm fascinated by the variety of formats offered in Roots Magic. I, too, use generic formats and frequently use free form (thank heavens they retained that!!) especially for census data. I personally think it's become ridiculously overcomplicated. Several basic formats would serve all situations nicely - however, I realize that my opinion is definitely in the minority now. Lynne -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of MScheffler via Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 9:26 PM To: David Finnigan; [email protected] Subject: Re: [RMagic] Citing FamilySearch Are there any reasons why one would need that kind of detail (as the example below) from information found on FamilySearch given the fact that FamilySearch is really not a source. For me it would be a waste of time to make the citation any more specific. I use simply: FamilySearch; LDS database That way anyone noticing that is where I got my "hint" would need to look further for proper verification. I do many transcriptions from standard genealogy reference books, and always attempt to source them as directly and as simply as possible. My goal is for people using my information be able to go back and get the book or census or whatever, and turn to the page to see how I interpreted what is there. It can become very easy to waste time with sourcing when one should spend the time evaluating whether the information one is sourcing actually hangs together and makes sense. I also use generic type sources for census schedules by year, birth certificates, death certificates, etc. Margaret Scheffler -----Original Message----- From: David Finnigan via Subject: [RMagic] Citing FamilySearch I have just found an ancestor on FamilySearch. The transcription shows the following citation details: "England Marriages, 1538-1973 ," index, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/NNKK-T4K : accessed 31 January 2015), Samuel Page and Elizabeth Blythe, 26 Oct 1800; citing Ludham, Norfolk, England, reference item 7; FHL microfilm 1,911,695. Which RM source should I be using to get this result? I couldn't find anything that looked similar. Thanks. =================================== RM list Archives: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/ROOTSMAGIC-USERS/ http://archiver.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/search?path=ROOTSMAGIC-USERS WISH LIST: http://www.rootsmagic.com/forums/ BLOG: http://blog.rootsmagic.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message