Re: GEDCOM format for SOUR of Census

Head Geek <headgeek@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> JD <jd4x4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>> "Nigel Bufton" <nigel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.