On Jul 2, 8:30=A0pm, Rob <resh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jul 2, 8:52=A0pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 2, 5:27=A0pm, Rob <resh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > How would I know if sources are actually accurate or guessed? How
> > > would I find such sources like their birthyears? I did tried to find
> > > British parish baptismal records but I find some of them to be
> > > numerous and vaguely do***ented (in some cases, named parents
baptize=
d
> > > their child but no name of the infant?).
>
> > > The Ferrers of Tamworth data that I'd posted to start this thread
cam=
e
> > > from multiple sources, including the Visitation of Warwick****re 1619
>
> > ----------------------
>
> > Go back to the Vis and note which items came from it, and which did
> > not.
> > Then re-find the sources where those other things came from, and note
> > those sources by each fact like this.
>
> > For her marriage see Vis of Warwick 1619
> > For her baptism see IGI Batch M004312
> > For her burial location see "Tamworth of Castle Blarney, page 24"
>
> > And what I mean is, you note all this within your database.
>
> > That's how you do it.
> > Otherwise you end up with a big pile of stuff that may be right or may
> > be useless. =A0There are thousands if not millions of unsourced
> > connections "on the internet" we're trying to do a little bit better
> > job, by actually giving each fact a source.
>
> > Will Johnson
>
> A fine suggestion, Will, however...
>
> To be honest, that approach is too much data for each source.
>
> My preference is to consolidate sources associating with birth, death,
> baptismal, marriage, event, etc. of an ancestor, all to that ancestor
> in one source containing all the relative information. Providing
> individual source for individual event is just making more data, IMO
------------
Fine so go back and do that, and then re****t to us the specific
sources used for those birthyears :)
|
