Pages pp. 105–114 of Evidence Explained, 3rd. ed. revised, hold QuickCheck Sheets for Private Holdings. Various components are placed first in the Source List Entries. Is the style of Source List Entry, on a given sheet, the recommended one or are they more for illustration of the different possibilities? For one's own archives, could one always use a Collection-first format, so that it is always clear to the reader that the material resides in the stated person archives/files?
In a 230,000-word WW1 transcription, I am encountering multiple instance of "VILLERS-lez-CAGNICOURT". In this particular type military history text, geographical names are (by convention) shown in capital letters, except for "joining words." As such, the correct spelling would be "VILLERS-lès-CAGNICOURT" or possibly "VILLERS-les-CAGNICOURT."
Unfortunately; the occurrences of errors, in a fairly short list of places, are so numerous that using the quote-and-square-bracket method of showing corrections would severely disrupt the flow of the text.
In order to review the war diaries of Canadian units in the First World War, one often needs to convert the hand-written or typescript image copies into a more legible form for further analysis. It's a rather laborious process and not one that I'd like to have to repeat. So; I'd like to ask your opinion on whether a rigorous adherence to "classical" transcription guidelines is really warranted given the following circumstances.
So I'm trying to be much more careful about the words I'm using to express confidence in my reports. While I fully agree with the listing from 1.6, how do I inform the readers that I'm using that hierarchy? Appendix, footnote, ... I don't see other reports listing that, but not many readers will be able to tease out the hierarchy without a cheat sheet. I'm leaning towards an appendix.
I am going through some old citations in my genealogy software to correct them and I came across about 50 citations from Ancestry's England, Select Births and Christenings, 1538-1975 database. Ancestry is citing the FamilySearch database under the same name. However, when I go to Familysearch very few of the names can actually be found. I ran a general search with the same names, and the baptismal records aren't found in any other database that I could find.
"Source Citation" or "Original Data" when both appear equivalent?
My software is Family Tree Maker. I find myself repeatedly using Business and Institutional Records/Corporate Records/Online Database for sources on Ancestry. The current record in question is: Ohio, Soldier Grave Registrations, 1804-1958. Am I doing this correctly?
I just thought that I would post this (some of my research of my fathers DNA Matches and further investigation/research) on that: