Genealogy software comparisons

Comparing source citations – Vital certificates, state level

At this stage, I have only compared two programs, RootsMagic and Legacy Family Tree.

From the Evidence Explained quick-check samples for Vital Certificates, State Level, this is what the citation should look like:

Source List Entry 

Victoria, Australia, Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, birth certificates, Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, Melbourne

First (full) reference note

Victoria, Australia, Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, birth certificate 11755, (1855), Isaac Whimpey, Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, Melbourne

Subsequent (short) note

Victoria, Australia, birth certificate no. 11755, (1855), Isaac Whimpey

RootsMagic

Using the Birth Registration, State Level source template in RootsMagic, this is what I ended up with:

Bibliography (source list entry)

Melbourne. Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages. Isaac Whimpey birth certificate.

Footnote (first (full) reference note)

Isaac Whimpey, birth certificate 11755 (1855), Victoria, Australia Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, Melbourne.

Short fortnote (subsequent (short) note)

Isaac Whimpey, Victoria, Australia birth certificate 11755 (1855).

The elements in RootsMagic are completely out of order.

Legacy Family Tree

In the Legacy source writer, I select Birth records, birth certificate, all countries except those listed below, created at state/provincial level, basic format, and this is what I end up with.

Bibliography

Victoria, Australia. Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages. Birth Certificates. Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, Melbourne.

–  the bibliography is spot on

Footnote/endnote citation

Victoria, Australia Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, birth certificate 11755 (1855), Isaac Whimpey; Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, Melbourne

– so is the footnote

Subsequent citation

Victoria, Australia birth certificate 11755 (1855), Isaac Whimpey.

– and the subsequent citation is pretty close (it’s just missing the word no.)

Next week, I will look at Census records, Database, online

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s