At its root, the problem comes down to whether to lump or split citations. It comes down to how a citation can be reused and whether it can be done easily, and whether all the information in the source goes into the master text or into the detail text used for only one individual or event. But the name is also about how to easily find the citation if I want to use it again for another person named in the source, e.g., the birth record that names not just the infant but also the parents.
This is what happens when I create a source citation in RM: after I select the source type and write the citation, the program then asks me to gave the master source a name. Choosing a name, it seems to me, depends on how I will use the source in the future. Will it be (split, to use) for one individual and one event, or will the master source be (lumped and) used over and over again for different people at different times? It matters. If the master source is reused, the citation for an individual attached to that source cannot easily be reused.
These are some of the names of sources in my RM program which are lumped:
> 1880 U.S. Census - Pennsylvania
> 1900 U.S. Census - Ohio
> All Saints Church, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Baptism, 1828-1831
> Belmont Park Cemetery Burial Record
> Birth Records for Jefferson County, Ohio, Vol. 2, 1879-1894
> California Death Index, 1940-1997
> East Liverpool Evening News Review
These are either so broad or so vague that I would have to search deep to find where and for whom they are used. (Edited to add: RootsMagic will show me who is attached to each individual source when I go to the Source List, choose a Source, click on the source, click "Print," and then click "Generate Report.") Nearly all of these sources could be used by dozens of individuals and families which, to my mind, makes them less useful when I'm documenting individuals. The master source can be reused but the details/transcription cannot be reused for others.
These are some of the names of other sources in my RM program which are split:
> Certificate of Birth for Daniel Bickerstaff
> Certificate of Death for Lee Doyle
> Funeral Program for Henry Carl Meinzen
> Intestate Orphan's Court File of John Froman
> Marriage Certificate for Gust Doyle and Beulah Gerner
> Obituary of Edward J. Bickerstaff (there are dozens of obituaries!)
> Wedding Anniversary Article for Robert Meinzens
I like the idea that these reference just one individual or event. I like it that the birth certificate for an individual can also be cited for the parents of that individual. But a long list of "Funeral Program for..." and "Obituary of ..." means I have to scroll through all of them to find the one I'd like to use.
When I searched online to see how others name sources the consensus is that it's a matter of personal preference. This is the preference some use, which seems cumbersome to me:
> Record Type, Year, Surname, First Name
> Surname, First Name, Year, Other Info
Bingo! I think that will work for me. It makes sense to have all individuals' information listed together. Like this (perhaps minus the dashes, using commas instead?):
> Gerner-Ada-1914 Obituary in The Butler (PA) Citizen
> Gerner-Alfonzo F.-1952 Obituary in The Butler Eagle
> Gerner-Alonzo J.-1940 Obituary in the Butler Eagle
> Gerner-Della V.-WV Birth Record
> Gerner-Della V. Fletcher-1968 Obituary in the Delaware (OH) Gazette
> Gerner-Edward G.-1877 WV Birth Record
> Gerner-Edward G. & Ella Knapp-1882 PA Marriage Record
Will this work? I'm wondering what I'm missing, what I haven't thought of that might prevent this from being a good system.
After I get the naming pattern figured out, one of the best recommendations I read was to make a cheat sheet for naming sources, use it, and be consistent. Great idea!
What is your experience with naming master sources? Do you lump or split? Do you name sources by surname, record type, or some other way? Did you try one way and switch to another?
I have a ways to go before this is all sorted. I'll have to back track no matter which way I choose, but it would be great to have a naming system in place as I go forward. And I hope I can get this naming situation sorted once and for all!
Previous posts related to this topic.
> RootsMagic Webinar - Sources, Citations and Documentation
> RootsMagic 5 - Lumping, Splitting, or Both?
> Easy Sources, Citation Challenges
> Citing a Source as a Collection or as an Individual Document
Other sources and posts
> How to Name Sources in RootsMagic 7 by Lisa Louise Cook
> Source Naming in Master Source List at RootsMagic Forum
> Question about Naming Sources at RootsMagic Users Group
> RootsMagic 7 Source Citations (be sure to read post and comments)
I hope you'll take a minute or two and share your thoughts about my proposed naming method, especially if you notice something I've missed about why this method might not work. Thanks!
–Nancy.
Copyright ©2021, Nancy Messier. All Rights Reserved.
Do not copy or use any content from this blog without written permission from the owner.
.
After Family Tree Maker was sold, I purchased RootsMagic but never did anything with it. Now the version I have is already out of date. HA! So now you're scaring me. One thought I have about the broad citations like 1880 Census is to start with a family name like Smith 1880 Census PA Berks Co ; Smith 1880 Census PA York Co. Would that be considered lumped or split?
ReplyDeleteHi, Wendy. Oh, don't be scared by RootsMagic. It's probably not so different from some of the other genealogy software programs. I think the problem is just me, figuring out the best way to do things (since there are options).
DeleteAs far as the 1880 census, if you entered just that as a Master Source and then added the information about the family in the detail source, that would be lumping. It means you could reuse that master source again and again for many families. My problem with doing it that way is that if I want to reference that census for one particular family, I wouldn't be able to do it if I've set it up to reuse the 1880 census source for many others.
If, however, you use the 1880 census for just one family, your Smith family, you could reference that source for individuals in the family, for their location, children and their ages, etc. And if you did that, you'd probably want to name the source something like "Smith 1880 Census PA York Co.," just as you suggested.
What program do you use now?
I am having the same problem with those master source file names. Using the template is easy, but deciding how to name the files most definitely isn't. I've cleaned up names, dates and places and the problems list, but am stewing over those source names. I am tempted to not bother with them, but to list my sources in notes. Just like in the old days when the bibliography was at the end of a school report.
ReplyDeleteOne of the problems I've had naming sources is that I think a name should be something like, "1800 U.S. Census for Family of..." or "Ohio Marriage Record for ...," like the title of a book or a magazine article. But the source name never shows up anywhere except in the list of sources. It's never in a footnote or in a printed citation, so the name should be one that will make the source easy for me to find. Now that I'm over that hurdle, that way of thinking, I think I feel comfortable naming sources for the individual they talk about.
DeleteOf course, I also had to make a decision whether to lump or split sources. I know splitting will give me a long, long list of sources but if they're listed by surname, date, and kind of source, it should make it all easier, right?
Putting source in the notes seems like a great idea but if you list your sources in notes, there would be no way you could reuse them other than to copy and paste, right?
Oh, you are so far ahead of me in this! You have a Fletcher in your background, and I am married to one! His family was in WA State.
ReplyDeleteHi, QuiltGranma. My one Fletcher family hails from Bruin, Butler County, Pennsylvania, in the 1800s. I haven't traced that line at all because a great-aunt married into the Fletcher family. My research usually goes only as far as the greats and their spouses and maybe their children, but not their in-laws.
Delete