Sources and Repositories in Reports?

[Brian Gross 0]

Hi All,

 

I'm an inexperienced user of TMG, so I hope I don't waste everyone's time with a question that's been asked and answered.

 

The citation examples in Mills (Evidence Explained) combine sources and repositories. I'd like to do something similar.

 

When I create reports such as an Individual Detail, Journal etc., that report contains references to sources. I can create an Endnotes and get a list of those sources. The endnotes don't list the repositories, so the citation seems incomplete - I certainly doesn't have the same information as Mills'.

 

I can't figure out how to create a report that connects the sources with their repositories. I know that if I put the repository in the comments section of the source it'll appear in the endnotes, but that seems like unnecessary work.

 

Is there a way to automatically combine sources and repositories into a report?

 

Thanks,

 

Brian Gross

[Terry Reigel 0]

Welcome, Brian,

 

Mills, and other style guides, recommend use of Repositories only for sources that are likely to be found in only a single repository. Published sources, like books, are expected to be available in a number of repositories, and thus generally repositories are not shown for them.

 

TMG's Source Types follow that convention. So if you are working with a type of source that should have a repository shown, I expect one of two things has happened. One is that you have selected a Source Type that is inappropriate for the particular source you are working with. The other is that you have not attached the Repository to the Source on the Attachments tab of the Source Definition screen or that Repository has somehow not been made primary.

 

If you have selected an appropriate Source Type and attached the Repository, that Repository should appear in the endnotes.

 

If you can provide particulars of the case at hand we can probably help you find the problem.

 

Terry Reigel

[Brian Gross 0]

Hi Terry,

 

You were right to ask whether I was using an appropriate source type.

 

Some of my Endnotes had repository information. The ones that didn't had a [COMMENTS] but not a [REPOSITORY] entry in the full footnote. Those were custom source types that I'd copied from an inappropriate source (i.e., a source of the type you mention that did not require specific repository information).

 

I'm now working on cleaning up my source types and tweaking the footnotes as needed.

 

Thanks for the insight!

 

Brian

[Terry Reigel 0]

You're welcome, Brian.

 

As you apparently known, you just need to add the [REPOSITORY] and [REPOSITORY ADDRESS] source elements to the templates, with appropriate punctuation.

 

As far as the comments source element goes, I think it should appear in the Full Footnote Template of every Source Type, and have added it to all those that I use. It should be in conditional brackets -- -- so that it is ignored when not used. I use it mainly when I find sources as images online, or when I receive copies from a repository or another researcher, to record the fact that I did not view them myself at the repository. When correspondence with other researchers is my Source, I use the Comments field to record the relationship of my correspondent with the subject, and any notes about my correspondent's sources when they are not expressed explicitly with each citation.

[Michael Hannah 0]

Welcome Brian,

 

I find the value of TMG is in viewing it as a collection of tools that I can use however I wish. While many Source Types provided by TMG will work very well as supplied (provided you use the appropriate one), you have already indicated you seem comfortable with customizing Source templates to produce the specific output you wish to see. As Ms. Mills herself has said in TMG forums, her published examples are guidelines and suggestions only. In fact, some genealogy publications require their own specific style and structure of footnotes and bibliography which are different from Ms. Mills examples.

 

I have chosen a slightly different output style than Terry's for my Source templates. My Short Footnote has the information unique to that citation plus enough about the source to find the prior Full Footnote. My Full Footnote has the information unique to that citation plus enough to fully describe the source and to find that source in the Bibliography. My Bibliography has expanded information that is unique to this source. Like Terry, my templates always have the (conditional) elements for Repository and Source Comments. Unlike Terry I choose to put the Repository information and the Source Comments only in the Bibliography, and not include it in every Full Footnote. But I often have "comments" about a specific citation. For that reason I have customized my templates to include the (conditional) element of Citation Memo for comments like this one page of the Census record had a big ink blot and was hard to read, etc.

 

You don't need to customize TMG Source templates, but such customization is available to include whatever information you wish to output according to whatever style you wish. Your style may be different from either mine or Terry's. The beauty is that TMG allows you to do it your way.

 

Hope this gives you ideas,

[Brian Gross 0]

Terry and Michael,

 

Thank you both for your suggestions.

 

I am researching my family history and I'm not concerned about creating citations in a format needed for publication. I do want to be able to hand a report to someone and have them be able to find the original sources using only information contained in my report. It's with that goal in mind that I started looking at how my citations were coming out.

 

I'm glad you mentioned the Bibliography, Michael. I tried printing one but since its entries had no direct reference to my report, it wasn't what I needed. (It was clearly useful for other purposes.)

 

I have one slightly related question. I would like to create source types whose source elements appear in a "logical" order in the Source Definition window. "Logical" is in quotes because it's an order *I* want. Someone else may think my order is amazingly "illogical". :-)

 

I know that the source element entries are listed in order by the group number that each source element belongs to. I know I can move elements to different groups (so long as they're not being used) or create new elements and assign them to particular groups. So here's my question (after all that lead-in). Does there need to be (or should there be) a logical connection between the Source Element and the Group? For example, I can create a source element like "My Address" and assign it to the "Date" group. It certainly doesn't seem to make sense to have an address in a date group, yet TMG 7 will let me do that.

 

Along the same lines, why does TMG prevent me from listing two elements from the same group? For example, I could create "My Street Address" and "My GPS coordinates" and assign them to the "Location" group. It makes sense that they're both in that group, yet I wouldn't be able to use both of them in the same Source Definition even though they contain different information. (It just dawned on me that the reason is probably because TMG only sees the group number in the Source Definition - one group number, one entry.)

 

One last question. Any idea whether TMG 8 will have the ability to rearrange the order of Source Elements in the Source Definition window without forcing me to get all underhanded and move things into different groups? (This is certainly not a critical feature, of course.)

 

I hope you don't mind all these questions. Is this information covered elsewhere (like in your book, Terry)? I'm certainly willing to RTFM.

 

Thanks again for your help!

 

Brian

[Terry Reigel 0]

Terry and Michael,

 

Thank you both for your suggestions.

You're welcome, Brian.

I am researching my family history and I'm not concerned about creating citations in a format needed for publication. I do want to be able to hand a report to someone and have them be able to find the original sources using only information contained in my report.

Sounds like a sound strategy to me.

So here's my question (after all that lead-in). Does there need to be (or should there be) a logical connection between the Source Element and the Group?

Not at all. But the one thing you do need to pay attention to, and it does make ordering the elements more difficult, is which ones are designed for names. You can't use them for data that starts with a number, like "101th division" because they will interpret that number as an ID# and enter the name of the person with that number. Nor can you use them for data with commas or semicolons, because they will rearrange what they perceive to be given names and surnames.

 

Likewise, if you enter people's names in elements not intended for names, they will not give the "standard" rearrangement of given and surnames in the three different kinds of output.

Along the same lines, why does TMG prevent me from listing two elements from the same group?

Because the "groups" are not really groups at all, but are actually the locations where the data is stored, and you can't store two different pieces of data in the same location. What TMG calls elements are really just alternate labels for the fixed number of available storage locations.

One last question. Any idea whether TMG 8 will have the ability to rearrange the order of Source Elements in the Source Definition window without forcing me to get all underhanded and move things into different groups?

That's not been announced as a feature in v8.

I hope you don't mind all these questions. Is this information covered elsewhere (like in your book, Terry)?

The one about why you can't use two elements in a single group is described, better than above, in both my website and my book. I think the one in the book is better. It's at pp 135-137.

[Michael Hannah 0]

Brian,

 

I understand your goal for some order of the elements on the Source Definition screen, but over the years I have found having a field label that makes sense to be the most important. Rather than create names in other groups, I would recommend leaving them in the groups for which they were designed, but consider alternative labels for the fields for various source types to make it really clear what is to be entered in each field. And don't overlook the Reminder feature for a Source Type. You can include lots of memory aids in there to help put the right things in each field.

 

Just my method. Your methods may vary.

[Neil 0]

I've been using TMG for years but never used the Repository or Citations. I've been trying to understand how to use it and find it very frustrating. I wish TMG had a video step by step on how to create and use them. I've tried but when I print out Individual Detail report, it includes "unknown Repository" and "unknown repository address".

 

So far I have been trying to apply it to marriage licenses in Missouri. Is this really worth the effort? It seemed like a good idea.

[Terry Reigel 0]

Neil,

 

It's not a video, but there is an example in my Source Tutorial series, specifically in the Birth Registration Example which is linked at the bottom of the main page.

 

Yes, I think that Repositories are worth the effort - they make creating sources with a common repository simpler.