Drawbacks Of Overriding Source Output Form?

[Dan Stone 0]

I'm curious as to whether there are any downsides to simply overriding the source output form with the actual text that I want, rather than trying to get everything exactly right using the source elements and structure? Being new to TMG, I want to make sure I'm not missing something that may cause me potential headaches later, when I'm too far in to go back and start over.

 

Like lots of us, I'm trying to get as close as possible to the Mills format for source citations. As has been noted on plenty of TMG tutorial/tip websites, there are many small differences between the Mills examples, contained in Evidence, and what TMG outputs. Several of these can be corrected with tweaks to the elements/structure of the source output form and/or things such as split repository memos, such as the following for a cemetery marker:

 

The Mills example in Evidence has the first footnote/endnote format as "Dan Stone tombstone, Cemetery name, City, State, transcribed/photographed by person date." and the bibliography entry as "State, County, City, Cemetery name, tombstone data." I'm disregarding the short footnote for this discussion.

 

Since the source output structure in TMG utilizes [Repository Address], I have found no way of having the address be just city, state in the first footnote/endnote, and then be state, county, city in the bibliography, except by entering city||county||state in the repository memo, and referencing the correct sequence of the repository memo elements in the source output structure. I'm wondering why one would go to the trouble when you can simply put the formatted/sequenced text in the three output form fields and be done.

 

Am I missing something here? If I just put the formatted/sequenced text in the three output form fields of all of my sources, rather than creating custom source elements, rearranging the output structure, splitting repository memos, what downsides will there be, if any, down the road when running reports, upgrading to a new version of TMG, etc.?

 

Hopefully, I'm not asking something that's been covered before. I tried searching, but couldn't seem to find an answer to this. Thanks for any information, clarification or answers that can be provided.

 

Dan

[Terry Reigel 0]

I'm curious as to whether there are any downsides to simply overriding the source output form with the actual text that I want, rather than trying to get everything exactly right using the source elements and structure?

There are a few:

• You have to do all the do all the Italics, quotes, and other punctuation yourself. And remember the order things are supposed to be in.
  
• You have to enter all three templates manually, rather than enter the data items only once.
  
• Your sources will not export to GEDCOM. This is either unimportant or huge, depending on your use of GEDCOM exports.
  

Yes, getting the source elements to do what you want can be troublesome, but it gets better with practice.

The Mills example in Evidence has the first footnote/endnote format as "Dan Stone tombstone, Cemetery name, City, State, transcribed/photographed by person date." and the bibliography entry as "State, County, City, Cemetery name, tombstone data." I'm disregarding the short footnote for this discussion.

 

Since the source output structure in TMG utilizes [Repository Address], I have found no way of having the address be just city, state in the first footnote/endnote, and then be state, county, city in the bibliography, except by entering city||county||state in the repository memo, and referencing the correct sequence of the repository memo elements in the source output structure.

The fact is, the Mills examples aren't consistent in how they treat such cases. Some reverse the order, as you say, and others don't. TMG doesn't try to do it those different ways, but does them all in "normal" city, state order.

One solution is the one you mention - but the elements in the Repository Memo. Another is to put them directly into the source definition as separate elements, and call them in the desired order. A third is to decide if Mills isn't consistent it doesn't matter, and just ignore the issue.

I'm wondering why one would go to the trouble when you can simply put the formatted/sequenced text in the three output form fields and be done.

I suppose because it's easier to enter it once in the Repository than to type it in every time in the templates. And, it exports, if that matters to you.

[Dan Stone 0]

Terry,

 

I appreciate you taking the time to reply, and for pointing out some considerations I had missed. You've shown me why it's worthwhile to stick with the source elements and structure.

 

I also want to express my appreciation to you for your TMG tips site. It has been very helpful.

 

Thanks much,

 

Dan

[Terry Reigel 0]

You're welcome, Dan, on both counts.

 

Terry