Family Historian User Group

Some of the references to "Citation" need to be changed to "Citation Specific Details" to distinguish them from the overall Citation which includes (especially in its printed form) data from both the Source Record and the Citation Specific Detail. Also, I feel we should be specific in some cases where we should have Source Record, not Source.

Proposed changes - in the table of Method 1 / Splitter and Method 2 / Lumper:

• First row currently reads "Number of Sources", should read "Number of Source Records"
• Second row, Method 2, replace "Attached to Citation" with "Attached to a Citation Specific Detail". Similarly "Media attached to a Citation" to read "Media attached to a Citation Specific Detail"
• Third row, Method 2, replace "Included in Citation" with "Included in Citation Specific Detail"
• Fifth row, Method 2, replace "potentially multiple Citations" with "potentially multiple Citation Specific Details"

I'd like to add a row for "Bibliography"
"Method 1 - Uses data only from Source Records, which will generally not be a problem;"
"Method 2 - Uses data only from Source Records, and not from Citation Specific Details. This may cause a problem if it is desired that the Bibliography conforms to a specific format. In such a case, the problem data needs to be moved from the Citation Specific Details into the Source Record. "

A further line should be added below(?) the table: "The total number of Citation Specific Details will generally be the same regardless of Method used."

I am unclear when the term "Citation Specific Detail" was introduced into the FH User Interface - do we need to alter this to be version specific???

FYI: The term Citation-Specific was added in FH V7.0 but only applies to Templated Sources.

So whatever wording is used in the KB it must be consistent with Generic Sources for all FH Versions.

It may be better to define Citation outside the table in the context of both Generic Sources and Templated Sources.

Note also that some terms such as Source Type or Short Title used in the table strictly speaking usually only apply to Generic Sources because they are not Templated Source metafields.

tatewise wrote: ↑

17 May 2023 13:56

FYI: The term Citation-Specific was added in FH V7.0 but only applies to Templated Sources.

If you add a Citation to an existing Fact for a New Generic Source, you'll see that Citation Specific Details is used for Generic Sources as well.

So whatever wording is used in the KB it must be consistent with Generic Sources for all FH Versions.

And the V7 Help still (validly) uses Citation in some places, to make things more complicated.

It may be better to define Citation outside the table in the context of both Generic Sources and Templated Sources.

It's defined in the Sources and Citations in Version 7... articles, so perhaps a cross-reference to those. It's also in the Glossary, but that still isn't fixed (although we're making progress).

Note also that some terms such as Source Type or Short Title used in the table strictly speaking usually only apply to Generic Sources because they are not Templated Source metafields.

They're specified as examples of finding aids, so should be supplemented with examples for Templated Sources.

tatewise wrote: ↑

17 May 2023 13:56

FYI: The term Citation-Specific was added in FH V7.0 but only applies to Templated Sources. ...

As Helen indicates, it's used for Generic Sources as well - it's visible whenever we click on the Citation for a "Fact". The image shows the tab labelled Citation as a complete yellow pane, with the tab in two parts - Source Record and Citation-specific Details.

But I'm glad you confirmed that it was named thus from 7.0 since I'd got it in my head that the bit that wasn't taken from the Source Record was called the Citation. So it was a shock to me to find it's actually called Citation-Specific Details and I wondered how long it had been called that...

ColeValleyGirl wrote: ↑

17 May 2023 14:15

... And the V7 Help still (validly) uses Citation in some places, to make things more complicated. ...

Indeed. I was looking at one of the pages and realising that Citation can be used to mean the complete shebang of where the data comes from, what it is, etc. That's one perfectly correct use of the term Citation just on its own, and why, in my original post, I didn't just propose a blanket replacement of Citation by Citation-Specific-Detail - that would have been quite wrong.

AdrianBruce wrote: ↑

17 May 2023 15:34

I didn't just propose a blanket replacement of Citation by Citation-Specific-Detail - that would have been quite wrong.

I'm not convinced any of the references in that table to Citation should be replaced by Citation-Specific-Detail; the table is talking about 'storage objects' (to coin a phrase to encompass Records and Citations) whereas the use of Citation-Specific-Details seems to be to name pieces of the UI.

I do agree about adding a line for Bibliography.

ColeValleyGirl wrote: ↑

17 May 2023 15:39

... I'm not convinced any of the references in that table to Citation should be replaced by Citation-Specific-Detail; the table is talking about 'storage objects' (to coin a phrase to encompass Records and Citations) whereas the use of Citation-Specific-Details seems to be to name pieces of the UI. ...

Err... There are bits elsewhere where Source and Citation are used in a somewhat abstract, sense, and I realised after reading and thinking that the text worked perfectly well using just the terms Source and Citation. But I'm not convinced that this table is one of those bits. It mentions Source Record, for instance - that's a pretty physical and/or specific definition in my view. And it's got field names - also physical. I think we have to be concrete with our terms here.

And the big question is - if we want a concrete term, what do we call the intersection entity that's put in to resolve the many-to-many relationship between Source Record and "Fact"? (Apologies for the Data Modelling talk). This bit in the middle is what I (and CP) call the Citation-Specific Detail. I don't know any other name for it that isn't application specific. The logical term for it is not Citation. At least, not in huge parts of the non-FH world. A citation in that world is a "printed" bit of text - to them, a citation isn't that bit in the middle linking Source and "Fact." My impression is that many of us have reached the level of abstraction that we're quite happy to refer to that "CSD" as a "citation", as well as calling the printed reference a "citation" - even though the latter has more data in it.

But I am seriously concerned that there is potential for confusion among incomers when we use "citation" to mean that intersection entity (aka bit in the middle). Once I found that the UI now refers to it as a Citation-Specific Detail, then it seemed to me that a little clarity was in order. And I personally can't come up with anything clearer without using the obvious User Interface names.

So - Long Story Short - I can't see how to clarify these concepts without using the user interface terms.

I agree with you Adrian. The terms need to refer to FH UI items because they have the one-to-one relationship with the underlying data items that Method 1 & 2 focus on regarding where Text From Source and Media are attached.

The only caveat is that Citation-Specific-Detail only exists in FH V7.0 and not earlier versions that the KB covers.
That is why I suggested a preliminary definition of the terms Source and Citation that is applicable to all FH versions.

AdrianBruce wrote: ↑

17 May 2023 20:03

But I am seriously concerned that there is potential for confusion among incomers when we use "citation" to mean that intersection entity (aka bit in the middle). Once I found that the UI now refers to it as a Citation-Specific Detail, then it seemed to me that a little clarity was in order. And I personally can't come up with anything clearer without using the obvious User Interface names.

So - Long Story Short - I can't see how to clarify these concepts without using the user interface terms.

Without using a banned acronym, I would agree the the term “citation” refers to all of the information needed to cite a reference to a source.

Defined as

A “citation” is the way you tell your readers that certain material in your work came from another source. It also gives your readers the information necessary to find the location details of that source on the reference or Works Cited page.

Citation is not about the way the data is stored! So using term like Source_Record, Citation Detail, etc are storage terms, rather than citation values needed to properly site a specific source for the selected citation style.

tatewise wrote: ↑

17 May 2023 20:37

... The only caveat is that Citation-Specific-Detail only exists in FH V7.0 and not earlier versions that the KB covers. ...

That's true. So at the very least, there has to be a warning that this is v7 terminology.

tatewise wrote: ↑

17 May 2023 20:37

... That is why I suggested a preliminary definition of the terms Source and Citation that is applicable to all FH versions.

The problem with using "Citation" for that bit is the confusion it creates for incomers, that's why I didn't want to continue its use when we hit specifics. And since incomers are likely to be using v.7, I didn't see an issue for them.

Do you know the name of that link entity in v.6 and below? Does the question even make sense given the different relationship of the fields earlier on?

KFN wrote: ↑

17 May 2023 20:57

Citation is not about the way the data is stored! So using term like Source_Record, Citation Detail, etc are storage terms, rather than citation values needed to properly site a specific source for the selected citation style.

In the context of Citing Sources: Method 1 and Method 2 it is mainly about the way the data is stored and that article says:

The most significant consideration is to avoid duplicated Source Citation data in the Project database, but there are other implications of your choice as shown in the table below.

i.e. Each Citation is stored with the item that cites a Source Record, so if there are multiple Citations of the same Source Record then the Citation data is replicated potentially many times.

AdrianBruce wrote: ↑

17 May 2023 21:12

Do you know the name of that link entity in v.6 and below? Does the question even make sense given the different relationship of the fields earlier on?

In FH V6 and earlier, Tools > Preferences > Property Box settings refer to the Source Pane which is yellow with Sources For: at the top and all the Source record links and Citation fields in the one pane. Neither of the terms Citation or Source Record appear anywhere except in the tooltips of the icon buttons in the toolbar.

In FH V7, Tools > Preferences > Property Box settings refer to the Citation List Pane which is yellow with Sources For: at the top with all the Source record links. The Citation Window is a completely separate entity. The same icon buttons in the toolbar have tooltips that mention Source Citation, Citation and Source Record.

So it is all a bit inconsistent even in FH V7. So perhaps a pair of screenshots are needed (one for V6 and one for V7) with an explanation of what fields the terms Source and Citation refer to.

tatewise wrote: ↑

18 May 2023 10:50

KFN wrote: ↑

17 May 2023 20:57

Citation is not about the way the data is stored! So using term like Source_Record, Citation Detail, etc are storage terms, rather than citation values needed to properly site a specific source for the selected citation style.

In the context of Citing Sources: Method 1 and Method 2 it is mainly about the way the data is stored ...

My belief is that there are substantial numbers of people "out there" for whom the word citation is solely about the reference / foot / end note containing "printed" details on where to find a source, etc, etc. It therefore causes confusion when we, long-term users of FH, use "citation" to refer to the "entity" that links a fact to a source and vice versa. (I said previously that in another place I got politely burned when I used "citation" as the name of that link entity, so the issue isn't just here.)

I agree that the reference in question uses "Citation" in a certain context - I, personally, don't have a problem with that but I can think in abstract terms and give things an arbitrary name. Others have difficulty with that and can't get their heads around the different context, or at least get confused to start with.

It was my desire to try to resolve the confusion for at least that item in the KB by not using the word "Citation", but by using the term "Citation Specific Detail". Yes, it does tie the text into the User Interface, which could change tomorrow (as it did in v.7), but it is clear what is meant. And I can't think of a replacement term. (Maybe this is the justification I should have written at the start).

IMO an introductory definition preferably with FH V6 and FH V7 screenshots &/or references to FH Help pages would make it clearer what the article is talking about.

tatewise wrote: ↑

18 May 2023 11:08

...
In FH V6 and earlier, ...
In FH V7, ...
So perhaps a pair of screenshots are needed (one for V6 and one for V7) with an explanation of what fields the terms Source and Citation refer to.

Thanks for that Mike.

So "Citation-Specific Details" appears to be part of the Citation Window - the righthand part of the screenshot I put up earlier in the thread. That is, of itself, reasonably clear to me. The whole thing is the "Citation" that will appear in three possible printed forms (Footnote, Short Footnote, Bibliography), which can be seen in an optional side panel. So a title of "Citation" for the whole thing makes sense to me.

The "Citation" data consists of two parts - the "Source Record" stuff in the upper half, and the "Citation-specific Details" in the lower half. And there doesn't appear to be any specific name in v.6 and earlier for the CsD.

Hmm - I'm not keen on adding a screenshot because that's starting to feel a bit too heavy to me - I think I'd prefer to just refer to "Citation-specific Details - see Yellow Citation Window in FH v.7".

(Incidentally, if I'm understanding my free copy of RootsMagic Essentials 8, RM uses "Citation Details" to refer to what FH v.7 calls the "Citation-specific Details".)

tatewise wrote: ↑

18 May 2023 10:50

KFN wrote: ↑

17 May 2023 20:57

Citation is not about the way the data is stored! So using term like Source_Record, Citation Detail, etc are storage terms, rather than citation values needed to properly site a specific source for the selected citation style.

In the context of Citing Sources: Method 1 and Method 2 it is mainly about the way the data is stored and that article says:

The most significant consideration is to avoid duplicated Source Citation data in the Project database, but there are other implications of your choice as shown in the table below.

i.e. Each Citation is stored with the item that cites a Source Record, so if there are multiple Citations of the same Source Record then the Citation data is replicated potentially many times.

As a new person to FH, every time I read this I get more and more confused about what it is trying to tell me! Reading the grid I interpret the following!

1) Number of Sources: I have literally a thousand or more sources, probably 100 census sources alone, almost every person in my database that has died in the last 150 years has a grave marker that I use as a source. This indicates that I will always be a "splitter". I would assume that anyone with more than a few hundred sources would be a "splitter" as well, who would be a "lumper" unless they only had a rather small number of people in their database!

2) Source Document Media: Based on my understanding (from the banned acronym) of what a "Source_Record" vs a "Citation" I attach media to both "Source Records" and "Citations", each has a place in how and why I use them!

3) Text from Source Transcript: I almost always put Text from the source at the "citation" because this (as defined by "G") is the only place associated directly with a specific fact. So now I'm a "lumper".

The only answer is really at the bottom of the page:

"Whichever method is chosen, it is essential to investigate the impact on Reports, Diagrams, Queries, and other features you anticipate using, before committing all Source Citations to that Method."

But for a new person, learning about the impact is very hard to do or understand until they get data input, potentially causing false starts and frustration, (my main problem with FH). It is also an even bigger problem for individuals that are coming from another program who have already decided how to cite their sources, such as myself, who has been using that banned acronym to store information since the early 1980's and learned how a citation was laid out, based on a citation style!

Although you say you have read the article, it is clear that several points have not registered.

KFN wrote: ↑

18 May 2023 14:01

1) Number of Sources: I have literally a thousand or more sources, probably 100 census sources alone, almost every person in my database that has died in the last 150 years has a grave marker that I use as a source. This indicates that I will always be a "splitter". I would assume that anyone with more than a few hundred sources would be a "splitter" as well, who would be a "lumper" unless they only had a rather small number of people in their database!

As it says in the article: "There is no one Method that should be applied universally to any Project. It is the Source Citation details that determine which Method is most appropriate for each Source Document or Document Class; some will be better suited to Method 1 and others to Method 2; it is common to find both Methods used in a Project."
So a person is not a "splitter" or a "lumper". The type of Source Document determines the Method.

2) Source Document Media: Based on my understanding (from the banned acronym) of what a "Source_Record" vs a "Citation" I attach media to both "Source Records" and "Citations", each has a place in how and why I use them!

Census household records are a popular example because one household document yields many Citations.
i.e. One for each Individual Census event, one for each Occupation, often one for each Birth event, and maybe others.
The same Media image applies to them all so should be attached to the Source Record and not replicated in each Citation.
That is consistent with the usual data base concept of only recording one piece of information in one place.

3) Text from Source Transcript: I almost always put Text from the source at the "citation" because this (as defined by "G") is the only place associated directly with a fact. So now I'm a "lumper".

Census household records Text From Source transcript is the same for each Citation just like the Media image above.
So it should only be entered into the Source Record. The Citation Window, Text From Source tab shows both the Source Record and Citation copies of that field. So from the user interface perspective, they are both equally associated directly with a Fact. If you put the transcript Text From Source in each Citation then making any retrospective changes requires each copy to be updated. See the Ease of Maintenance entry in the table.

The only answer is really at the bottom of the page:

"Whichever method is chosen, it is essential to investigate the impact on Reports, Diagrams, Queries, and other features you anticipate using, before committing all Source Citations to that Method."

But for a new person, learning about the impact is very hard to do or understand until they get data input, potentially causing false starts and frustration, (my main problem with FH).

Use the Family Historian Sample Project as illustrated in the Worked Example for Method 1/2 because that has plenty of existing data so well populated Reports and Diagrams are easily produced.

It is also an even bigger problem for individuals that are coming from another program who have already decided how to cite their sources, such as myself, who has been using that banned acronym to store information since the early 1980's and learned how a citation was laid out, based on a citation style!

Certainly, it is a bigger problem when migrating from another product and not just for source citations.
I'm not sure what we can do in such cases. It becomes a value judgement for the user of how to manage the data.

Remember that all such advice is offered as best practice but you are at liberty to ignore it.

Can we stop referring to GEDCOM as 'banned'. It isn't.

In the academic world, as quoted (uncited ) by KFN,

KFN wrote: ↑

17 May 2023 20:57

A “citation” is the way you tell your readers that certain material in your work came from another source. It also gives your readers the information necessary to find the location details of that source on the reference or Works Cited page.

Everyone will agree that the purpose of a genealogy citation is to achieve exactly that (although the emphasis is more of supporting an assertion by reference to sources than it is on avoiding plagiarism). An important clarification, though, is that it doesn't depend on the format in which you are presenting your work. Although it's very common to do this via a textual medium (printed work/pdf/website), it's equally the case that sharing a GEDCOM file includes sharing your citations as data (i.e. not as a string of words composed according to the style guide of your choice, but rather as a set of fields and linkages composed according to the GEDCOM standard, or some hypothetical future data-exchange standard). So both the 'string of words according to a style guide' and 'set of fields and linkages according to a data exchange standard' qualify as genealogical citations.

GEDCOM uses the SOURCE_CITATION tag for the data structure it defines for this purpose, and refers to it in notes etc. as 'the citation structure'. GEDCOM also uses the SOURCE_RECORD tag for (gosh) source records, and calls them that in notes.

FH6, unsurprisingly, uses the GEDCOM terminology of Source Records and Citations.

A citation is the link that binds an item of information to the Source record that stores information about the source.

Source: FH6 help file.

There are almost no UI elements in FH6 that allow updating both Source and Citation fields in the same window, so there is no need to disambiguate which fields are part of which GEDCOM structure. The All tab in the property box uses colour to disambiguate source fields and citation fields.

The Knowledge Base uses citation and source (or source record) to refer to the same the same things. [There may be a case to review the use of "Source" (the thing that was consulted) versus "Source Record" (data recorded about the thing that was consulted) if people think that's causing confusion.]

FH7 retains the GEDCOM terminology of Source Records and Citations (and the underlying data structures) but introduces UI elements that allow updating both Source and Citation field in the same window (the Citation Window, used to set up or view prepared citations, and to view the source citation details for an existing citation). It also introduces templated sources, with the ability to define template fields that are either source-specific (the default, part of the Source Record) or citation-specific (part of the citation structure). The Citation Window introduces the terms Prepared Citation Details & Citation-specific Details (depending on which version of the Citation Window is in use) both to disambiguate the two underlying data structures (to let users know which data structure(s) their edits will alter) and to assist with documenting the UI in the Help File.

Should we edit this particular article to use Citation-Specific Details instead of Citation?

No. (Although it could be improved to signpost more basic resources, and to include exampe fields for Templated Sources, and to cover the important implications for Bibliographies).

• We have articles in the KB that document what Sources/Source Records and Citations are, which can be linked to for individuals who haven't studied the basics first. We oughtn't duplicate that info here, but improve it where it stands..
• We ought to be consistent with (a) GEDCOM and (b) the FH Help files (for V6 and V7) in the terminology we use -- anything else is a disservice to users, especially if they're coming from other products and are already familiar with the terminology of Sources/Source Records and Citations.

So the answer to:

AdrianBruce wrote: ↑

17 May 2023 20:03

And the big question is - if we want a concrete term, what do we call the intersection entity that's put in to resolve the many-to-many relationship between Source Record and "Fact"? (Apologies for the Data Modelling talk). This bit in the middle is what I (and CP) call the Citation-Specific Detail. I don't know any other name for it that isn't application specific.

is Citation.

In the articles dealing with data entry in V7 for sources and citations, and defining Source Templates, it would be helpful to refer to Citation-specific details/Prepared Citation Details when discussing the UI, so if necessary we should improve those articles to do so. But this article isn't talking about how to enter data, it is talking about how to structure data and why, or more precisely how to allocate data between a source record ad the citations that link to it.

On a final practical note, there are at least 58 articles in the KB that would need to be reviewed and changed if we decided to apply the UI term to the underlying data structure, and become inconsistent with GEDCOM and the FH documentation. Is that the best use of anybody's time?

Wikipedia says:

A bibliographic citation is a reference to a book, article, web page, or other published item. Citations should supply detail to identify the item uniquely. Different citation systems and styles are used in scientific citation, legal citation, prior art, the arts, and the humanities. Regarding the use of citations in the scientific literature, some scholars also put forward "the right to refuse unwanted citations" in certain situations deemed inappropriate.

I personally disagree with the use of "Citation" referring to anything but the whole of the information needed to cite a source. The general use by programs of the term "citation" referring to the GEDCOM structure "Source_Citation" is in my mind incorrect. But programs (written by programmers not genealogists) have used "citation" or "citation detail" for years and we are stuck with it and any documentation must consistently define and use the terms that the programmers put into their UI.

Two individuals that were principles at the database consulting firm I worked for in the early 1980's went to work at LDS developing their Genealogy databases. We as a company were database normalization experts and they were tasked with creating the new storage schema. GEDCOM never got fully Normalized, which to this day is my biggest issue with GEDCOM.

In GEDCOM a "Source_Record" contains the following field definitions: Source_Originator, Source_Descriptive_Title, Source_Publication_Facts, Text_From_Source, Source_Repository_Citation, Multimedia_Link

GEDCOM v5.5.1 Definition:

Source records are used to provide a bibliographic description of the source cited. (See the <<SOURCE_CITATION>> structure, page 39, which contains the pointer to this source record.

In GEDCOM the "Source_Citation" structure (for use when "Source_Records" are used) which I assume is the same as the FH term "Source-Citation-Details" has the following field definitions: Where_In_Source, Entry_Recording_Date, Test_From_Source, Multimedia, Certainty_Assessment.

I point out these fields in GEDCOM only to aid in your understand of how I input data and my struggle with the grid's use of the Method 1 vs Method 2, the topic of this thread.

Mike said the following:

As it says in the article: "There is no one Method that should be applied universally to any Project. It is the Source Citation details that determine which Method is most appropriate for each Source Document or Document Class; some will be better suited to Method 1 and others to Method 2; it is common to find both Methods used in a Project."
So a person is not a "splitter" or a "lumper". The type of Source Document determines the Method.

I'm not sure I understand this comment!

What "Source Citation details" are used to make the determination between "splitter and "lumper"?
1) Source Document Media: I attached media to both "Source_Records" and "Source_Citation" for many of my sources. A census document for example would have a cover page and other general pages added to the "Source_Record" while the actual Census page where the GEDCOM CENS "fact" would link to that image. This would also be true for books as well. A letter would have an image of the letter all pages at the Source_Record and detailed paragraph at the Citation Structure. Specific Close up grave marker images are kept at the Citation Structure, but at the Source_Record level I always store a wider image of the singular marker with some surrounding context (field), or in the case of mausoleum, crypt, columbarium or other mass grave a contextual survey of the area.

2) Number of Citations to each Source Record: Regardless of the type of source, I always have something to enter in either the GEDCOM "Where_In_Source", "Entry_Recording_Date" or "Certainty_Assessment" fields. So I'm confused as to the difference between "Splitter" and "Lumper".

3) Text from source: I generally (similar to images) try to have specific fact related text in the citation and with a wider context in the source_record.


NOTE: Because GEDCOM provides for a CENS fact, this is the only place I store images of the Census page, but still reference the page in the "Where_In_Source" field and the same "Source_record"

Typically, using Method 1, each Source record will be associated with one specific document such as a Birth, Marriage, or Death Certificate, a Parish Record, or a Census entry.

It suggests for these document types that the image should go in the "Source_Record", but I always put them as part of the Citation_Structure!

Typically, using Method 2, each Source record will be associated with an entire class of documents such as all UK Civil Registration Indices. So there may be fewer Source records than with Method 1.

Other than indices, when would Method 2 be used? I don't cite many indices because the ones I've seen are created from other documents. I can understand have a single Source_Record for lists of data but that would be no different than having a single Source_Record for the 1920 US Census, or the 1855 Bergen, Norway Census

Just quickly correcting a misconception:

KFN wrote: ↑

18 May 2023 18:37

In GEDCOM the "Source_Citation" structure (for use when "Source_Records" are used) which I assume is the same as the FH term "Source-Citation-Details" has the following field definitions: Where_In_Source, Entry_Recording_Date, Test_From_Source, Multimedia, Certainty_Assessment.

No, the Source_Citation structure (which includes a link to a Source Record) is what FH calls a Citation. Possibly justifiably, as it includes the whole of the information needed to cite the source, including (via the link) the information needed to identify the source). Source-Citation-Details does not include the Source Link.

On a more general point, we're in danger of rerunning the discussion about 'splitters versus lumpers' and how to decide which you are, and that is

• based on a fallacious assumption that the two are totally distinct, whereas in fact everyone is a mixture of both; they make the decision on a per-source basis, looking at the practicalities of their approach and implications of the approach addressed in the table.
• not a discussion that belongs in the forum for Maintaining the Knowledge Base.

ColeValleyGirl wrote: ↑

18 May 2023 18:57

On a more general point, we're in danger of rerunning the discussion about 'splitters versus lumpers' and how to decide which you are, and that is

• based on a fallacious assumption that the two are totally distinct, whereas in fact everyone is a mixture of both; they make the decision on a per-source basis, looking at the practicalities of their approach and implications of the approach addressed in the table.
• not a discussion that belongs in the forum for Maintaining the Knowledge Base.

Ok, so again I've stepped into an area that I should not have! My bad. I'll limit my interaction to my own questions regarding FH.

I still don't understand Method 1 vs Method 2 but I guess it does not mater any more!

KFN wrote: ↑

18 May 2023 19:06

Ok, so again I've stepped into an area that I should not have! My bad. I'll limit my interaction to my own questions regarding FH.

I still don't understand Method 1 vs Method 2 but I guess it does not mater any more!

See if this video that I put together few months ago helps. It aims to explain Sources/Citations, Method 1/Method 2, Generic Sources and Templated Sources, Rich-text and plain-text source text. I do refer to Ancestral Sources at certain points but it doesn't require or expect you to use AS for it to be useful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jm6gg1HSbEs

Best wishes

Nick

KFN wrote: ↑

18 May 2023 19:06

Ok, so again I've stepped into an area that I should not have! My bad. I'll limit my interaction to my own questions regarding FH.

I still don't understand Method 1 vs Method 2 but I guess it does not mater any more!

It's not the wrong topic, just the wrong place.

Re Method1 vs. Method2, I've never thought it mattered, personally. Once you understand the implications of each method (enough that you can deal with the consequences of your decisions), you can mix and match to your heart's content -- the 'method police' will not be coming after you.

I'm a splitter for most sources and a lumper for the rest. I have not lost a minutes sleep over it in the [censored] years I've been using FH.