TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2006-04 > 1144011339


From: "Michael J. Hannah" <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] Bibliography question
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 14:55:39 -0600
References: <200604012105.k31L5aVJ014547@lists5.rootsweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <200604012105.k31L5aVJ014547@lists5.rootsweb.com>


So, Cheryl, your original statement that "I became a confirmed
lumper for census sources" is exactly the issue. I am also a
confirmed lumper of census sources, but I lump at the microfilm
roll for exactly the reason of being able to include the roll
number in the Bibliography.

While a TMG user can construct the short and full footnotes to
read however they like regardless of lumping or splitting by
including the combination of appropriate source and citation
information, the bibliography output cannot include any of the
information from citations. Thus the bibliography can be
affected by "too much" lumping, as you noticed. I have not
personally tried it, but I seem to remember that with "too much"
splitting, if a user constructs the bibliography output for a
source to not include the fields that "split" the sources, the
bibliography will combine what are now identical entries into a
single bibliographic entry.

In effect it would seem that TMG will allow the user to create
whatever output they want even with "too much" splitting, but not
with "too much" lumping. At least that is how I understand it.

In spite of all that, both Terry and I choose to lump, but as
Terry so wisely said "... always think ahead. <g>"

Michael

> In reply to a question by Cheryl Freeman:
> Terry Reigel <> wrote:
>
> in reply to what Jill Morelli wrote:
>
>> My understanding of the Bibliography is that, by design,
>> it is not to be at the detail you are desiring.
>> Bibliography are the "shopping list" of all the sources
>> and the footnote is the specifics. So even if you were
>> using the default census tag, there is no mechanism for
>> the inclusion of the detail.
>>
>> Evidence! And Mill's Quicksheet both leave out the detail.
>
> Evidence! does include the roll number, but not the household name.
> The default census source type follows that lead and includes the
> roll.

This thread: