TMG-L ArchivesArchiver > TMG > 2001-04 > 0987435051
From: Terry Reigel <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Setting Up Master Sources
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 11:30:51 -0400
References: <email@example.com> <3AD9DE26.99B21BEA@reigelridge.com> <3ADB0937.C5EEEEC2@bellatlantic.net>
bob gillis wrote:
> Terry Riegel said:
> > The problem with method 2, and especially 3, is that you have to put more in the CD, and it all repeats in the footnote every time you cite the source. So if you cite the source on lots of tags (e.g. subject's name, birth, death, burial, marriage, spouse name, children, children's spouses, parent's, etc.) the footnotes get very
> > repetitious.
> I disagree. I think that endnotes are a much better way to handle
I should have been more clear - I was using "footnotes" when I meant "source notes." What I said above applies to both footnotes and endnotes, and I, too, prefer endnotes.
> If you use system 2 or 3 you should select ibid. if the CD
> the same so you will get lots of ibids.
I would select ibid, no matter which choice you make. But you only get lots of ibids if you have no other sources for the tags involved.
> I generally use unique endnotes
> which I find much easier to use on long report. The reader can put the
> report, the index and the endnotes side by side and easily refer to
> If you use 2 you will have three items in the bibliography but if you
> 3 you will have 20 items.
I think Bob meant "if you use 1." This is true if the dates are different, otherwise those with the same dates are combined. But that would follow the Mills example - if that matters to you.