TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2006-12 > 1166307598


From: "Michael J. Hannah" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Source of a source of a source of a source ... HELP!
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:19:58 -0700
References: <mailman.21338.1166298315.6312.tmg@rootsweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.21338.1166298315.6312.tmg@rootsweb.com>


The whole issue of recording a "source of source" in TMG continues
to be unsatisfactory for me.

On 12/16/2006 "Linda Kuhn" <> wrote:

> What I wanted to see in the MSL is "Tyler History", not the>
> "Oletta Marie Tyler Collection". I wanted the full footnote to
> read something like this...

One method to cite a Source of Source would be *if* the embedded
citation feature would work within a Citation Detail or Citation
Memo of another source, but that is currently *not* functional.
Since you cannot "nest" embedded citations this would remove
the concern of infinite circular sources citing sources, but for
now that is just a wish list item.

This seems to be a perfect example of using the TMG Source of Source
feature located on the Attachments tab of the Source Definition.
However, I have yet to figure out how to get this information
to print in any report other than a List of Citations report.
And even in the LoC report it does not print out the Citation
Detail, etc. Has anyone on this list explored this feature more
fully and figured out how it works? The only comments I could
find on this topic in the TMG-L archives were way back in 2004:

In January 2004 Lee Hoffman wrote:
> You can enter the individual included document as a Source of
> the Source. However, That does not print anywhere (the capability
> to do this has been requested.

In February 2004 Terry Reigel wrote:
> The "Source of a Source" is intended to be used the other way
> around -- you have a source, say a book or someone's genealogy
> report, that cites a source for its information. However, as
> currently implemented, it really doesn't work very well for that
> purpose. First, the current "source of a source" applies to the
> whole source -- useful only if your source gives only a general
> reference to its sources, say in a bibliography. There is no
> provision to relate the cited sources to specific data. Worse,
> it cannot be included in any output, so your readers will never
> see it.

Currently, the practice I follow is that if the whole source is
secondary to a single other source, I include a note in the Source
Comments on the Source Definition Supplemental Tab and include the
[COMMENTS] in that source's template(s). If only this citation is
secondary to another source, I use the Citation Memo to record
that relationship and include the [CM] in that source's output
template(s). Of course the problem with either of these is that you
do not have a source in the MSL for the source of the source, and
do not get a bibliographic reference of that source of a source.

Has anyone figured a way to force a bibliographic entry of a source
that is otherwise not a citation? I haven't tried it but could one
have a special source type template with excluded Short and Full
footnote templates? And then how/where would you put a citation
to that wierd source type so the biblio entry was generated?

Any ideas?

Michael

This thread: