Citations

[RDYork]

Just a procedural question:

When citing previous gen work (family histories) that have their own citations/references, do you just cite the gen work or the original source?
At this time, I am just citing the gen work, figuring if someone wants deeper citations they can reference that work themselves.

[Blaise A. Darveaux]

You will get more opinions on this than there are people doing genealogy. LOL

Thinking about this, it is a bit like the engineering saying: Low cost, quick speed, and high quality: you can have any two but never all three.

For example, I am adding thousands of relatives from an online source that USUALLY gives the original source, but often it is highly abbreviated and would slow me down anyway, so, like you, I just site the online source for people to know where I got the information that I have. Most of the people I am entering are far removed from me and the information I am getting was obtained from native language speakers, so I would trust them more than I would trust myself in deciphering hand writing in a language I don't know from 400 year old documents.

However, research that I am doing that no one else has done, putting together life histories that have never been assembled before, and quick time isn't essential, it is quite important to site original sources as much as you can. Ultimately it is your decision for your particular work.

[eventide]

In the words of Elizabeth Shown Mills, "cite what you use." If you are using an online source then cite that, although it might reference the original so that someone can find it if needed.
But she might also say to find the original source and cite that when available.

[BL Samuel]

Right! I recommend Elizabeth Shown Mills book, Evidence Explained.
Mills explains the elements of a source, and gives examples.

[Peter Sherman]

I'll third Elizabeth Shown Mills. She offers some sample pages from EE on her website and one of them speaks to this very question. https://www.evidenceexplained.com/si...ments/2.21.pdf

[Senelstune]

I'll be a rebel here ... EE is a great book BUT if you are referencing UK sources, then other options Harvard style or Strathclyde may be better options, in which case you might want to create your own templates ? Once you get to Reunion/Sources/Templates/Fields ... and find that the field that you want to use isn't in the list ? If anyone has solved this, please let me know.

[Peter Sherman]

You have complete flexibility in setting up source templates and fields, but I believe one thing you can't do is create a new field when in the process of adding fields to a source template (new or existing). Which means you'd first want to map out the fields you want in any given template, then create any that don't already exist (under the Fields tab of Source Settings), before returning to the Templates tab to create the new template.

[Peter Sherman]

You have complete freedom to create fields and add them to new or existing templates, but one thing you can't do is create new fields while in the middle of adding fields to a source template. Which means you'd want to map out the fields you want in a new template first, then create them under the Fields tab of the Source Settings window. Then you can return to the Templates tab and add them to your new template.

I think the labeling of the buttons can lead to confusion, since "Add Field" in the Fields tab means "create field", whereas "Add Field..." in the Templates tab means "add existing field".

(Apologies for responding twice - I got an "error loading post" message after the first one and thought it was lost.)