Yet Another 'Editing Sources' Question

[KirkS]

I have hundreds of Free Form sources for birth records that all take the format of "BC County, ST 34(133)" meaning Birth Certificate, County, State; Book 34, Page 133.

In fact, most of them are the same county. I'd like to create ONE Reunion SOURCE for Vital Records, County, ST and then enter the 34(133) in the CITATION to the source.

Am I on the right track? And if so, is there a way to "batch" edit or merge or automate this process.

Thanks for reading,
K

[Blaise A. Darveaux]

I think what you suggest is good. One source for a book and then put the the details like volume and page numbers in source detail (which can be different for each time that source is used.)

I am currently doing something similar with a huge, seven volume compilation of French Canadian Pioneer Church records of the 16 and 1700's. Since the pandemic started I have hand entered over 10,000 people and their data, each with the different volume and page numbers. The digital copy of the source has just one source number, but the source detail is different for each person's data.

[KirkS]

Thanks, Blaise.

I'm hoping others will weigh in with affirmations or alternatives, but to be honest, I'm well down the path now, so I'm going with our strategy.

[Michael Talibard]

This approach works if you are not attaching images, but if you are (as I would recommend) then it becomes unwieldy, and you are better off with one source per page.

[Bob White]

I use a clip manager application that has the ability to store clips in customized categories. I store a number of fill in clips where I can paste the framework clip from my clip manager app then fill in the details. Having a cadre of these gems means a little faster data entry and less taxing of my memory of how to set up a particular source.

An example is: NNNN became a naturalized American citizen on DATE,, at the US District Court in San Francisco, California, under Petition Number XXXX. As part of the naturalization, she changed her name from XXXXX to NNNNNNN.

Most of the people I research live/lived in California with the San Francisco court being quite frequent; otherwise, that would have been CITY, STATE. Most Armenians "Americanized" their names (usually the first name; sometimes both); if no change, I just delete the sentence.

[KirkS]

... less taxing of my memory of how to set up a particular source.

Nice idea, Bob. One reason I'm trying to clean up my sources is that I hate the inconsistency I've introduced over time. Seems like I've referenced the same book in three different ways.

[eventide]

I am also in the process of cleaning up my sources. There are several reasons why I do not lump my sources together but the two outstanding reasons are because the source detail field is too limiting and as Michael points out - if you are attaching images it becomes unwieldy.

Keep in mind that the source detail field cannot be formatted, so no italics if needed. There is also a 256 character limit. I sometimes make exceptions for books that are used frequently but only if I am not attaching images or have the whole book in PDF format and if the source detail field can accommodate the necessary elements.

[Blaise A. Darveaux]

This approach works if you are not attaching images, but if you are (as I would recommend) then it becomes unwieldy, and you are better off with one source per page.

Actually it DOES work while attaching images, as long as you include the source detail into the title of the attached images. In the instance that I described for myself, I have the whole 7 volume source (each 600 page volume is a separate PDF) at hand. All 7 PDFs are attached to the one source number. As long as I include the volume and page number in each citation detail, the record is easily looked up in the source. The titles of the attached images need to include the info (in this case the volume number) that is placed in the citation detail of each citation, in order to locate the correct attached image.

If a person attaches individual page images, then the titles of those images need to have the information that is placed in the citation detail in order for them to be properly located. Doing it this way (rather than making one source per page) would save a lot of time. In my case I would have had to make several thousand new sources for all the pages that I have captured data from.

[bmohr]

Actually it DOES work while attaching images, as long as you include the source detail into the title of the attached images. In the instance that I described for myself, I have the whole 7 volume source (each 600 page volume is a separate PDF) at hand. All 7 PDFs are attached to the one source number. As long as I include the volume and page number in each citation detail, the record is easily looked up in the source. The titles of the attached images need to include the info (in this case the volume number) that is placed in the citation detail of each citation, in order to locate the correct attached image.

If a person attaches individual page images, then the titles of those images need to have the information that is placed in the citation detail in order for them to be properly located. Doing it this way (rather than making one source per page) would save a lot of time. In my case I would have had to make several thousand new sources for all the pages that I have captured data from.

Perhaps the disconnect here is about the nature of the sources in question. Yes, a single work - even a 7-volume 3,500 page opus - can easily be attached to a single source, with the volume and page number noted in the details. There's nothing unwieldy about it and this is exactly the approach I use for books, reports, directories and the like.

But if the work in question is something like the 1940 US Census, it gets unwieldy very quickly. No one has a handy 2.3 million page PDF of the entire census. In my family file, I currently have 303 citations to the 1940 US census and about a tenth of the households referenced break onto two pages, so that represents about 335 images. A quick search of my "yet to be recorded" folder shows about 120 more 1940 census images, which would put me well over Reunion's limit of 400 multimedia items per source.

Looking through my sources, the worst example I can find is the US World War II draft registration. If I used a single source for all of these cards, it would currently need 1039 attached images.

[Blaise A. Darveaux]

But if the work in question is something like the 1940 US Census, it gets unwieldy very quickly. No one has a handy 2.3 million page PDF of the entire census. In my family file, I currently have 303 citations to the 1940 US census and about a tenth of the households referenced break onto two pages, so that represents about 335 images. A quick search of my "yet to be recorded" folder shows about 120 more 1940 census images, which would put me well over Reunion's limit of 400 multimedia items per source.

Looking through my sources, the worst example I can find is the US World War II draft registration. If I used a single source for all of these cards, it would currently need 1039 attached images.

I agree with everything you say and do exactly as you do for the census. Most censuses are one page and a few are two pages when the family occurs on two successive pages. I was responding to the statement that "the approach works if you are not attaching images." I was arguing that it DOES work when attaching images, but you extended what I meant by saying one has to be reasonable with the number of images used. That I would agree with also.

[Michael Talibard]

To each his own. One of the great things about Reunion is how it accommodates diverse approaches—though we are not all that much different.

[KirkS]

Thanks, Michael.