Terry's TMG Tips

Using the Split CD to “Lump” Sources

This page updated 1 Sep 2008

Version note: Applies to TMG 8 & 9

There is a on-going debate among TMG users about the best way to specify a Source in one's TMG Project. So-called "splitters" create a unique Source entry for each individual record, for example for each household in a census, for each tombstone in a cemetery, each record in a will book, or each e-mail received from a cousin. Those known as "lumpers," on the other hand, may define a Source more broadly, perhaps as one Source for each roll of census microfilm, for an entire cemetery, for a whole will book or all the will books in a county, or for all e-mails from a given cousin.

Lumpers can record and display the same details as splitters by recording the additional details in the Citation Details field when citing the Source. Ordinarily, this means that all the details appear together, usually at the end, in the footnotes. That is generally not the format suggested in style guides, though many users find it satisfactory.

The use of TMG's "split CD" feature, that is the spliting of the Citation Detail field into several segments to allow entry of several different data elements, allows one to create "lumped" Source Definitions and still have each element positioned as desired in the printed footnotes. That is done by specifying in the output Templates where each segment of the split CD should appear.

The primary benefit of "lumping" Sources is to reduce the number of Sources defined, and thus the number of entries in the Master Source List. Splitters respond that the number of entries in the Master Source List is rarely a problem, and if it is unneeded Sources can be hidden by making them inactive.

The main disadvantages of lumping are listed below:

• It is difficult to attach images to the Sources as Exhibits when there are multiple pages for each TMG Source, so other methods must be used to view the images within TMG or include them websites.
• Citation Details text is complex and thus more prone to data entry error.
• The finished notes are not "properly" formatted (unless the split CD method is used).

• The detail information, such as household name in a census, which is placed in the CD, cannot appear in the Bibliography entry. That's because a given source can be cited many times, each with different details in the CD, while only one bibliography entry is created for each source – there is no way to choose which detail to include. For some Source Types this is not a problem. The Mills examples for Cemetery Marker, Census, and Social Security Death Index, for instance, do not include the record detail in the Bibliography. But other examples, like Birth and Death registrations, generally do. If it is important to you to include that detail in the Bibliography you cannot use the lumper method.

Use of split CDs resolves the issue of "proper" formatting, but introduces its own issues:

• Citation Details text is even more complex and error prone.
• The "Unique" Endnotes feature doesn't recognize split CDs, so you can't use that feature if you use this method.
• The "Embedded" Citations feature doesn't recognize split CDs, so you can't embed Citations in Memos if you use this method.
• It is very difficult to construct a full footnote that works without the expected CD segments, so using separate source pages in Second Site doesn't work well when this method is used.

Some users find the reduction in number or Sources defined in the Master Source list adequate compensation for the the disadvantages. I formerly used a split CD method for census sources, but I have since converted all my census sources to a "splitter" format, primarily to enable improvements in the websites I am now creating with Second Site. While I no longer particularly recommend the use of split CDs I am offering the following examples for readers who would like to explore this method.

Copyright 2000- by Terry Reigel