I’ve been playing around with this area since seeing what RM8 does with citation names when you start from a particular source. It seems to me that it would be useful for there to be some order to the list of citations for a source.
So, I have made relatively minor changes to the templates for the sources I tend to use, such that I just enter the source details fields and let RM8 (and this also works in RM7 and then imported into RM8) generate the citation name.
So, taking all the baptism registers for a particular church as a sample source, I have details fields for -
Person of interest - e.g. Doe, John
Volume - e.g. Baptisms 1897-1905
Reference - e.g. Page 234, Entry 2578
These are essentially the same fields that you are using - I’ve just changed the text displayed in the prompts.
So, an example source is - Baptisms - St Matthew, Little Lever, Lancashire
and a citation name is - Doe, John; Baptisms 1897-1905; Page 234, Entry 2578
(I name my sources ‘Baptism -‘ if I am referencing an online transcription of a single entry, so one entry, and ‘Baptisms -‘ if I am referencing an online page image of the register.
RM inserts a semi-colon between source fields, so for reasons of how I evolved this approach, for some templates the data for the Volume and Reference is combined into one field, so less semi-colons.
The reverse order of the names makes the list of citations for a source easier to use if a source has many citations - as they tend to do when I am lumping all the registers of a particular type as one source and my ancestors didn’t move around very much.
This may not be the way I should be doing this, but it seems to be evolving to suit my purposes quite well after a period of experimentation as I saw how citation names were being used in RM8 - AND realising that my long-standing use of extreme splitting free-form sources was getting harder and harder to justify as the quantity of my sources increased as I focussed more and more on justifying my ‘facts’.