The link to A Radical Idea for Source Template and Sharing Facts does not work for me, so I’m trying to remember what I said.
I do know that over the years I have developed some antipathy towards RM’s style of source templates (even though I use them heavily and happily!), and also antipathy towards the style of doing footnotes and and endnotes where there is a left-part and a right-part to each footnote. The left-part and right-part thing seems to be global to all of genealogy and is not specific to RM. For example, the left-part and right-part thing manifests itself in GEDCOM via the SOUR tag which is the left-part and the PAGE tag which is the right-part. It manifests itself in RM’s free form template as Footnote which is the left-part and Page Number which is the right-part.
In this sense, RM’s free form templates mirror exactly with the GEDCOM tags of SOUR and PAGE. Except that the RM terminology is totally illogical. In effect, in RM we have Footnote = Footnote + Page Number where the term “footnote” means two different things at the same time. At least GEDCOM has the decency to call it Footnote = SOUR + PAGE where there is no contradictory meaning.
One influence in my thinking is that Web sites that provide document images or other genealogical information generally speaking will provide you with a completed footnote that you can just copy and paste into your genealogy software as is. Except that because of things like source templates and the left-part and right-part thing, genealogy software generally speaking has no place to paste such completed footnotes. At a minimum, you as the user have to break up the already completed footnote into a left-part and right-part to paste into your genealogy software. At a maximum, you as the user have to break up the already completed footnote into individual source template fields. This does not seem to me to be a good situation.
RM8 and RM9’s support for the Customize Citation feature certainly offers a solution to this dilemma. However, it seems to me that there is little documentation for how it really works. For example, if you do a Customize of a citation and then export a GEDCOM, how much of the customized citation goes into SOUR and how much goes into PAGE. I haven’t tested, but I suspect it’s 100% SOUR and 0% PAGE so that you have a completely split citation. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it’s something that should be understood if that’s the way it works. And if that’s the way it works, it doesn’t force the user who just wants to paste a completed footnote into RM to split up the footnote before pasting it. Rather, it simply forces the user to become an extreme source splitter for that particular footnote.
I apologize to Bruce in advance if I’m misremembering something. But I seem to remember one video he made in the earliest days of RM8 that mentioned this feature briefly. What I remember is not a discussion of being able paste a completed footnote directly into RM using the Customize feature. Rather, what I remember is a discussion about how the Customize feature could be used if the user simply couldn’t get a footnote to look exactly right - like if there were two many or two few spaces, or too many or too few commas, or a completely missing comma. I don’t remember the Customize feature being presented as a radical overthrow of the whole left-part and right-part model and as flying in the face of RM’s support for source templates.
I do agree that Customize => Reset To Defaults must clear all customization and restore control to the source template. I think failure to do so is either a programming bug or else a serious design flaw. Otherwise, the user is completely trapped into the customization and can never get back to the use of the source template for that particular footnote. For my one citation with the problem, I cleared all the customization using SQLite. And I cleared all three customized fields - Footnote, Short Footnote, and Bibliography. I didn’t take the time to explore whether simply clearing the Footnote field would have been sufficient.
I don’t want to get too off subject, but I remain an extreme source splitter in RM9 even though RM9’s reusable citations should render moot my original reasons for becoming an extreme source splitter. However, there are several things that have made me cautious about adopting RM9’s reusable citations in place of my own extremely split citations. One concern that’s at the back of my mind is the following. With my extremely split citations, there is no left-part and right-part. There is only one part. Well, I have to store the whole footnote as the left-part, but I don’t have to decide which source template variables go in which part. If I switch to using RM’s reusable citations instead of using my own completely split citations, then I will have to deal with the left-part and right-part issue. I’m not sure yet that I want to do that.