I am novice when using Sources and citations but it looks similar to extreme split.
I also do not know TMG structure-- hopefully someone more experienced with the two can help
Can you look back at your TMG database and check if the example of wrong source type in your screenshot from RM is actually inconsistent with whatâs in TMG? If it is, there is a serious problem with the RM import.
I thought parts of it were very relevant, particularly regarding source types not importing accurately and that there are steps you can take in TMG to resolve that issue, done with iterations of imports to resolve all instances.
I think the TMG import is still available in the 32-bit version of RM9 and is in RM8 and RM7. I think you can do a TMG import with them without a licence.
Iâll read the article again more closely and redo the import. I already have RM9 (32) for windows installed on my desktop with parallels, so at least Iâm covered with that.
The sound you hear is my screaming at all the wasted wok I put into the cleanup.
From the screenshots and discussion thread it appears to me that the issues you are looking at are not new and probably occurred with RM7 or before.
To add to what Tom and others are suggesting, it looks like a significant part of your issue lies with your TMG source templates and how they imported to RM7. Something seems amuck there and youâll want to address that first. My guess is that youâre looking at some cleanup of your TMG data and templates and then reimporting. Other than that, the screenshots you provided describe common issues with the upgrade from RM7 to RM8 or RM9.
From the 1st screenshot, which I assume is the Sources window, and the TMG screenshot, it appears that you were an âextreme splitterâ of your sources. Many RM users did this same thing because there was no way to identify citations prior to RM8. That, in itself, is not an issue or, at least, itâs the same issue that many RM users have had to address with the RM8 enhancements of Citation Names and Citation Reuse.
Which brings us to your 2nd screenshot. During the upgrade process from 7-8 or 7-9, Citation Names get created based on how citation detail fields have been defined by the source template. Based on your 2nd screenshot it looks like that source template had citations fields that did not have any data. This would cause the citation field to be blank. Resolving issues with how the TMG source templates import to RM7 may well reduce this issue. However, having blank or cryptic Citation Names is also an issue that many RM users have or will need to deal with when upgrading from RM7. Thereâs a lot of Db cleanup involved to take advantage of these new features. This is probably best done over time rather than all at one go. On the good news front, RM9 has better color coding and grouping features that will help you track db cleanup efforts like this.
Next, it also appears that you used the âMerge all Duplicate Sourcesâ and/or âMerge all Duplicate Citationsâ actions at some point after your upgrade from RM7. This may or may not be an issue. You should be aware of the particulars of how the RM8 and RM9 merge process works - specifically that it does not consider media or weblink fields. So, source/citations with identical data except for a URL or media attachment will be merged. The fact that your sources are extremely split most likely means that âmerge all duplicate sourcesâ is safe but youâll want to check your merged citations by looking at citations that have been âusedâ multiple times and verifying that they are in fact 1 citation used as evidence of multiple facts or for multiple people.
Finally, the ability to view citation âusesâ have led some RM users to consider becoming source lumpers rather than extreme splitters. This is something youâll no doubt consider as you go through the db cleanup process.
kevinm: thanks for the info, although I ha e not idea how you determined that I did a merge. It was early in the process when I was learning the program.
Status: Went into TMG, and performed the process suggested in the doc referenced by BobC for all my census sources from 1820 thru 1875. Did the maintenance routines TMG, then did a RM test import .
Unfortunately, in RM the source types for the censuses I changed stayed the same.
Did miss a step?
I also noticed, that in RM there is not a way to change the source type for a citation. I thought perhaps of changing the wrong type with the correct ones but evidently that is not possible.
Right, the RM source type or source template cannot be changed after the fact. And, sorry, I was never a TMG user and donât have much to offer on that front. The last page of the doc seems to to provide the only other suggestion beyond maintenance routines. Others may have additional suggestions.
Once youâre able to sort the source import issue and if there are some field(s) that gets mapped into RM citation detail fields, then you should see data in the RM Citation Name field. There may still need to be some editing to make the names to be meaningful, but it will reduce the confusion of having blanks when you look at all citations for a given source.
As I mentioned above, anyone who was a source splitter will have RM9 sources that look like citations. If your imported sources end up being split, thatâs not worth worrying about. As long as your data is all there and your field labels, sentences and roles make sense, then I think you could declare success. Going forward, you may want to become more of a source lumper but itâs a lot of work to go back and change older sources.
