A source list entry's "children"

Wayneson, I'm not sure that my conception of what you are trying to say is your conception. Source A would appear in a Source List in an abbreviated form. Then Reference Notes 1, 7, 13, 27, and 182 could all refer to Source A but each would be a more-explicit citation than the one that appears in the Source List.

EE, in almost every case, does provide three formats for citing a source: (1) Source List Entry; (2) First Reference Note; and (3) Subsequent Reference Note.  In many of our projects—at both research and writing stages—we may use all three of these, or just two, or even one.  EE provides the examples but they do not all have to be used in any project. As with individual citation fields, citation models will include them all although all may not be needed in individual cases.

The QuickCheck Models that appear at the start of each record-type chapter in EE exist primarily to explain what the various fields represent. In those models, each field or element is paired with a descriptive tag to clarify what goes in that field.

Does this help?

Wayneson, your italicized sentence is well stated. Your paragraph three, sentence three seems to be a core issue:

"Excepting the worksheet stage of our research, it would be unlikely to craft a source list entry if we never intended to craft a corresponding first reference note.”

I’m not sure what you are describing as a “worksheet” is during the research stage. Let’s examine three basic practices. That will lay the groundwork for understanding the issue in the last part of this sentence:

1. Traditionally, as history students and in expository writing classes, we have learned to “take notes” on research cards or pages (one note per card or page), which we organize by subject and then use as the basis for a piece of writing.
2. Most genealogists, since the development of genealogical software, have simply purchased software and entered pieces of information directly into “their tree” as each  is found. This is a major reason why so many trees assign information and attach documents to the wrong “same name” people. Data is entered before identity and kinship issues are resolved.
3. More careful genealogists prepare research reports on each block of research, focused on a specific research problem. (See “QuickLesson 20: Research Reports for Research Success.  Each report contains Source List citations for everything we consulted, as well as either abstracts or transcriptions of everything relevant we found. That research report also includes our evaluations of the sources and our analyses of the information and the evidence we can draw from it. (By extension, we do not enter conclusions into our trees until identity and kinship issues are resolved within our research reports.)

Within the framework of Practice 3, it is not just likely but imperative that we create Source List Entries even if we never create a First Reference Note. It is imperative that we record every source we consult for a problem; otherwise, as our research progresses, we will continually waste time “checking out” that source again with the same negative results. Our Source List for any well-done project typically contains many entries that we never need to expand into a First Reference Note.

In your horse-and-carriage analogy, the horse would be the Source List Entry; the carriage would be an extension of that.

An “abbreviated” citation may be either the Source List Entry or the shortened Subsequent (shortened) Reference Note.

You state:

In line with these thoughts, I'm having a hard time getting my head around your reply sentence: In many of our projects—at both research and writing stages—we may use all three of these, or just two, or even one.

My fuller statement in the original response was this:

EE, in almost every case, does provide three formats for citing a source: (1) Source List Entry; (2) First/Full Reference Note; and (3) Subsequent/Shortened Reference Note.  In many of our projects—at both research and writing stages—we may use all three of these, or just two, or even one.

To expand:

• In our research we may use only the Source List Entry. This situation may occur in the research report (as discussed above), or in published writings such as biographical encyclopedia essays for which publishers almost always use only a Source List.
• In writing journal articles, we will almost never create a Source List Entry because journal articles in the fields of history and genealogy rarely carry Source Lists. In these fields, each assertion is expected to be keyed to a specific source and to the locale within that source. Adding a Source List at the end is redundant and a waste of expensive page-space.
• In writing for journals, magazines, or our own websites—or just compiling a genealogy or individual bio for circulation within the family—we would use only the First Reference Note if we cite a source only once. Or we may use both the First/Full Reference Note and the Subsequent/Shortened Note when we cite a source more than once.
• When compiling a book-length genealogy, we may add a Source List at the end if we wish. Realistically, a well-done genealogy of a family will usually use so many hundreds-to-thousands of sources that a Source List is not practical.
• When entering data into genealogical software, we are asked to create all three items (Source List Entry, First/Full Reference Note, and Subsequent/Shortened Reference Note. Then, when we ask the software to create a narrative genealogy from our data, it will pick and choose the form that is needed—i.e.,
  • It will use the First/Full Reference Note the first time we reference a source.
  • It will use the Subsequent/Shortened Reference Note the next time (and each subsequent time) we reference that same source.
  • It will create a Source List for us at the end of the narrative.

You write:

It is a struggle to settle on how source list entries and first reference notes are dependent on one another for purposes of crafting.

Does the above help your struggle?