Re: Lumper or Splitter for one name study

David Wilkinson


I lump for things like birth, death, marriage indexes and certificates, each census e.g. lumped for 1841, 1851 etc and record the detail in the "where within source", "text from source" and "note" fields, thus they become unique under a lumped heading. The key to me is adopt a strategy then stick to it.

If I split everything I would 100,000s of entries in the Source table which seems daft to me.

The purpose of a citation is the the reader can understand where the data came from and find it easily if they wish.

David Wilkinson

On 04/05/2021 14:57, johnfirr via wrote:
Just a question out of interest really. I started using FH for family history research and adopted wnat I believe to be a "splitter" technique for recording sources i.e I raise an individual source for every record for every individual. This has the advantage that it allows me to record lots of detail and its very specific when searching, however it is relatively slow as there is lots of data entry for just one event ( say a Birth index entry).
Last year I transferred into carrying out a one name study and have continued to "split" which has not been a huge problem since the main name is very rare so if wanted to enter say all of the births on Findmypast for that name in the UK since 1837 I only have a couple of hundred.

However I have now started on one of the variants which whilst not huge is an order of magnitude higher so for instance I have just pulled all of the UK births for that variant from Free BMD and have a list of over a thousand. Entering these using splitting means also originaltng 1500 or so sources as well. This is a bit daunting and I am toying with becoming a "lumper" and creating one source for the CSV list arising from that search, only the perfectionist in me is stopping me at the moment.

Just interested in what other one namers do when you have a large list - is lumping the answer?

John Firr

Join to automatically receive all group messages.