Tom, Yes, I kind of thought it was something like that, although I don't know as much about the process as you apparently so I could not be sure. I will just keep plugging along doing one source entry at a time, but given the sheer size of a the number of citations in some of my sources, I will just make a decision at the time whether they wind up getting updated at all. Thank you for the reply. David E. Cann decann@infionline.net or "david.e.cann" on Skype -----Original Message----- From: rootsmagic-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:rootsmagic-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Tom Holden Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 4:52 PM To: rootsmagic-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [RMagic] New source templates vs. old It is my impression that the citations stay put for the same person|family|event when their source is merged into another source. person|family|What I suspect you are seeing is the loss of information that occurs when you merge sources having differing source template. That is true also if Free Form is one of them. All the field names of the secondary source (meaning the one that will be merged) must exist in the same hierarchy in the destination of primary source, else their values will appear to be lost; i.e. master source fields must appear in the destination's master source spec and source details fields in the destination's source details spec. The data is not necessarily gone, though. By adding the secondary field names to the appropriate places in the primary source template sentence templates, I think they will be outputted. A long time ago (RM4 days), a source conversion utility was requested for mapping sources from one template to another. That's not simple, because of the hierarchical consideration, when converting between lumpy and splitty sources. It can be made to work for citations of finely split sources to lumped sources but not the other way round. Tom <snip>