suggestion says citations from 1903 edition and 1939 edition are considered to be "duplicated inline resources"

Question

A suggestion says citations from a 1903 edition and a 1939 edition that is a supplement are considered to be "duplicated inline resources".  They are not the same book,  The 1939 edition is a supplement.

A Research Note has been added that suggests the two books contain the same material.

I have not found the material in the 1903 edition to be  duplicated in the 1939 supplement.

Comments

If you are citing 2 different records with the same or similar titles, you need to give them separate names.

I suggest you add the years to the names to differentiate them:

<ref name=HDCurtis1903>

<ref name=HDCurtis1939> .

---

Thanks Lindy.  That is a good suggestion . . .
I actually had given them different separate names one was HD. the other was FD.

However, still using that difference or not adding the date too would no doubt be make it more clear the citations are from two different versions to anyone who misses seeing noticing that the copyright dates are different and "supplement" is part of the title on one of them.

Answer 1

The suggestion is actually picking up that you have two citations using <ref name=HDCurtis> . What should have happened is having the first citation using <ref name=HDCurtis> then the subsequent citations using <ref name=HDCurtis/> to reflect the four instances of that citation being used.

See the edit I did removing the duplicated named citation which is suggestion 869

The other citation named <ref name=FHCurtis> is not the item being picked up in this suggestion.

Comments

I see.  Found your edit.  Thanks a lot Darren.  It was simply the same citation repeated instead of using the <ref name>

Someone had left a research note, in error, saying the two references were the same, although they were not, being two different editions.  That was not associated with the suggestion.  I have since removed that note.

Answer 2

May I ask what books are you relaying too? The title and authors would help greatly.

Comments

Problem solved Gary - someone had left a research note suggesting the two sources were the same, when they were different editions.  That was separate from the suggestion, which was obvious, and easily resolved (by Darren).

And Lindy's suggestion for ref name makes it clearer that the two sources are different version.

Curtis, Harlow Dunham. [https://archive.org/details/genealogyofcurti00incurt A Genealogy of the Curtiss Family, being a Record of the Descendants of Widow Elizabeth Curtiss, who settled in Stratford, Conn., 1639-40]. (Boston: Rockwell & Churchill Press, 1903)

Curtis, Harlow Dunham. [https://archive.org/details/genealogyofcurti00harl/page/n5/mode/2up A genealogy of the Curtiss-Curtis family of Stratford, Connecticut : a supplement to the 1903 edition] (Stratford Connecticut: Curiss-Curtis Society, 1939)