I agree with Gary. Typically, the only time I omit a reference citation is if it essentially duplicates another reference. An example of this might be two marriage indexes, one compiled for the U.S. state and another for the particular county. Both are derivative sources with secondary information. If each have the same names, locations, and dates, I don't feel a need to record both; I'll usually opt for the more localized of the two, meaning the county record.
But let me back up a step. It might not shock anyone that I've caught flack in the past for my citations being too lengthy. However...to me, the must-have is a fully-qualified, complete citation that goes an additional step beyond even the Chicago Manual of Style or other common stylistic system.
WikiTree points to Elizabeth Shown Mills's Evidence Explained as the preferred system, and she writes: "...Source citations have two purposes:
- "to record the specific location of each piece of data; and
- "to record details that affect the use or evaluation of that data."
The second bullet point is what distinguishes genealogy from some other applications of the CMoS, or MLA, or APA stylesheets. If you're writing a research or academic paper, your subject is almost always specialized; the reader is assumed to have a high degree of prior knowledge of the subject matter. Not so with genealogy. A stylesheet-recommended reference citation is only the beginning. A description of how the citation applies to the analysis is critical. In the end we're working through the Genealogical Proof Standard and that means information and evidence analysis...and must include information that seems positive to the hypothesis as well as information that seems to contradict it or run counter to it.
We, of course, should be hashing out our presented case per the Genealogical Proof Standard in the profile's biography section...once we get to that stage. But even before that discussion, citations should include adequate details that tell the reader what in those cited data affects our use or evaluation of the data. The citation should provide indication of relevance. This is seldom seen in academic papers because, again, if I'm writing about quantum entanglement for the American Journal of Physics, both I and the publication expect the readers already will be very familiar with the works cited.
I won't get on my soapbox (one of a few dozen) about the distinction between a Source List (a bibliography) and Reference Notes, which are two different things and should be treated separately, but I'd rather err on the side of oversharing than undersharing. I've seen profiles where more than one reference exists and are (fairly) easily located, but only one is used...and it's the one that agrees with the information/hypotheses shown in the biography.
Genealogy isn't an empirical science. Conclusions generally have to result from a preponderance of evidence rather than experimental verification. So it's incumbent upon us to seek out every meaningful, distinct source of information that we can...the "reasonably exhaustive research in relevant records" part of the Genealogical Proof Standard. In fact, we need to actively seek out conflicting information so that we can attempt to properly reconcile it.
Another way to look at it is that a genealogical biography is never truly "finished." We've even seen things like DNA evidence provide new insights into figures as old as Richard III and Leonardo da Vinci. If you and I share a common ancestor and I've done work on that profile, it's a service to you if I've been thorough about citing what sources I've consulted and what their relevance was. Conversely, it's a disservice if I knowingly leave things out. Not only does that mean some unreconciled information might be lingering, but it also means that you might spend unnecessary time looking for information from a source that I'd already found...and for some reason chosen not to include.
