* Titling of Source Records

[Shiriki]

Hi

I am using Method 1 to record my Sources and have so far entered Birth, Marriage, Death Certificates, Baptism Records etc. and linked them to relevant images.
The Source records are entered in a manner as the 1st example below:

This approach seems to work for me, but now I am starting to enter Census Source Records and images.
I have only entered a few (with the relevant citations etc.) but am wondering how other users of FH are titling the associated Source Record.
I use the Title of Census, followed by the relevant Year then the Head of the household and within parenthesis the address/location.
Note that a (1) or (2) may be appended if there are two images of the Census when the household appears at the bottom of one image and continues to a second page. Type is entered as Census and Year.
See 2nd example below:

Whilst this seems to work and allows one to distinguish records when linking to images and citations I was wondering if there may be a more elegant way before I commit a lot of time and effort in continuing.

Anyone else have any suggestions?
Many Thanks in advance.

Shiriki

[tatewise]

In principle there is not much wrong with your method, but...

You can attach both Census page images to one Source record and do away with the (1) and (2) suffix, as that is much neater, and only needs one Source Citation per household member.

Are you using ancestralsources:index|> Ancestral Sources for entering BMD and Census data?

I recommend that you should for several reasons. It simplifies the whole process, and ensures consistent naming for Source records, Media records, Media files, etc, by the use of customised Templates.

[AdrianBruce]

There is no right and wrong way to title source-records. Indeed, remember (?) that there are 2 titles - the Title and Short Title. I use one (the Short Title) to name the Source-Record so it's easy to find, the other to describe the Source itself and to appear in the "printed" citations in reports.

Since the Source Record is easily accessible from the facts by hitting buttons, you don't need the title for that. So you need to ask just why you need to look through the Source-Records. One very good reason is when you're trying to see whether a new source has already been recorded and for that it probably doesn't really matter if the source title starts with the surname (like yours) or the document type (like mine). (Just remember to decide which surname to use for marriage certificates).

Where life might get a bit more interesting is when you consider how to record sources like Wikipedia or the Ships List. (That should make a few people cough - panic not - I'm using Wikipedia as a source for data about places or regiments etc., not people.) In the end, for ease of finding it, I'm using a single Source-Record for Wikipedia titled just that.

More of an issue is where you want to check the source-records that you've got, against a check list of baptisms, then marriages, then burials from Ancestry of FMP for a specific county / surname or church / surname. But then I think you can use queries, particularly if you've entered the church name somewhere consistent.

I think my point is that there isn't a lot of point worrying too much as the most important link (from the fact) is covered already and things like queries and filtering help with all the other investigations. But, as always, it really is important be be consistent to enable you to find stuff again.