* Working with source citation copies

[deniselmf]

I just looked at the help topic 'How to Copy and Paste Source Citations', however I am looking for an additional bit of information. If I copy a source citation and paste that copy to five other locations, are those copies connected to or independent of the original source citation? In other words, if I change the original source citation, do all the copied source citations automatically include those changes? Or, must I go to each of the five copies and make changes?

[tatewise]

It partly depend on exactly what you mean by Source Citation.

The Citations themselves are all independent, and editing one will not change another.
Here we are talking about the fields in the yellow Source For box attached to the Property Box.
i.e.
The link to the Source record at the top, and the Entry Date, Assessment, Where within Source, Text From Source, and Note fields below, plus any View Media linked Citation Media.

The linked Source record is shared by all the Citations that refer to it.
So the fields within the Source record itself only exist once and if changed will change for all those Citations.

For the above reasons, it is better to put as much shared data within the Source record rather than duplicate in the Citations.

So in your example it sounds like you probably have to change all the copies.

[deniselmf]

Mike,

No, not about what I was asking. Please note I referenced the help topic 'How to Copy and Paste Source Citations'. Unfortunately that topic did not answer my question either.

Please understand that I am very familiar with genealogy after five decades and have used genealogy software since the mid-1980s. However, I am not that familiar with the 'details' of FH's features and processes, having used Genbox (2002 to 2012) and FTM (2012 to present) most recently.

For example, I typically create a source citation for a marriage (basic source from a records database and citation for the particular marriage). I copy the source citation for use with other events/facts, such as an alternate (married) name, reception, etc. If I use FTM for that source citation, each is linked to the other source citation such that a change to one will change the others. If I later find I've incorrectly typed the certificate number (in the citation portion) I only have to change the source citation in one location to change each use of the source citations, not hunt for each use of the source citation and individually change each separately.

With what little testing I've done with FH, along with what you wrote, suggests that with FH I would have to change each 'copy' of the source citation individually if I incorrectly typed the certificate number. Would that be correct?

[tatewise]

Denise, the best option is to put details like Certificate numbers in the Source record along with a transcript and image of the Certificate. Then nothing needs to be in the Citation except the link to the Source record.

That topic is covered in how_to:key_features_for_newcomers|> Key Features for Newcomers under Sources Methods 1 & 2.

In summary, Method 1 puts all the key details in the Source record, and little or nothing in each Citation, whereas Method 2 uses a global Source record with few details, such as BMD Certificates, and puts all the details in the Citations, but suffers the problem you have encountered if those details need to change.

Are you aware that Ancestral Sources also in how_to:key_features_for_newcomers|> Key Features for Newcomers simplifies the whole process of creating new records for either Method 1 or Method 2, but does not help with the problem of updating details in copies of Citations.

The other programs you have used take a slightly different approach, but then run into problems when needing to migrate via GEDCOM to other products. FH is very GEDCOM focussed and adopts its structures directly. In GEDCOM, Source records are the common shared resource, that in database terms avoids duplication of data. Whereas, Citations are the many-to-many link between Facts and Source records, and each Citation is distinct.

[deniselmf]

Mike,

You just confirmed my suspicions that with FH I would have to track each instance of a source citation to make a change to a typo. That is definitely not of interest.

Yes, I am familiar with Ancestral Sources, Methods 1 & 2 and the other aspects you mention. I am definitely not a fan of Method 1, so will not add details what should be included as citation details to a source record. I very much prefer a general source, whether book, census, a database of vital records, etc.

As for GEDCOM, I believe the genealogy software industry lost out when the effort to create a transfer standard other than GEDCOM (the early 2000s) never produced that transfer standard. GEDCOM loses when attempting to transfer shared events/facts or same gender relationships/families. Some data transfer standard is needed that will allow for evolving genealogy software,

Anyway, thanks for confirming my suspicions.

[AdrianBruce]

... If I use FTM for that source citation, each is linked to the other source citation such that a change to one will change the others. ...

As Mike indicates, the issue is that FTM behaves as you describe, but FH has to conform with the GEDCOM standard, with the result that you "have to change each 'copy' of the source citation individually if [you] incorrectly typed the certificate number".

There is, I think, quite a lot to be said for the FTM method - unfortunately for ex-FTM etc users, that's not how FamilySearch specified GEDCOM.

I think that your concern about how many "things" you need to correct if you realise that you got that certificate number wrong, is absolutely right. My worries over topics like that are why I shift as much detail as possible into the Source-Record, so that my citation stuff in the lower half of the yellow pane (Entry Date downwards, assuming we've all got the same yellow pane) contains as little data as possible for most of my sources. (This is what Mike describes as Method 1). I will therefore have a Source-Record per (say) marriage licence.

I might add that, like most people, I'm not exclusively wedded to this method - when citing Wikipedia for background info, I have one Source-Record only for Wikipedia, not one per Wikipedia article, with the article title and URL, etc, in the yellow source pane.

[tatewise]

Denise, I sympathise with you that nothing has superseded the GEDCOM specification, but we are where we are.

Could you perhaps explain why you are "definitely not a fan of Method 1" when it would clearly solve this problem.

[stewartrb]

... I might add that, like most people, I'm not exclusively wedded to this method - when citing Wikipedia for background info, I have one Source-Record only for Wikipedia, not one per Wikipedia article, with the article title and URL, etc, in the yellow source pane.

Ditto here.

I have a very generic "Wikipedia" source. And then in the "Where within Source:" field I copy the entire URL.

Granted, picking up information in Wikipedia demands follow-on research to find firmer sources for the info (but it's better than leaving the source blank.)

I also lump better sources, like the New England Historical and Genealogical Register (NEHGR). That's a single source for me. (They're up to Volume 192 or so now.)

In the "Where within Source" field I site Volume, date (Month, Year), Article Name, and page #. In the "Text from Source" field I usually also repeat the information I'm capturing from this source (i.e. "b 5 mo 1732") in case another source has something a little different. (Typically double dating misinterpretations.)

Using duplicate Citations, where if I fix one I fix them all, wouldn't be helpful for me, and probably a little dangerous. (Since my citations tend to be very unique occurrences.)

[brianlummis]

Just a thought as this subject of source and citation caused me some difficulty when starting out with FH. If adding a source in the Properties Window the method of adding a note to that source is hidden but the citation is shown below. It took me a little while to realise that if I clicked the Blue Arrow beneath the source, I could then add an appropriate note which would stay with that source. As any new source can be given the type eg book, census, a database of vital records, etc. as needed by Denise then the source effectively becomes a sub category of that type.
Once I got my head around that way of thinking then I could see the benefits of Method 1 for most sources particularly if the source applied to a number of people in the family.
The problem with coming from different software is being able to appreciate that there are different ways of working and to get the best out of the program you occasionally have to rethink your approach. I hope that I am not teaching my grandmother to suck eggs but I know how easy it is to have something fixed in your mind and by scan reading the instructions you can miss a vital point.

Brian

[arthurk]

You just confirmed my suspicions that with FH I would have to track each instance of a source citation to make a change to a typo. That is definitely not of interest.

I'm still very inexperienced with Family Historian and haven't got as far as trying this kind of thing yet, but if it's a matter of a typo repeated in a number of citations, isn't this the kind of thing that the Search and Replace plugin can deal with?

Arthur

[tatewise]

If it is a typo correction, then you are correct Arthur, and the Search and Replace Plugin can focus on just Citation Where within Source or Text From Source or Note fields and make the change quite easily, especially if it is unique text.

But the more general case of changes, such as adding text to an empty field or adding Citation Media, is more problematic.

[deniselmf]

Mike,

You asked:

"Could you perhaps explain why you are "definitely not a fan of Method 1" when it would clearly solve this problem."

As I wrote I started my researches in the mid-1960s. During the next two decades, while military assignments took me from the USA to Japan, back to the USA, to Germany, back to other locations in the USA, and back to Germany, I spent occasional hours at the Family History Library (FHL) in Salt Lake City, various branches of the FHL, branches of the USA National Archives, or state repositories reading records and obtaining information.

For me, a 'source' is described as a distinct record set, whether a FHL microfilm record of a USA county birth register, the 1850 USA census (consisting of multiple microfilms) from the National Archives, or a set of marriage registers at a county courthouse. That description is distinctly different from a 'citation', as the citation describes particularly where within the source the information was found.

With today's computerized, online record 'sources' that means I identify a record collection such as "California, Select Marriages, 1850-1945" from Ancestry or "Index to Marriage Bonds 1810-1932" (microfilm collection RS551A) from the Provincial Archives of New Brunswick as a distinct 'source'. At the moment my genealogical record identifies just more than 500 such 'sources'.

The above process I've used throughout the decades does not describe Method 1, as Method 1 combines the elements of source and citation together. I have been using my research method for a 'few' decades. Plus, my 'genealogical education' from the early 1970s and later has emphasized the process I use.

That said, why would I possibly want to 'dump' the existing decades of documenting my genealogical information, along with expanding (probably massively) my existing 'source' list just to move my records to Method 1? Such an effort offers no return for the massive effort involved in such a move.

Best,

Denise

[tatewise]

Denise, that is what I suspected, and is a reasonable and popular concept.

Yes, the 'Method 1' use of FH Citation and Source is not perfectly aligned with that concept, but it is the GEDCOM structure defined by LDS that is the basis of FH.
My view is that all the Source records with the same Type field form the Source collection, and as you say, each FH/GEDCOM Source record is a combined Citation & Source.

So the 'Method 2' use of FH Citation and Source fits your concept better, but suffers from the GEDCOM replication of Citation details.
There are some workarounds, but only to the extent of using a shared Note record as the Citation Note, to avoid the replication, but is not very satisfactory.
If Media needs to be linked, it can only be linked to the Citation, and must be repeated in each replica Citation.

There are tools within FH to easily find all the Citations linked to the same Source and with the same Where Within Source field value. That would allow them all to be updated together, and a Plugin could be produced to achieve that without manually having to edit each one.

Also, as Arthur noted, the Search and Replace Plugin will cope with many of the simpler typos.

[deniselmf]

Mike,

Concerning your comments, I'll just repeat what you wrote "that is what I suspected".

I have had a license to Family Historian since version 2, yet have not used the software as my major research data software. Based upon your first sentence, second paragraph, I'll just continue to keep my interest in FH as 'light'.

Thanks for your comments though.

Best,

Denise

[AdrianBruce]

... With today's computerized, online record 'sources' that means I identify a record collection such as "California, Select Marriages, 1850-1945" from Ancestry or "Index to Marriage Bonds 1810-1932" (microfilm collection RS551A) from the Provincial Archives of New Brunswick as a distinct 'source'. ...

There is this, Denise. You're the first person that I remember reading who can articulate a real world justification for their (to me) higher level sources. Everyone else that I've read seems either to pluck a level of data out of the air or explain it in terms of their previous software (rather than the real world). Even Elizabeth Shown Mills' explanation of 'master sources' is shaky - mostly because she is quite clear that she writes about the final 'printed' product, not the input to a computer system.

So for that clarity at least, thank you Denise.

[NickWalker]

... With today's computerized, online record 'sources' that means I identify a record collection such as "California, Select Marriages, 1850-1945" from Ancestry or "Index to Marriage Bonds 1810-1932" (microfilm collection RS551A) from the Provincial Archives of New Brunswick as a distinct 'source'. ...

There is this, Denise. You're the first person that I remember reading who can articulate a real world justification for their (to me) higher level sources. Everyone else that I've read seems either to pluck a level of data out of the air or explain it in terms of their previous software (rather than the real world). Even Elizabeth Shown Mills' explanation of 'master sources' is shaky - mostly because she is quite clear that she writes about the final 'printed' product, not the input to a computer system.

So for that clarity at least, thank you Denise.

I think it would be reasonable within the constraints of GEDCOM to consider "Ancestry: California, Select Marriages, 1850-1945" as the repository and therefore this 'higher level source' can still work in FH.

[tatewise]

Yes, I was thinking along the same lines.
The FH/GEDCOM Repository record = higher level Source collection.
The FH/GEDCOM Source record = Citation of a low level Source document (BMD Certificate, Census household, etc).
The FH/GEDCOM Citation is simply a necessity to link Facts to Source Citations.

What I am not sure about is whether that concept will migrate via GEDCOM between various genealogy products.

[deniselmf]

"I think it would be reasonable within the constraints of GEDCOM to consider "Ancestry: California, Select Marriages, 1850-1945" as the repository and therefore this 'higher level source' can still work in FH."

Nick and Mike,

This comment is why we will never agree. A repository (check any book of genealogical definitions) is a physical location where the source can be found. Nick's comment here, and apparently agreed upon by Mike, states that the source (the database titled "California, Select Marriages, 1850-1945" used as an example) is the 'repository'. That statement is not even remotely accurate. The database containing the digitized records is the source and Ancestry is the repository. Each is a distinctly different element in the documentation of an event.

Mike, as I last wrote, your earlier comment:

"Yes, the 'Method 1' use of FH Citation and Source is not perfectly aligned with that concept, but it is the GEDCOM structure defined by LDS that is the basis of FH."

contains several elements to which I definitely do not agree -- "Method 1" and GEDCOM to name two.

While the three of us will continue following our preferred research and recording patterns, unchanged by the other's comments, the major factor is whether someone else (perhaps in the next generation) can follow our research and locate the same information from the repository, source, and citation information we provide in our research.

Best,

Denise

[NickWalker]

"I think it would be reasonable within the constraints of GEDCOM to consider "Ancestry: California, Select Marriages, 1850-1945" as the repository and therefore this 'higher level source' can still work in FH."

Nick and Mike,

This comment is why we will never agree. A repository (check any book of genealogical definitions) is a physical location where the source can be found. Nick's comment here, and apparently agreed upon by Mike, states that the source (the database titled "California, Select Marriages, 1850-1945" used as an example) is the 'repository'. That statement is not even remotely accurate. The database containing the digitized records is the source and Ancestry is the repository. Each is a distinctly different element in the documentation of an event.

Sigh, all that Mike and I are trying to do is make suggestions to help you, there's no need to be rude. The important words to read are "within the constraints of GEDCOM". You would like there to be a source/master source/repository structure available but GEDCOM doesn't have that (or at least doesn't without duplication of citations). One workaround would be to combine the master source and repository into one. I'm not suggesting that's what a repository is meant to be for, or that its 'correct' (whatever that means), just that it might work (but I wouldn't do things this way personally). The other possible suggestion (which many of us are happy with) is having an individual source for each entry ("method 1") but you've already said you don't like that. I'm not in a position to change Family Historian for you, or to update the GEDCOM standard, I'm just trying to give you another suggestion.

[ColeValleyGirl]

I don't see anyone being rude here.

I do see a lot (on all sides) that I do and don't agree with (all that follows is my opinion and if course I may be wrong/others will have equally strong and different opinions).

I definitely agree that doing a lot of work to change to a different system of citing sources (when a current system is fit-for-purpose) can't be justified unless there's another reason to revisit one's work to date. (I'm about to re-embark on redoing all my documentation, but that's only 15 years work, and what I did back in the day is definitely not what I would do now).

GEDcom has its limitations, but I don't agree that mis-using a field improves matters, especially when I consider that a 'fudged' file may be transferred to others and be misinterpreted.

Denise is right that a repository is the place where a source can be found -- originally physical, but these days including electronic repositories such as Ancestry.

However, a source, to my mind, is a single document, so I disagree with Denise here -- but I hope we won't go to war over it . A database containing digitized records is not a source; it is a collection of sources, each of which (according to Method 1) should be identified individually as a source with a reference to the database AND a reference to the original document set which the database is based on; thus enabling another researcher to consult that database and/or the original document. The citation then is only relevant for quoting the exact text that supports a particular assertion ('fact'); and for large source documents, locating the specifically relevant text.

Method 2 would use the collection as the source (hopefully with a reference to the original document set); and in the citation identify the specific document AND location within that document, plus any specific text that supports the citation. This wouldn't be my own choice of method, but should still allow another researcher to follow the trail to the source concerned (or at least to the derivative of the source that was consulted). If (as with FH, the underlying data is GEDcom-based), it does make it much more important to 'get things right first time' because of the extra work involved in correcting multiple citations; other products make this easier but (I guess) have deficiencies in other areas that don't matter to everyone. You pays your money and you takes your choice, as my Gran told me.

it would be brilliant if a "Gedcom replacement" included the concept of a 'source collection' that mapped onto the world we see as researchers -- so we could define Repository> Collection> Document> Citation -- or any combination thereof. If I held my breath however, I'd turn blue and die a long time before it happened.

[NickWalker]

I don't see anyone being rude here.

Well I thought it rude to be told because of a simple suggestion I made that we could "never agree" and that what I had suggested wasn't even remotely accurate. Certainly I wouldn't reply to someone trying to help like that, but we all have different standards I guess.