* Media and sources.

[dklbrooks]

I set up my own naming conventions for media/sources based roughly on "Method 1".
But now I am finding inconsistencies and problems.
For instance should every document (media) mean a new source? I am torn between doing this
or just having multiple media attached to each source, and then having to combine "text from sources" into the one box.

For example if you have a death certificate and a newspaper article about the death, do you have 2 sources,
or 1 source with 2 media attached.
I was (incorrectly) treating sources as if they were facts/attributes/events in my naming convention, such that I use "D"
for death, "M" for marriage, "B" for birth etc.
But the name of the source should really describe that piece of media that told me about the fact, which could be anything, so
it is difficult to come up with a short hand naming convention for example the Custom Id. Otherwise you end up with
horrendously long full titles.

[jbtapscott]

I think you will find that there of many ways of using Source data and there is no "right" way!. A lot will depend on how you are are going to use your data (e.g what reports you are using, website requirements, etc.)

For myself, and using your example of a certificate and a newspaper article, I would always create two Source records and reference them both from the citation. The point here is that you might cite the certificate against another individual (e.g. the Informant) where inclusion of the Newspaper article would not be relevant, so separate Source records with the relevant media file attached.
In terms of naming, I keep it simple - for example: "Smith, John - 1948 Death Certificate".

[tatewise]

Yes, I would keep the documents separate for the reason given by Brent.
The facts derived from a Death Certificate can be quite different from those from a newspaper obituary.
As Brent says you should be able to keep the Source record Title quite succinct.
Use the other fields in the Source record to expand on the Author, Publication details, etc.

I hope by now you are using Ancestral Sources to capture Death Certificates and other common documents.
If so, then it gets tricky to merge other documents into the same Source record, and anyway, as stated earlier, the fact citation links will be different.

[AdrianBruce]

Even those of us who are passionate Method 1 advocates, will occasionally slip into Method 2, so be pragmatic about it. But of course, you may not yet realise what you need to be pragmatic about...

For the quoted example, I would definitely have 2 source records - everything like the author, the publication details, and of course, the text, will vary one from the other, so it would be folly to have one source record. Well, that's my view.

Even where I have both a parish register entry and a bishop's transcript entry for the same ceremony, I would have 2 source records - usually the only reason I would have an entry for the BT is that it's slightly different in content or easier to read, so it makes it easier to discuss the difference if you have 2 source records.

Conversely, if I have someone's WW1 Army personnel records, while they are several different forms and it might occasionally be useful to refer to one particular page by its correct Army title, I would bundle them all under the one source record since they appear on Ancestry or FMP as one contiguous lot of several images. (NB I do refer to the Burnt Records or the so-called Pension Records here - a Medal Roll entry (say) would be a separate source record.)

[dklbrooks]

Thanks a lot people.
After thinking about it I have to agree with you.
So I will maintain my existing methodology, with just a bit of tweaking.
It is really 98% Method 1 and 2% Method 2, where appropriate.

One other thing if I may:
I have created images of many transcripts from FindMyPast, because I cannot afford to buy the certificates, and I may
not renew my subscription before I finish my tree.
For example I am attaching an image of "Yorkshire Bishop's Transcripts of Baptisms" as the media for the source for the person's birth fact.
I also tend to duplicate the contents of the transcription by cutting and pasting into "text from source".
Do you consider this is an appropriate way to handle the source for the birth?

[jbtapscott]

Again, it probably depends on what reports you want to make use of. Personally, I don't attach the transcript, although I do keep a copy of it (in PDF form) in my Media folder. Similarly, I don't copy / paste from the transcript as pretty much all the detail I want is placed in specific fields of the Source record (e.g. GRO Data) and the Fact itself (Registration District & Date, etc).

If I can download an image of the original from FMP (as opposed the transcript) then I normally download that (as well as creating the transcription pdf) and attach to the Source record, but there are issues with copyright (I publish my data to a website), so I am tending to just make sure I have copies of the data in my Media file rather than attaching them to Source records. At least then, if I have a query I can always find my "proof" in the Media folder.

[tatewise]

I handle most Sources in the same way as Ancestral Sources with both linked Media image and Text From Source transcript, but you do need to be wary of copyright if publishing those images & details either in book form or online web pages.

Regarding 'Transcripts of Baptisms', the formal method is to follow the Ancestral Sources model of a Baptism Event with an exact Date citing the Source, and a Birth Event with an estimated Date some time earlier, but also citing the same Source.

You are using Ancestral Sources aren't you?

[dklbrooks]

I take your points, but copyright is not an issue for me as my research is for purely personal use.
I like the idea of the separate Baptism and Birth events, citing the same source.
As you know, sometimes all we have to work with is the Baptism record.

I have to admit that I am not using AS yet.
I still feel that I need to "get it right" manually first.
I have long stretches when I do no genealogy work, and when I take it up again, I find I have to re-learn my techniques.
However I did find that reading the AS documentation was very useful.

[tatewise]

Using AS is an important part of "getting it right", even if only used experimentally to start with.
It offers what have become recognised as the de facto methods of employing FH, partly because it has been influenced over many years by FH users.
Checkout the tutorials in ancestralsources:index|> Ancestral Sources that work with the Family Historian Sample Project and thus do not jeopardise your master Project, but gives you the insight you are looking for to "get it right". For example, by default when adding Baptismal Source documents via AS, it will create both a Baptism and Birth event citing the Source.