* Create custom query - find correct fields

[SpencerDudeUK]

I've been using FH for a while now, and, as with all complex software, you don't know where you're going wrong until you have entered quite a few records. Then you have to revisit them to correct whatever the deficiency in your records is.
I want to revisit all my records to further detail the source, where I have previously entered as 'Ancestry', 'FindMyPast', etc.
To this end, I'm trying to create a custom query based on the 'Source Records' standard query, in order to show the field 'Where within Source' that is shown in the bottom section of the Property Box. (I intend to populate that field with the exact set of records within, say, the Ancestry database, that the record was found - e.g., "Bristol, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1812"
There are many, many fields in the Source columns that have the title 'Where within Source', and I can't seem to find the correct one - is there anyone that could point me in the right direction, or tell me how I identify that field within the schema? - or in fact, give me an easier way of re-detailing the resources...?

[tatewise]

Key to this is understanding the distinction between Method 1 'source splitters' and Method 2 'source lumpers', and also between Citations and Sources.
See glossary:sources|> Source Records and in particular glossary:sources#sources_and_citations_-_how_to_use_them|> Sources and Citations - how to use them.
( That was a topic in how_to:key_features_for_newcomers|> Key Features for Newcomers that you should have grasped much earlier. )

It sounds like you may be using Method 1 'source splitters' mode.
With that you have a whole class of documents lumped into one Source Record.
It is the Citation field Where Within Source that identifies the specific source document, page, etc.

Source Records are held separate from Individual and Family records as shown on the Records Window ~ Sources tab.
Citations as show in the yellow pane you mention, are fields within Individual and Family records, and that is where the Where Within Source field resides.

Now the standard Query Source Records - All only lists Source Records so the Result Set Columns can't possibly list the Where Within Source fields, and your suggestion that there are many, many such fields is confusing.
Perhaps a screenshot of what you are seeing would help us understand.

What you must decide is whether you plan to use Method 1 'source splitters' or Method 2 'source lumpers' mode.
Then we can advise how best to proceed to reorganise your Source Citation structures.

[davidf]

If you do a "Fact" Query (not a "Source" query) and in the "Columns" tab of the Query Setup, you select the "Where within Source" field (which is a sub field under "Source" in the tree on the left).

Move the "Where within Source" field up the list of fields so that when you run the results the "Where within Source" field is visible.

If that does what you want you can then prune the unnecessary fields to get a more manageable results window.

The "problem" is as Mike hinted that where in an individual's properties window you see "Source", you are actually seeing information that links a fact to a source - which some of us call the "citation". You are not see the source just setting up a link.

The information that I think you want is in the individual/family "fact tree" (see the "all tab" - where if you open say a census record you will see that it has a "source" branch (which is actually just a pointer to the source tree); open the source branch and you will see the "Where within Source" data)

[tatewise]

David is completely correct.
However, even when you have employed an appropriate Query, that does not help much with making the changes, as they cannot be performed using a Query.
As I said, it is important to understand the factors involved, and clarify your objectives.
The best solution may be to capture those Source Citations again from scratch, and ditch the 'mistakes'.
This might be where Ancestral Sources plays a part. See how_to:key_features_for_newcomers|> Key Features for Newcomers again.

[davidf]

Can't you double click on the relevant "Source Where Within Source" cell in the query output to get taken to the relevant properties box and fact?

[SpencerDudeUK]

OK. Thanks for the responses - perhaps I can rephrase to explain it better...
I'm both a lumper and a splitter, in that I lump stuff like Census images under the generic source of, say, 1841 Census, and add the image as citation media in the Properties Box. However, I split too, in that all GRO Certificates, Parish Register images, Wills, etc, etc, are given their own source. Within each Source, I record the Title, Type, and Repository - which to my mind is where I found the information. The Repository is probably where I should have been more detailed, since that is where I use the terms 'Ancestry' or 'FindmyPast, etc., as opposed to, perhaps, 'Ancestry - Bristol, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1812'. Going back over that now would be a horrendous task, so I was looking to simply add the secondary information, e.g., 'Bristol, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1812', into the Properties Box as described, either in the Where within Source field, or in fact, any of the fields Where Within Source, Text From Source, Note:, etc., since they are unique to the citation.
Hopefully I'm making sense here, but don't know enough about the database schema to be able to create the query I need so that I can see the records I haven't done yet, etc.?

[tatewise]

Firstly, I would advise you split Census records too, because they benefit far more than any other type of source, to avoid duplicating the same Media image, Text From Source and Where Within Source in multiple Citations, but that is for another discussion thread.

If you really are splitting Birth, Baptism, Marriage, Death & Burial sources so there is only one Source Record per document, then the correct location for such as Ancestry - Bristol, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1812 is within the Source Record or perhaps the Repository Record, but certainly not the Where Within Source field of the Citations.

What is unique to the Citation is the particular Source Record document identified by the Title and Publication Info and attached Media image.
Ancestry - Bristol, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1812 is just further context of where that document resides, i.e. its publication details or its repository.

If you have studied the links I provided, you will see that Method 1 split sources have no need to use the Citation fields, but which are essential for Method 2 sources.

[davidf]

Hopefully I'm making sense here, but don't know enough about the database schema to be able to create the query I need so that I can see the records I haven't done yet, etc.?

I think you are - the GEDCOM schema is of a tree type.

In the GEDCOM file there are a number of trees - essentially one for each tab on the records window (when you have all the tabs switched to show!).
Within each tree (such as for individuals) there are branches for each individual and then there are branches for each fact; attached to each fact is a "citation" (but it looks like a source!). It is a citation because it is holding information that is pertinent to the particular occurrence of a link between a specific [source] and a specific [individual|fact].

(This applies whether you are a lumper or a splitter - although for the latter the distinction is more academic because there is only one link between "a split source" and an individual|fact combination - although even for splitters the "split source" can be linked to multiple individuals.)

If you look at the "all" tab on an individual's property window you can see the bit of the tree relevant to the individual.

GEDCOM tree for John S Williamson

Screenshot from 2019-09-22 17-54-08.png (68.48 KiB) Viewed 5025 times

So looking at a census "fact" you will see a number of branches - however to avoid duplication many of these branches are actually just pointers to another tree. (In database design pointers take up very little space, so in the days when you were space constrained they were a good thing - as well as pointing to a single occurrence of the other entity.)

In the ("Source lumping") example above the fact branch for the 1860 US Census has a number of apparent branches:
The first four (date place address age) are just pure data entered against this specific [individual|fact]
The next is the "Source" which is a pointer to the actual source record in FH (clicking on the blue arrow in the RHS of the window will take you to the actual source record).
The "Source" or more correctly the citation itself has a number of branches

1. The Where within Source which is I think the one you are wanting to get at!
2. A pointer to the image (avoiding duplicating the holding of images)
3. (In my case) A pointer to a shared note - which contains the transcription of that census record (thereby avoiding duplication of transcriptions)

For you, I think your salvation lies in the fact that every Fact has a "Source" branch and every source branch has a "Where within Source" branch. If your desired exercise is to go through each of these across all facts for all individuals/families, you need to use the Fact query that I described in an earlier post.

Fact Query to expose "Where within Source"

Screenshot from 2019-09-22 18-05-10.png (32.76 KiB) Viewed 5025 times

In the "results of the query" window you will see your current text for each "Where within Source".

Result of query to show "Where within Source"

Screenshot from 2019-09-22 18-12-57.png (156.2 KiB) Viewed 5025 times

I suspect that you can just work through these double clicking on the relevant cell (not line) to get to the entry concerned. Once you have made your changes I think from the way you originally described your problem the cell will look different so you can see which ones you have changed.

[SpencerDudeUK]

Again, thanks for the response - that's a very clear and concise explanation, although quite a lot to get my head around. I will take your suggestions on board and try to work my way through to see where I get.
Thanks again

[tatewise]

Yes, david's explanation is excellent, but as he says and as I say, only relevant for lumped sources.
At the risk of being a cracked record, those Citation fields are inadvisable for split sources that you say you use.
The information is better associated with the split Source record itself to avoid duplication.