* Citation Date in FH7

[fhtess65]

In the Citation window, to what does the Citation date refer? The date you are entering the citation? Or the date the event you are citing took place?

Thanks

Teresa

[tatewise]

It is the Date that the Source document was originally created.
The date the Event took place is in the Event Date field.

For example, consider a Death Certificate that includes the Date of Birth of the person.
The Birth Event Date is that Date, the Citation links to the Death Certificate Source.
The Citation Entry Date is the Registration Date of the Death Certificate.

[fhtess65]

Sorry Mike, I'm still not really clear. I've attached a screencap of my citation window...I'm citing a Parish register.

So Entry date is the date the baptism took place and Date is??

Teresa

[Mark1834]

I think it’s fair to say though that many people treat the field as the event date. In many cases, you won’t know exactly when the record you are citing (Bishop/Archdeacon Transcripts, Census summary, etc) was created.

[dewilkinson]

Like many things FH provides facilities for you to do what suits your purpose. I use the Citation Date to record the date I entered the information because the date of the event is recorded in the Event and it provides me with an audit trail. Also, I believe you don't actually know the date of many documents. A parish register for example will be for 1795-1835, and a transcription will have been compleetd much later, i.e. not a specific date. Another example are the GROs indexes which were created much later than the actual events, and they are undated. In some respects your choice depends on whether you are a 'lumper' or a 'splitter' and I fall into the former camp.

As users of FH we have to respect that various users will use the facilities in differing ways, but that is one of the beauties of the system.

[fhtess65]

I think it’s fair to say though that many people treat the field as the event date. In many cases, you won’t know exactly when the record you are citing (Bishop/Archdeacon Transcripts, Census summary, etc) was created.

Thanks - that was kind of what I was thinking...we can't know when many of these records were created.

[fhtess65]

Like many things FH provides facilities for you to do what suits your purpose. I use the Citation Date to record the date I entered the information because the date of the event is recorded in the Event and it provides me with an audit trail. Also, I believe you don't actually know the date of many documents. A parish register for example will be for 1795-1835, and a transcription will have been compleetd much later, i.e. not a specific date. Another example are the GROs indexes which were created much later than the actual events, and they are undated. In some respects your choice depends on whether you are a 'lumper' or a 'splitter' and I fall into the former camp.

As users of FH we have to respect that various users will use the facilities in differing ways, but that is one of the beauties of the system.

Thanks - I'm just thinking of what happens if I export as gedcom and where those fields map to. But for now, I guess as long as I'm consistent in HOW I use those two fields, that's what's important.

[AdrianBruce]

Speaking as a v6 person so far, I may be on the wrong track but there is:

• Date of 5 April 1794 under Citation Specific details;
• Entry Date (again, 5 April 1794 in the image) under the Text From Source box;

Further, the latter Entry Date is repeated within the Text From Source.

And the question is - what's the intended difference?

I just have this feeling that we have three dates in that screen-shot where only two are normally needed - the date of the event being referred to and the date that the document was compiled. And the former is within the "Text from Source".

[tatewise]

It looks like you have customised the Citation Window by adding Entry Date.
BUT the Date field that exists by default IS the Citation Entry Date.
If you check the cog Menu > Customize Citation Window... dialogue and check the Data References you will discover that both Citation Details: Date and Citation Details: Entry Date use SOUR.DATA.DATE
So both boxes are the same field!
I suggest you remove one of them.

In this case, since the source document creation date is not known then don't enter anything.
If you decided that it was created on the date of the Baptism there is no need to enter it as the Baptism Event has that date.

[fhtess65]

Adrian - I was playing around with options here...this is part of my issue, trying to figure out how to use these templates as they're very different from what I'm used to in RootsMagic.

I'm also wondering how others use these fields differently.

Thanks for your input.

Teresa

Speaking as a v6 person so far, I may be on the wrong track but there is:

• Date of 5 April 1794 under Citation Specific details;
• Entry Date (again, 5 April 1794 in the image) under the Text From Source box;

Further, the latter Entry Date is repeated within the Text From Source.

And the question is - what's the intended difference?

I just have this feeling that we have three dates in that screen-shot where only two are normally needed - the date of the event being referred to and the date that the document was compiled. And the former is within the "Text from Source".

[fhtess65]

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the detailed explanation...I get it now. I guess I see a field and feel I have to use it!

Teresa

It looks like you have customised the Citation Window by adding Entry Date.
BUT the Date field that exists by default IS the Citation Entry Date.
If you check the cog Menu > Customize Citation Window... dialogue and check the Data References you will discover that both Citation Details: Date and Citation Details: Entry Date use SOUR.DATA.DATE
So both boxes are the same field!
I suggest you remove one of them.

In this case, since the source document creation date is not known then don't enter anything.
If you decided that it was created on the date of the Baptism there is no need to enter it as the Baptism Event has that date.

[AdrianBruce]

Thanks for the above, folks. More thinking for me to ponder before I take the plunge.