Family Historian User Group

Can someone explain the difference in the report option settings for "Location of the Citations"?

I generated a Descendants by Generation report and I'm attempting to get the citations to appear at the bottom of each page but regardless of which radio button I select: "At end of record on same page", "At end of record on a new page", or "At the end of the report", I get the same results - A sources list and a Bibliography at the end of the report.

Also the Sources list does tie back to a superscript footnote number but without the citation specific detail. In other words I get

1 Author, Title, (publisher, year).

I never see the p.245 "where in source" portion of the specific citation. I do have the "Combine Identical Citations for the same Source" box checked. But shouldn't that combine all Source : p.245 citations, not combine all the citations from this Source to a single footnote?

What am I missing? Can I get the footnotes at the bottom of each page?

Thanks from a new user

Yes, the Location of Source Citations setting can be confusing for newcomers.
The key point is that if you only chose a Single Individual as the Subject Person then there is only one record being reported with all their descendants.
So all the Location of Source Citations options are very similar.
If you choose Multiple Individuals then each Subject Person is a different record and the options have more variant effects.

The settings for what is included are on the Tools > Preferences > Sources tab Generic Sources button and apply globally to all Report types. The Citation Details ~ Where Within Source field is enabled by default and is where references such as p.245 should be stored, but maybe the import from FTM has put that info elsewhere?

After reviewing where it is stored, you may want to consider moving all similar info by using a Plugin.

Thanks , I think I understand the differences in Record handling now. When a Descendant report runs 283 pages puting the footnote at the end just isn't all that helpful.

Something is still up with the citations. These were added after importing from FTM. The "p. 245" is in the correct box but the report is not picking that up correctly - as best I can tell.

When posting here it would be helpful to be more specific.
i.e. Instead of saying "in the correct box", actually naming the box.
If it is in the Where Within Source box and that option is ticked then it will be included in the Report.
But beware that there are two Text From Source boxes and multiple Notes boxes.

You can also attach screenshots to save a lot of explaining.
See Forum Usage Tips under Attachments.

Apologies for not being clear, new to me forum means I have to learn how to proper reference windows, tabs and fields. Hopefully these screen shots will illustrate my confusion.

I'm trying to understand why different citations, to different sources, results in different footnote behavior in the narrative report. The Report Options, Sources Tab used is shown below.
The first Source, which has the Where Within Source filled in as "p. 671" result in footnote 1 of the sources. You can see this source has 624 citations not all of which may have the Where Within Source but there are at least 14 unique entries for pages 671 to 684.
This is the only instance of this source in the report's Source listing.

Is there a 3 attachment limit? I can't seem to add more so I'll continue in the next reply. Sorry

(Continued)

I am comparing this single footnote to
Which you can see, gives footnotes 35 and 36. The citation windows for these are below. You can see they have unique values for the Where within source fields.
I can't seem to identify why the later example (which is what I expected) is different from the first example. Any common setting are the same as this is from the same narrative report.

Thanks again for any insights as to how this software works.

Your first example is a templated source and the second is a generic source. The format of footnotes and bibliographies for generic sources is set in Tools>Preferences>Sources>Generic Source Formats, but the format for templated sources is determined in the Source Template for each type (and can be different for each type).

Lorna, has given the succinct answer.
As a relative newcomer to FH, do you appreciate the difference between a Templated Source and Generic Source?
Do you also understand why the Report output differs between the two types?

I notice your original posting Merging Sources (18428) referred to Generic Sources imported from FTM and how to Templated Sources, but oddly that got no answers.
With Templated Sources there are more links. There is a link to the Source Template. Also, the Prepared Citation is held in the Header which probably explains that extra link, but that will vanish when the next Prepared Citation is created.

There is no easy way to migrate from Generic to Templated at the moment.
There are other discussion threads in this Forum investigating ways of automating the process using plugins.
However, for that to work requires your Generic Sources to follow consistently standard rules that a plugin can rely on.
In the meantime, you either have to live with the two styles alongside each other, or commit to just one of them, or manually convert each Generic Source to a Templated Source.

Thank you for the explanation, now to get me on course.

The Citation window sidebar has three sections:

Footnote:
Short Footnote
Bibliography.

The example and format of the Footnote section is as follows:

Rev. Horace Edwin Hayden, Virginia Genealogies, A Genealogy of the Glassell Family of Scotland and Virginia (Wilkes Barre, Penn: E. B. Yordy, 1891), print pages 669-684 images 702-717; Images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/co ... bel=Return accessed December 2020).

FOOTNOTE FORMAT:
{Author_Editor}, {Title:TITLE} <({Original_Publication_Place}: {Original_Publisher}, {Original_Publication_Year})>, {Page}; {New_Format}, {Website_Title:TITLE} <({URL_Digital_Location} accessed {Date_Accessed})>.

If I understand your reply correctly, I need to add the Where Within Source to the Footnote (and Short Footnote).

How is that done?

Does it need to be done for each templated source or each citation?

Tatewise,

Yes, I'm working my way thru the generic to template source change. This is one of my motivators for changing software, This and the ability to add citations to notes and structure to what is a massive pile of text.

I have found that a right click on the highlighted source in the Source Records window brings up a contextual menu and at top of that list is add template. I can then add the appropriate template to an imported generic source, duplicate fields can then deleted and the structure modified. This avoids the need to merge sources as the resulting source is templated.

My editing of the template format has been by trial and error.

From the prior post it seems I need to modify the footnote format to include what is a citation field. Now how to do that.

I'm as new to some of this as you are. My first impression is you cannot associate a field like to a template format.
But somebody more experienced will hopefully give a definitive answer.

Looking at some of the standard templates, for example for Book/Pamphlet/Monograph or Directory/List, it seems that {Page_Etc} does what you want.

Lorna,

I don't think so {Page_Etc} appears to be associated with the Source. For example, Book Title A, pages xxx to zzz.

The Citation should be the specific page of that range thus the use of the {wherewithinsource} from the citation field.

But I cannot seem to identify the field code, {wherewithinsource} is a guess, nor how to get the field into the footnote format.

This would be a major drawback to the use use of source templates if the footnote overlooks the citation specific details. It may be code issue but I think an oversight, not an intended behavior.

I'm thinking that the Biblograpy should be source specific, but the footnote and short footnote should be citation specific, yet these are defined on the Source Template Window

Thanks for the help.

Here is an example showing the Citation detail in the footnote, using {Page_Etc}

Lorna, I may have misunderstood, but the Help and actual Templates seem to suggest that Page, Etc is a Template Field and NOT the Citation Where Within Source field (...SOUR.PAGE) that Joe wants to utilise.

I have just run an experiment using the Miscellaneous Unpublished Document/Artifact in the Family Historian Sample Project and it creates a Citation Page Field completely separate from the Where Within Source field.

That confirms what I thought and reinforces that the ONLY generic Source field used by Templated Sources is the Title field.

The GEDCOM for the Source Citation created is:
1 DEAT
2 DATE 2020
2 SOUR @S41@
3 _FIELD TX-PAGE_ETC
4 TEXT Page 5678
3 NOTE Test Note 5678
3 QUAY 0
Notice there is no 3 PAGE field which is the Where Within Source field.

Yes, I've just been looking at it again. The Page_Etc field is different from the where Within Source field, yet seems to have the same purpose. It is defintiely a citation field as shown in my screenshot, and is clearly intended for page numbers and the like, as shown here:


I think Joe's problem has arisen because he has been converting generic sources to templated sources, but he wouldn't have the problem if he started from scratch with a templated source and entered the page number in the Page_Etc field.

Yes, agreed, it is that old chestnut, Generic Source to Templated Source conversion, that I am disappointed has not been given much consideration and there seems to be little in the way of caveats or guidance to users faced with the problem.

It does not just affect existing FH V6 users upgrading to FH V7 but it also affects brand new FH V7 users like Joe migrating from other products such as FTM that import all Generic Sources.

It also affects any users in the future who import from another product. The process of 'sanitising' such imports to make them FH compatible was always difficult, involving UDF, custom Facts, typically 'lumped' Citation focussed Sources, etc, etc, but now requires Templated Source conversion.

IMO Templated Sources are only convenient for new FH V7 users who don't import from or export to other products.

LornaCraig wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2021 23:17

but he wouldn't have the problem if he started from scratch with a templated source and entered the page number in the Page_Etc field.

To be clear I have converted from generic to templated sources using the "Add Template" method described above.

But in the example I posted above, "Hayden" is not a converted source. It is a green field Templated source. So that does not explain the difference.

I do find it interesting you get a pages field in the citation property box. I'll look for that and see if I can use it for my purposes.

Thanks again for both your help.

Very beneficial exchange. I have a couple of days left on my Trial but I like what I see enough to make the purchase and carry-on. It is clear the program is above the rest but it will take many of us slugging away to understand it all.