Family Historian User Group

In the past, I've prepared my own layered citations, trying to follow EE's standard, and pasted them into the source notes. Now I'm using FH7 and am aware that a lot of good work has been done with templates, but, at least to start, I'd like to know what's the correct way to enter those freeform citations?

thanks!

If you've got a lot of sources already (which are now what are called generic sources), you can carry on doing things exactly as you always have, using generic sources.

There's no easy way to convert generic sources to templated sources -- it's a lot of manual work, although it could be helped with a plugin tailored to the structure of your existing citations, but it would be plugin unique to you. If it's really important to you to use EE compliant citations, you might think the effort worthwhile however.

I personally don't recommend mixing generic and templated sources, at least not without experimenting to ensure you can get consistent footnotes etc. in reports. There are others who think there's no problem mixing them, but don't do it without being sure whatever reports you need come out consistently.

thanks Helen. As an example, here's a citation I drafted earlier today.

All Saints Church (Buckland, Buckingham, England) “Archdeaconry transcripts, 1605-1837,” p.3, no.8 marriage record for James Chandler and Susannah Gates, 21 Dec 1818; digitized image 598 of 974, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/film/008092088 : accessed 2020)

I don't mind if we call it a citation or a generic source, but I'd appreciate any suggestion on the 'right' place to paste it into FH7.

I've not tried generating any reports yet, so I guess that's a consideration. Another would be whether FH7 puts the citation into the 'right' place in gedcom so it can export to other software.

See FHUG Knowledge Base Sources and Citations in Version 7 (for New Users) especially Should I Use Source Templates? where it discusses importing & exporting GEDCOM.

I used to put the whole EE-style citation in the Source Title in V6; you used to put them in a Source Note. There's no reason why either approach won't work exactly the same in V7 and neither is more right than the other.

thanks for the suggestions and comments. Other programs eg. RootsMagic have a freeform template which presumably inserts the source citations into the right part of the reports and the gedcom file. I wasn't able to find one in FH7 among the Essentials or Advanced templates. Would this be a worthwhile addition?

You could define a custom template to do the job.

Isn't the FH Generic Source template already the direct equivalent of RootsMagic's Freeform template?

mjashby wrote: ↑

25 Feb 2021 09:50

Isn't the FH Generic Source template already the direct equivalent of RootsMagic's Freeform template?

I don't think so, if I'm understanding what's wanted correctly.

Mentioned it because they serve the same purpose, i.e. in RootsMagic Freeform is the generic selection where the user does not want/need/use a specific templates, or simply wants to avoid EE's academic approach to recording sources.
Comparative snapshots below which show the strong similarity.

Mervyn

Mervyn, all Generic sources share the same footnote etc. structure, which I think would have to be very simple to support a 'freeform' approach.

It makes a difference whether you're a splitter or a lumper, Simonides -- which are you?

I think some examples of exactly what is meant by 'freeform citation'.
i.e.
What data is stored in the Source record and Citation fields?
What form does the Citation Footnote take when derived from those data fields?

Am I a splitter or a lumper? I'm not experienced enough to have a fixed view on this but Ancestral Sources recommends Method 1. I think that's the same as a lumper and it's what I followed when entering records via AS. I then pasted any citation details into AS's notes field.

I'd probably not given it enough thought until FH7 came along!

Simonides wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2021 22:44

thanks Helen. As an example, here's a citation I drafted earlier today.

All Saints Church (Buckland, Buckingham, England) “Archdeaconry transcripts, 1605-1837,” p.3, no.8 marriage record for James Chandler and Susannah Gates, 21 Dec 1818; digitized image 598 of 974, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/film/008092088 : accessed 2020)

Mike, we were given this example earlier.

Simonides,

Method 1 is 'splitter': Citing Sources: Method 1 and Method 2

Method 1 = splitter. A lumper uses one source for lots of entries (e.g. has one source called 'England Census 1881') - lumps them together.

Helen, that example is presumably the desired Footnote but doesn't explain where the data is held in the Source Citation fields. It also does not explain exactly what is meant by 'freeform citation'.

If that entire Footnote text is always in one and the same field for EVERY Source Citation then a very simple Tools > Preferences > Sources > Generic Source Formats... custom format that identifies that one and only field will work.

Mike, see:

Simonides wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2021 17:11

In the past, I've prepared my own layered citations, trying to follow EE's standard, and pasted them into the source notes. Now I'm using FH7 and am aware that a lot of good work has been done with templates, but, at least to start, I'd like to know what's the correct way to enter those freeform citations?

So, if I'm understanding correctly, the data isn't in a Source Citation field, it's currently in a Note, and the question is: is there a better approach.

Well maybe it is in the Source record local Note field, or perhaps it is in the Citation local Note field, or maybe some other Note field. Without a clearer understanding, it is difficult to advise on a suitable approach. Is the problem with a vast amount of existing imported data, or is it where to save such data in future. What does 'freeform citation' mean. If it literally means I want to format the citation footnote anyway I want then any formal format templates won't help. A better approach would imply moving on from a 'freeform citation' to a 'defined format citation' methodology.

MIke, see:

Simonides wrote: ↑

25 Feb 2021 11:12

I then pasted any citation details into AS's notes field.

Which, if I remember how AS works, is a Source local Note.

The original question was "at least to start, I'd like to know what's the correct way to enter those freeform citations?"
If they really are 'freeform citations' then continue to enter them the same way in the Source record Note field.
In Tools > Preferences > Sources > Generic Source Formats... customize the Footnote, Short Footnote and Bibliography Format to {%SOUR.NOTE2%}. That is all that is necessary.

However, if you don't want 'freeform citations' then it will require an entirely different approach using multiple fields and format templates making use of the FH V7 latest features and forgetting about 'freeform citations' in Source record Notes.

Mike, please can you clarify why you suggest "In Tools > Preferences > Sources > Generic Source Formats... customize the Footnote, Short Footnote and Bibliography Format to {%SOUR.NOTE2%}. "That is all that is necessary."

That's all that is necessary for what?

Thanks to all for your help. Clearly I still need to learn more about V7 to get its benefits.

Mike is building on the suggestion I made very early in this thread, that you continue to enter your freeform citation in the Source Note. If you do that, he's explaining how you can get them to show up as Footnote/Short Footnote/Bibliography entries.

thank you, Helen. Earlier in this thread you stated that you "used to put the whole EE-style citation in the Source Title in V6" Do you now use templates? Do you know of a way to use a template for a layered citation? There are many examples at evidenceexplained.com eg. quicklesson 19 at https://www.evidenceexplained.com/index ... d-clothing

Simonides wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2021 12:01

Do you now use templates?

Not yet -- but I'm planning to redo all my existing sources using the Advanced (EE-style) collection. It will be a lot of manual work, but I think for me it will be worth it --especially if I can construct a plugin to do some of the heavy lifting (others will not think it worth the effort). If you look at the Source Template Definitions for Derivative sources (not original ones), you will see they have e.g. a 'credit line' for 'source of this source'.