* Source template help needed....

[fhtess65]

It's me again...I've just attempted to modify a cloned version of a template I brought in from RootsMagic, but when I try to save it, FH isn't happy with me. Would someone please enlighten me as to the error of my ways?

Thanks

SourceTemplateIssue.jpg (360.82 KiB) Viewed 1467 times

[Mark1834]

The problem is the Bibliography field. RM allows citation level fields to be saved in the bibliography, but FH does not.

This has come up before, and the general consensus is that the FH approach is closer to what a bibliography actually represents - a high level list of the sources referenced, rather than just a repeat of what is in the citation data.

The solution is to delete citation level fields from the bibliography definition prior to saving the template.

[tatewise]

In this case, that is all of the Bibliography codes so it will be blank when they are removed.
It seems that this Template has no Source Record fields whatsoever!

[AdrianBruce]

The problem is the Bibliography field. ...

Mike just beat me to it, so I'll just summarise what I was typing...

It's an odd Template right now, since everything belongs at the Citation level and nothing at the Source Record level.

[Mark1834]

Granted it looks unusual from the perspective of long-standing FH users, with its general bias towards splitting, but IMO it's a perfectly valid lumped source referring to all FMP newspaper images. All the relevant details are at Citation level. You could promote some to source (and so have multiple sources for different newspapers for example), but it's an arbitrary choice of preferred style.

[tatewise]

Agreed, but there will be no Bibliography entry for any of those Citations unless some plain text such as Newspaper Online Images: FMP is entered into the Bibliography Format box.

[fhtess65]

Ah, thank you...it would help if CP programmed the message to say in which field the codes don't belong!

Thanks again for the explanation

The problem is the Bibliography field. RM allows citation level fields to be saved in the bibliography, but FH does not.

This has come up before, and the general consensus is that the FH approach is closer to what a bibliography actually represents - a high level list of the sources referenced, rather than just a repeat of what is in the citation data.

The solution is to delete citation level fields from the bibliography definition prior to saving the template.

[fhtess65]

Mark and Adrian - Mark has it right - I have a lot of newspaper articles from FMP, so in RM created a citation template specifically for them.

I haven't decided for certain whether or not I want to keep it here in FH, but still want to understand what I did wrong when playing around with this template. The only way I'm going to get good with FH templates is to work with them a lot, and make mistakes!!

Granted it looks unusual from the perspective of long-standing FH users, with its general bias towards splitting, but IMO it's a perfectly valid lumped source referring to all FMP newspaper images. All the relevant details are at Citation level. You could promote some to source (and so have multiple sources for different newspapers for example), but it's an arbitrary choice of preferred style.

[AdrianBruce]

... I have a lot of newspaper articles from FMP, so in RM created a citation template specifically for them. ...

I don't know whether the logic will allow it or not, but I would say that your Record Title Format in the Template Definition is also odd, in that it is empty. What this means is that the Source Record will be empty (apart from a Record Id and the name of the Template), and if you were to look at a list of source records, you couldn't see which one is the one for the FMP newspaper articles. I'm not totally sure how important that is, but if you had another one like it (such as Ancestry newspaper articles!) you might find it very difficult to prepare a new citation to either source record because how would you find it in any list?

If you want to have a lumped source referring to all FMP newspaper images (as Mark says), then I believe that "FindMyPast" and the collection name should appear in the Source Record, not the citation detail. I believe that this should be done by

• Going to the Collection line in the Source Template Definition and removing the tick from the Citation column;
• Altering the Bibliography Format to contain something like "FindMyPast Collection: {Collection} digital images";
• Altering the Record Title Format to contain something similar, such as "FindMyPast Collection: {Collection}".

Of course, if you wanted a source record for Ancestry newspapers (say), you'd need a new template, which seems a bit of a waste. I'd be tempted to create a new field in the Source Template Definition for the Website Title - at the Source Record level, not the Citation level of course. Then replace "FindMyPast" in the above by "{Website Title}" - that way your single template does for all newspapers and there is a (lumped) Source Record for each site's newspapers.

Whether or not you go down that route is entirely up to you, of course.

[AdrianBruce]

... All the relevant details are at Citation level. You could promote some to source (and so have multiple sources for different newspapers for example), but it's an arbitrary choice of preferred style.

As I said to Teresa just above, having all the relevant details at citation level would appear to make life very difficult when choosing that Source Record out of a list - because, Id aside, there's nothing to show up in the Record Title, etc.

I'm not sufficiently adept with templated sources to demonstrate that to my own satisfaction without taking ages and potentially messing things up, but it does appear to be a risk....

[fhtess65]

Thanks, Adrian - I appreciate the tips. I hadn't put a Record Title in yet as I was still just messing about with it and brought up short by the error message. I appreciate your explanation of the implications.

Your solution certainly looks good. That's why I love this forum - lots of practical tips and no judgement meted out on those of us who are still learning (which isn't always the case on other online forums)...

T

[*] Going to the Collection line in the Source Template Definition and removing the tick from the Citation column;
[*] Altering the Bibliography Format to contain something like "FindMyPast Collection: {Collection} digital images";
[*] Altering the Record Title Format to contain something similar, such as "FindMyPast Collection: {Collection}".
[/list]
Of course, if you wanted a source record for Ancestry newspapers (say), you'd need a new template, which seems a bit of a waste. I'd be tempted to create a new field in the Source Template Definition for the Website Title - at the Source Record level, not the Citation level of course. Then replace "FindMyPast" in the above by "{Website Title}" - that way your single template does for all newspapers and there is a (lumped) Source Record for each site's newspapers.

Whether or not you go down that route is entirely up to you, of course.

[AdrianBruce]

Thanks, Adrian - I appreciate the tips. I hadn't put a Record Title in yet as I was still just messing about with it and brought up short by the error message. ...

Ah - an excellent explanation!