* citing prison hulk records...

[fhtess65]

I'm not sure what template to use for the prison hulk record of one of my distant cousins, transported in 1823, the record having been accessed via Ancestry, while still housed physically at TNA. Directory/list from the Essentials collection seems the closest. Of course, I have enough prison registers in my database, thanks to several relatives, so maybe I should just create my own template. OTOH, is it really necessary to reinvent the wheel?

Wondering what template others use to cite prison records etc.

[ADC65]

I don't know if this will help if you are determined to use a templated source, but I would use a Generic Source. I'm normally a "splitter" for sources, but in this case I would use a "lumper" source I have created called Online Sources. In the Where Within Source I add the full TNA reference and suffix "via Ancestry Online". This gives me all the information I need (or anyone else needs) to access the information at a later date.

If you're going to have a number of these, you could do a similar thing but create an "Online Prison Records" source and do the same in the Where Within Source field.

Alternatively, just create a new Generic Source for this particular record and title it something like "Prison Hulk Register for John Smith". Use the Publication Info field for TNA reference and Where Within for a Ancestry URL.

[ColeValleyGirl]

I'd be tempted to use Directory/List, but I only have one convict in my tree (the rest of my ancestors seem to have gotten away with it )

What value would a custom template add - i.e. what identifying information for the source do you need to record that you can't capture with Directory/List? And would that same information be present in other similar sources?

[fhtess65]

Thanks, Adrian - lots to consider here. While I love creating new templates (now I seem to understand it better), I'm leery of creating too many, which is what I did in RM. OTOH, I have lots of instances where I have to cite online prison databases (naughty ancestors ). I appreciate your input!

Teresa

I don't know if this will help if you are determined to use a templated source, but I would use a Generic Source. I'm normally a "splitter" for sources, but in this case I would use a "lumper" source I have created called Online Sources. In the Where Within Source I add the full TNA reference and suffix "via Ancestry Online". This gives me all the information I need (or anyone else needs) to access the information at a later date.

If you're going to have a number of these, you could do a similar thing but create an "Online Prison Records" source and do the same in the Where Within Source field.

Alternatively, just create a new Generic Source for this particular record and title it something like "Prison Hulk Register for John Smith". Use the Publication Info field for TNA reference and Where Within for a Ancestry URL.

[fhtess65]

Thanks, Helen - there are varied prison sources, not just one. Lots for transportation to Australia, but others for Ireland and England. Half the time I have to decide against which fact I'm citing them and might need to create custom facts. For the prison hulk, I'm citing against a residence fact (sad indeed - he was on it for several months before being transferred to the convict ship).

I'll try out Directory/List and see how it works. If it only needs a tiny tweak, I'll clone the template and make the change myself. If that doesn't seem quite right, I'll do as Adrian suggests above.

As always, I appreciate your guidance!

Teresa

I'd be tempted to use Directory/List, but I only have one convict in my tree (the rest of my ancestors seem to have gotten away with it )

What value would a custom template add - i.e. what identifying information for the source do you need to record that you can't capture with Directory/List? And would that same information be present in other similar sources?

[AdrianBruce]

Hm. I need to say that I'm a generic source user but that's not because I dislike templates - rather it's because I simply can't cope with the mish-mash that I'd have, if I put some new templated sources into my current potpourri of generic sources.

But there's also a feeling that, even if I were starting a new project, I'm not happy with the Essentials collection, while I might drown in the ESM inspired Advanced collection.

I have Ian MacDonald's Referencing for Genealogists: Sources and Citations, which is derived from the Strathclyde courses, as is (I believe) FH's Essentials collection. And yet the book and the Essentials collection are seriously far apart - at first view - with many more patterns in the book. There is, for instance, a whole chapter (in the book) on Procedural Records, which include court proceedings and prison registers.

Now it's certainly the case that the underlying formats of the patterns may be pretty much the same - admission registers and prison registers do look very similar apart from a mildly different order - so there may not be that many more in the book compared to the Essentials collection. But the mapping is not obvious, which I find frustrating given that I'm liable to be starting with the more comprehensive book.

As for Teresa's issue - what puzzles me is that the Essentials collection has no basic "digitised document" template that could be used for general types of document. There is, however, a "Documents: Digitized" in the Archives & Artifacts / Archived Material subcat of the Advanced collection, which might serve as the basis for all sorts of stuff.

Yes, the Advanced "Documents: Digitized" isn't hugely different from the Essentials "Directory / List" - it adds a "Credit Line", which I would use as the Source-of-the-Source - and the order's totally different. But it does have a more obvious name.

If anyone wants to say, "Yes but these guys put the hard yards in and you didn't" - well, point taken, but I'm just trying to help anyone who is as analytic as me and as confused. Adding the odd template from the Advanced collection might not be a bad idea.

[fhtess65]

Adrian,

Thanks for your thoughts. Like you, I use Macdonald's book as my guide (with the odd extra detail from ESM's EE thrown in from time to time). Part of the reason I've moved to FH from RM is because the latter's templates are geared for American records, while FH's for British ones and come far closer to giving me what I want. I also admit that given the mish-mash I already have brought over from RM, in and ideal world, I would create a fresh database in FH and start over. However, in this current world, where I still work F/T and still enjoy spending time with my spouse , there's no way I can begin again with the 2000+ people in my database and enter everything by hand. So I have to make do with what I have (unless, of course, we win the lottery and I can free up some weekdays to devote to genealogy)...currently, I do prefer the templates rather than generic sources, though what you say also makes sense.

I too was surprised by the lack of a basic digital document template in the Essentials collection as it would seem to make sense and be useful for situations precisely like mine. RM certainly has one, so I suppose I could just continue using it as it came in with my RM file import. I'll take a look at it again - I've had odd things happen from time to time with my RM templates wherein the final result when imported to other software or uploaded via TreeShare is truncated, giving me only ½ a citation. Likely something I did, but still annoying. For that reason I'm rather reluctant to use any RM-based template here in FH.

For practise I'll create citations in a secondary database using the template Helen mentioned, followed by one with the Advanced one you refer to below and see which gives me a better result.

Thanks again

Teresa

Hm. I need to say that I'm a generic source user but that's not because I dislike templates - rather it's because I simply can't cope with the mish-mash that I'd have, if I put some new templated sources into my current potpourri of generic sources.

But there's also a feeling that, even if I were starting a new project, I'm not happy with the Essentials collection, while I might drown in the ESM inspired Advanced collection.

I have Ian MacDonald's Referencing for Genealogists: Sources and Citations, which is derived from the Strathclyde courses, as is (I believe) FH's Essentials collection. And yet the book and the Essentials collection are seriously far apart - at first view - with many more patterns in the book. There is, for instance, a whole chapter (in the book) on Procedural Records, which include court proceedings and prison registers.

Now it's certainly the case that the underlying formats of the patterns may be pretty much the same - admission registers and prison registers do look very similar apart from a mildly different order - so there may not be that many more in the book compared to the Essentials collection. But the mapping is not obvious, which I find frustrating given that I'm liable to be starting with the more comprehensive book.

As for Teresa's issue - what puzzles me is that the Essentials collection has no basic "digitised document" template that could be used for general types of document. There is, however, a "Documents: Digitized" in the Archives & Artifacts / Archived Material subcat of the Advanced collection, which might serve as the basis for all sorts of stuff.

Yes, the Advanced "Documents: Digitized" isn't hugely different from the Essentials "Directory / List" - it adds a "Credit Line", which I would use as the Source-of-the-Source - and the order's totally different. But it does have a more obvious name.

If anyone wants to say, "Yes but these guys put the hard yards in and you didn't" - well, point taken, but I'm just trying to help anyone who is as analytic as me and as confused. Adding the odd template from the Advanced collection might not be a bad idea.

[fhtess65]

Ok, so I had a go with both, and it mostly worked, only the information I entered in the Collection field on the Directory/List template (which I preferred) didn't show up in the Footnote - should it have? If it's not supposed to, I'll just clone that template and amend it. Just wanted to check, though.

I've also just seen something else I want to change as far as placement of details goes, but won't bother reposting the image below as it's irrelevant to this question.

DirectoryListTemplateIssue.jpg (433.28 KiB) Viewed 1117 times

[fhtess65]

I will have to edit, as the note field doesn't get included in the footnote, and I make extensive use of Notes in my citations.

[AdrianBruce]

... the information I entered in the Collection field on the Directory/List template (which I preferred) didn't show up in the Footnote - should it have? If it's not supposed to, I'll just clone that template and amend it. ...

It does look like, in the Template Definition, it's not mapped over to the footnote or any other item. It may well be that it was omitted in the Essentials template to citation mapping because they were thinking just of published paper directories and the name was felt to be sufficient. For instance, if you have Whyte's 1860 Cheshire as the name / title do you need anything more? Personally, I think you do, as IIRC, Ancestry have at least 2 directory collections.

But certainly, extending the scope of this template, as is suggested here, surely needs the collection to be printed in the footnote, etc.

The Advanced "Documents: Digitized" puts the collection at the start of every format - footnotes and bibliographies.

[fhtess65]

Alas, the Advanced template is based on EE, not the Strathclyde method, and I far prefer the latter, having generated citations with both templates. I always have to remind myself that no software is perfect, we just have to find one that serves us the best it can. Just glad FH still is the best I've found.

<snip>
But certainly, extending the scope of this template, as is suggested here, surely needs the collection to be printed in the footnote, etc.

The Advanced "Documents: Digitized" puts the collection at the start of every format - footnotes and bibliographies.