Family Historian User Group

I'm trying to build this template but FH is having a problem with the bibliography.

Bibliography
{Country}. {cenState}. {cenCounty}. {CensusID}<, {Schedule}>. <{ItemType}|digital images>. <{WebSite}>. {WebSite:URL} : {AccessDate:Year}.

Footnote
{CensusID}, {cenCounty}, {cenState} <{Schedule}|population schedule>, {CivilDivision}<, enumeration district (ED) {ED}><, {PageID}><, {HouseholdID}>, {Person}; <{ItemType}|digital images>, <i><{WebSite} ></i> <({URL} : <{AccessType}|accessed> {AccessDate})>; NARA Publication {NARAPublication}< roll {Roll}> (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration)< FHL microfilm {FHLfilm}>.

Short Footnote
{CensusID}, {cenCounty}, {cenState}, <{Schedule}|pop. sch.>, {CivilDivision}<, ED {ED}><, {PageID}>, {HouseholdID}, {Person}.

What am I doing wrong?

Thanks
Bev

FH does not allow Citation-specific fields in the Bibliography Format.
I believe that is a restriction in FH that does not exist in RM but is considered rational in the light of EE that FH follows.

It is a point that 'lumpers' have raised elsewhere as a problem and is an example of the FH bias to 'splitter' methods.

You can't put Citation Level items (those with the green tick) into the Bibliography.

Essentially the Bibliography is supposed to only go down as far as the Source Records and no further, i.e. it sits on top of the Source Records, which sit on top of the Citations....

(As Mike just said as I was typing).

Essentially, if you want your Bibliography to include US Censuses listed at the County level (exactly that level), as per Evidence Explained (I think!), then the State and County need to be at the Source level, not the Citation level. That means you will have a Source-Record for each County, whereas it looks like in the example that you screen shot, there would be just one Source-Record for the whole of the 1880 (say) census.

Only you can decide which you prefer...

Thank you.

I was afraid of that. I sort of agree that the usage of state and county in the bibliography seems silly because it is the same census form regardless of the state or county and, these days, we all access them online and not at some special archive or library where that distinction would matter.

Is CP considering changing this restriction for those of us that prefer lumping?

Are there other sources this impacts?

Bev

You would have to ask CP about their plans.

It affects all Source Templates the same way. Any that use Citation-specific fields will not be allowed in the Bibliography.
It is not a problem for the FH predefined Source Templates as they all apply to the 'splitter' method (except one) and obviously adhere to the FH rules.

It is imported or user-defined Source Templates for the 'lumper' method and thus have many Citation-specific fields that run into the limitaion.

I think the problem is more fundamental than one of splitters versus lumpers. A bibliography is a list of works cited (traditionally books, but could be more general than that today). It is not a rehash of the citation details. RM might allow citation details, but that’s not a bibliography. FH interprets the term according to its English language meaning (on both sides of the Atlantic ).

It would be nice if that was the error message generated, rather than one that just says (and I'm paraphrasing) "you're doing something wrong, but we won't tell you what".

So many software packages do this, leaving the user to figure it out for themselves, or, in this case, ask for help on this forum. I too remember being confused by the same message.

Teresa

AdrianBruce wrote: ↑

24 Jul 2022 21:01

You can't put Citation Level items (those with the green tick) into the Bibliography.

Essentially the Bibliography is supposed to only go down as far as the Source Records and no further, i.e. it sits on top of the Source Records, which sit on top of the Citations....

(As Mike just said as I was typing).

fhtess65 wrote: ↑

25 Jul 2022 15:03

It would be nice if that was the error message generated, rather than one that just says (and I'm paraphrasing) "you're doing something wrong, but we won't tell you what".

So many software packages do this, leaving the user to figure it out for themselves, or, in this case, ask for help on this forum. I too remember being confused by the same message.

Teresa

It is more likely to be I can’t tell you what, rather than won’t! The programmer tries to anticipate where things could go wrong, but sadly, as much as they’d like, they can’t anticipate everything. Even Microsoft defaults to asking you to send us a fault report when something unexpected happens!

I don't think that's the case here, Mike L.

The error message says: Citation field code not valid in this context. FH clearly know the context (because otherwise how would it know?) and what's gone wrong, so could say: Citation field code not valid in Bibliography.

ColeValleyGirl wrote: ↑

25 Jul 2022 16:25

I don't think that's the case here, Mike L.

The error message says: Citation field code not valid in this context. FH clearly know the context (because otherwise how would it know?) and what's gone wrong, so could say: Citation field code not valid in Bibliography.

That’s assuming they knew how the field code ended up where it did! It could have passed through multiple processes, before it arrived at a process that did the checking - just saying

Thanks, Helen - yes, in this specific case, the error message could be customized and is far more helpful to those of us who aren't programmers or super-users.

Teresa

ColeValleyGirl wrote: ↑

25 Jul 2022 16:25

I don't think that's the case here, Mike L.

The error message says: Citation field code not valid in this context. FH clearly know the context (because otherwise how would it know?) and what's gone wrong, so could say: Citation field code not valid in Bibliography.

BevSmallwood wrote: ↑

24 Jul 2022 21:24

Is CP considering changing this restriction for those of us that prefer lumping?

Are there other sources this impacts?

Bev

When I was first considering a move from RM to FH (back when the only way was via Gedcom), I raised this issue with CP. I was struggling with the need to edit all my templates due to RMs use of the YYYY from the citation level access date of digital images in the bibliography. CP requested I run a couple of trials in RM to generate a report with multiple citations containing different values in the fields used in the bibliography. Although the footnotes were OK, the software did not know which values from which citation to use so it just ignored those fields altogether resulting in the bibliography missing information. Bottom line from the trial: Just because RM allows the use of citation level fields in the bibliography, it does not mean it works when generating reports.
As a lumper (for the most part), I have come to the conclusion that the level of lumping (or number of source records) for any given set of records is determined by the information contained in the bibliography. For better or worse, but mainly for consistency, I try to follow, Mill’s Evidence Explained, so those bibliography templates tends to dictate the level of lumping I can accomplish. And yes, sometimes I have to be more of a “splitter” than I would prefer.

For me this necessitated reviewing every source/citation template because they were all created in RM. The biggest impact, every template dealing with online digital images. Was not a huge job, did not need to change many templates, mostly just reviewing if the fields were a source level or citation level. Biggest change was mental adjustment to my definition of lumping for any given record set.

cwhermann wrote: ↑

29 Jul 2022 04:44

...
As a lumper (for the most part), I have come to the conclusion that the level of lumping (or number of source records) for any given set of records is determined by the information contained in the bibliography. ...

That's what I (as a splitter with no RM experience worth speaking of!) suspected.

Many years ago I was trying to get a handle on what the **** FTM (I think) meant by the terms Master Source and Source. None of the standard texts helped because, I now realise, Master Source is not something in the real world. Eventually, I asked - did the Master Source determine the Bibliography? YES! came the answer...

cwhermann wrote: ↑

29 Jul 2022 04:44

As a lumper (for the most part), I have come to the conclusion that the level of lumping (or number of source records) for any given set of records is determined by the information contained in the bibliography. For better or worse, but mainly for consistency, I try to follow, Mill’s Evidence Explained, so those bibliography templates tends to dictate the level of lumping I can accomplish. And yes, sometimes I have to be more of a “splitter” than I would prefer.

I don't feel the need to adhere so closely to Mill's examples. In a bibliography is it really that edifying to say:

Illinois. Cook County. 1930 Census. ... 2019
Illinois. Cook County. 1930 Census. ... 2020
Illinois. Cook County. 1930 Census. ... 2021
etc.

Or just
1930 Census. ...

Unless you are viewing the actual paper copies in a specific archive I think the bibliography can be a little more generic. Does it really matter when we looked at it or in which counties our people were found? That detail absolutely belongs in the footnote, but a bibliography can be a little more generic at least for ubiquitous sources IMO.

Only because FH balked did I even consider this. I will be re-examining my approach to sourcing. I'm trying to streamline where ever possible and simplify the process. I try to lump when I can and split when I must.

Bev

BevSmallwood wrote: ↑

29 Jul 2022 14:19

.... In a bibliography is it really that edifying to say:
Illinois. Cook County. 1930 Census. ... 2019
Illinois. Cook County. 1930 Census. ... 2020
Illinois. Cook County. 1930 Census. ... 2021
etc.

Or just
1930 Census. ...

Unless you are viewing the actual paper copies in a specific archive I think the bibliography can be a little more generic. ...

It took me a while before the "light bulb came on" that source citation methods or styles were a separate, (but definitely related), issue from database management. None of the citation style guides (Mill's EE, APA, MLA, Chicago, IEEE, Strathclyde, etc.) mention lumping/splitting or master sources or source records - these concepts were all a result of software developers adaptation to address database management and data entry. I found that if all decisions were going to be driven by the style requirements, then I would increase the number of templates required and dictate what the bibliography format was. If I focused on minimizing the number of templates, then I was going to increase the number of source records and potentially the amount of data entry duplication or copy paste. If I wanted to optimize the data entry, then I needed to "sacrifice" adherence to a specific style. For me it was finding a balance between the effort to create/manage templates, the effort manage source records and the effort to manage citation specific details.

One of the great features of the templates, is that the user does not have to follow any specific style, they can create templates to meet their individual needs. So yes you could set up your "US Census Template" so that the bibliography consists of just the Year - the result from a data entry standpoint is that all the other information will need to be entered into the citation level fields.

cwhermann wrote: ↑

29 Jul 2022 18:24

... So yes you could set up your "US Census Template" so that the bibliography consists of just the Year - the result from a data entry standpoint is that all the other information will need to be entered into the citation level fields.

Not quite - as I understand it. The idea of a bibliography entry matching the source-record (with the rest in citation level fields) is one simple and clear way of looking at it. However, the bibliography entry can be at a more general level (higher level) than the source records.

Thus you could have source records reading something like:

• England & Wales. Cheshire. 1881 Census ...
• England & Wales. Lancashire. 1881 Census ...
• England & Wales. Staffordshire. 1881 Census ...

But you could set it up to have just one bibliography record reading:

• England & Wales. 1881 Census ...

While each source record will generate its own bibliography, the duplicates and triplicates are resolved away leaving just the one.

So while the bibliography entry here consists of the basic type plus the year, some of the other information can go into the source record and needn't go into the citation level items.

If that wasn't what you were talking about, apologies. And feel free to wonder if that approach makes sense.

AdrianBruce wrote: ↑

29 Jul 2022 19:45

cwhermann wrote: ↑
29 Jul 2022 14:24
... So yes you could set up your "US Census Template" so that the bibliography consists of just the Year - the result from a data entry standpoint is that all the other information will need to be entered into the citation level fields.

Not quite - as I understand it. The idea of a bibliography entry matching the source-record (with the rest in citation level fields) is one simple and clear way of looking at it. However, the bibliography entry can be at a more general level (higher level) than the source records.

I agree - I was writing from my Ipad while waiting for an appointment and should not have stated "all the other ... into citation level fields." Although not typical, there is nothing to prevent the bibliography entry from containing only one or two of the fields entered as part of the source records if the user wanted a broad or higher level bibliography entry.