Family Historian User Group

I have been looking at switching from generic sources to templated sources in future. However, I have been using FH for many, many years now and my principal project has grown to over 6,600 families, 20,000 individuals, 10,000 sources, and 71,000 citations, and as I explore more, reaching further back and explore more of the collateral lines, these figures will only grow larger day by day. Should I migrate existing generic sources, e.g., BMD and Census from generic sources to templated sources, or should I just leave the existing generic sources alone and continue with templated sources? I would appreciate any ideas, advice, suggestions and comments from those who have faced similar decisions.

Have you studied the FHUG Knowledge Base article on Sources and Citations in Version 7 (for Upgraders) which gives some pros and cons, especially in the Should I Use Source Templates? section.

What do you perceive as the advantages of switching to Templates Sources?

Personally, I don't think it is worth it. Mixing generic and templated sources for the same source type (e.g. census) is perfectly possible, but it is messy, as you get incompatible formats that display inconsistently and have to be queried separately.

It's possible to convert generic to templated, but only if they are structed in a highly consistent way, and it needs a dedicated plugin. Classic Catch-22 - if your existing generic sources are highly structured, you may not need templates in the first place.

It comes down to a personal choice of how much inconsistency and inconvenience are you prepared to put up with?

It is totally fine to leave your existing sources as generic and start using templated if you wish. There is a facility in AS that can help you to convert generic census sources into templated sources if you wanted to use that, but even with that time-saver it would be a time-consuming task with such a huge number of sources and I'm not sure the benefits are worth all that work.

Personally, if I have a census source for a household then I know what the source of that information was (it will be an image of the census page), I have a reference so that I can find it again if needed and I've linked it to a copy of the image and a transcript. I don't really feel I'd get any huge benefits from having the various fields filled in that a templated source would have.

Mike, yes I am reading the KB article you mention, but I am also interested in what others have done and why, and what are the perceived benefits before making my own decisions.

I think you need to think about how you use FH.

In respect of this question, I would highlight two approaches (you may then fall between the two)

1. Some of us just use FH as a structured repository of data that we then refer to when "writing family history" - we have little interest in trying to get FH to write it for us.
2. Others want to put the data in and then set away a report that will produce a "family history for them"

The former approach is very tolerant of evolving methods of recording (you remember your quirks*). Exact formatting of references is not important as long as there is sufficient information there to get back to the right place in the right source and to create a properly formatted citation in your word-processed document. What is "properly formatted" may vary according to your audience:

• If writing an academic paper, references, footnote and bibliography format may be prescribed.
• If writing for a "critical family member", it is probably enough to say "Beaumont Parish Records at Carlisle Record Office" possibly in a footnote.
• For others they may find sources and citations "pedantic" - so you don't provide them.

*That said, you do not want your source recording to be so variable and quirky that no one can "inherit" your work and carry it on.

With the latter approach you may find that switching between your current practice and templated sources gives an inconsistent appearance in FH output that is only really solved by "reworking" all your sources into your chosen template style. However if your current practice is a bit variable (because you started with the first of the above approaches, but now wish to change to the second approach) you may find that templated sources give you a structure to your reworking.

mezentia wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2022 11:27

... I am also interested in what others have done and why, and what are the perceived benefits before making my own decisions.

When I investigated the possibility of retaining my existing generic sources (apart, perhaps from BMD Index type sources) and using templated sources for all new ones, I came to the conclusion that it just wasn't sensible - one of the worst problems is how to do queries on sources records when Author on generic sources is in one item, but on templated sources is in another. (In fact, if you've exploited templates properly, there's every chance that the authorial details are spread across a number of items on different types of source record).

Conversely, yes, there are issues around Title and Short Title when trying to export a GEDCOM but one riposte to that is, "So when do you think you're going to export a GEDCOM? When was the last time that you did one?"

See my thread on viewtopic.php?f=32&t=19466

Also - don't underestimate the work that you may need to do in adjusting the templates to record what you're already recording in generic sources but in a more structured manner - which is the whole point, of course. Experiments made me realise that I'd need to alter just about every template in the Essentials collection to satisfy my needs. And adjusting templates after they've been used is non-trivial, I believe - I understand that templates can easily be changed but the risk is that data in items no longer in the template can be tricky to access. I think.

mezentia wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2022 11:27

Mike, yes I am reading the KB article you mention, but I am also interested in what others have done and why, and what are the perceived benefits before making my own decisions.

When I upgraded to FH7 I looked at using Templated sources and decided to stick with generic. I have highly structured method 1 split sources. The attached screenshot may give an indication of what I do. I use AS for those source types it works with. For others I have created a plugin which generates a source to my structure. I use method 2 lumping for the GRO indexes for which I have adapted Jane Taubman and Mike Tate Add GRO Source plugin as I write to both where within source and text from source. I prefer the simplicity of my approach compared to the complex Templated sources and it maintains transferability via gedcom. Using my Source structure I can easily filter in the Records tab. Hope that helps you.
Edited to correct method 1 and method 2 references

AdrianBruce wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2022 14:28

I came to the conclusion that it just wasn't sensible - one of the worst problems is how to do queries on sources records when Author on generic sources is in one item, but on templated sources is in another. (In fact, if you've exploited templates properly, there's every chance that the authorial details are spread across a number of items on different types of source record).

FYI:
As long as the type & name chosen for template author details is consistent ( i.e. always {Author} text ) then the same code can be used in Queries for those similar fields, e.g. SOUR.~TX-AUTHOR as opposed to SOUR.AUTH for the generic Author field.
So probably only those two codes are needed in Queries, unless different Templates split authorial details across various numbers of fields such as {Author}, {Editor}, {Publisher}, etc.

David2416 wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2022 14:39

I have highly structured method 2 split sources. ...... I use method 1 lumping for the GRO indexes

To avoid any confusion: Split sources are Method 1 and lumped sources are Method 2, so you have referred to these the wrong way round. See Sources and Citations in Version 7 (for New Users) under the section headed 'How Many Sources do I Need?'

LornaCraig wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2022 16:41

David2416 wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2022 14:39

I have highly structured method 2 split sources. ...... I use method 1 lumping for the GRO indexes

To avoid any confusion: Split sources are Method 1 and lumped sources are Method 2, so you have referred to these the wrong way round. See Sources and Citations in Version 7 (for New Users) under the section headed 'How Many Sources do I Need?'

Have edited my original post to correct.

It is totally fine to leave your existing sources as generic and start using templated if you wish. There is a facility in AS that can help you to convert generic census sources into templated sources if you wanted to use that,…

Where in Ancestral Sources is the facility found?

In the AS Help see Ancestral Sources Reference > Census Sources > Census Source Conversion

Great. Thanks, I'll give it a try.

There is a video that explains the facility in my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@ancestralsources. it's called 'Ancestral Sources Census Source Conversion'

I only managed to migrate my main file from Generations to FH last year. Generations had its own Source Templates but nothing like the templates of FH. GRO entries have now been placed in Notes in generic sources and I'm perfectly happy to leave them as is. As I load census images, Ancestral Sources overwrites previous entries which is perfect.

However, there are hundreds of other sources where the imported generic FH source is nowhere near as informative as a formatted source. Deleting and rewriting every source is simply unrealistic and I would prefer to convert to a formatted source and update the source as and when I need to. I wish there was an option to convert to generic with a tick box to choose the type of template. Adding and amending could be done at a later date, as it can now.

It is simply not possible to offer such an option, because everyone has formatted their Generic Sources differently and may not have conformed to any standard layout. That applies to both the Source records and all the Citations.
How would such a feature even know which Source Template to use for each Generic Source Record?
How would it know which bits of text in the Generic Source Citation fields need to migrate to which Source Template Fields?

There have been some prototype plugins written to help migrate Generic Source Citations to Templated Source Citations, but as everyone has differently formatted data, you would have to modify any plugin to suit your data.

I agree - I said early in this thread that I didn’t think the conversion was worth it, but I have subsequently experimented with “hybrid” sources that mix elements of both generic and templates. I’m extremely happy with the results, but it needed a mix of custom templates and bespoke plugins and queries to process my sources and locate inconsistencies that I had to correct manually before finally converting.

The whole process took less than two weeks from first tentative trials to final conversion (not full-time, just normal FH time), but it would have been a near-impossible task without plugin authoring skills.

I'm havering!

Yet again I'm having doubts about the best way to proceed, with my data entry.

I have been a user of FH since v2, but I haven't ever delved as deeply as others in their videos e.g. Jackson Eagleson ("GenealogyReviews" on YouTube), into the programme and I have now acquired FH v7. Bit of a fearty! As for writing code or fiddling with LUA that is not what genealogy is about for me! I have also used Nick Walker's Ancestral Sources for many of my entries, so not used the previous FH versions data entry methods to their full potential.

Having only used FH in fits and starts, the old adage "Use it or loose it!" applies and my data entry consistency isn't the best. To add to this, if I use the new FH v7 feature of templates, this apparently will hold the data in a different layout from previous FH versions. This could provide more structure to my data, whilst maybe causing problems with 'Querying' the data! Or, have I got the wrong end of the stick with this?

With only 1,970 individuals, 561 families and 1,542 media records in my database, I suppose it would be possible to re-enter them in the template format. (I cannot work out how to screen grab the "File Statistics" window from FH v7, to paste it in this post?)

I now have a large amount of media in a separate folder structure from the FH Project folder structure, awaiting entry into my current "catch all" database that appears to have imported into FH v7 satisfactorily, This data is largely newspaper clips and other images, along with a few new individuals/families. Keeping my data in a semblence of order, in a single folder structure is more important than the layout/format and wording of any reports.

So, any thoughts would be welcome, including "Get a grip and just use the new templates in FH v7."

I have even considered using MS OneNote to use for report writing, with it's ease of combing different media formats into a single document and then being able to export it as a *.pdf file.

Thank you for your time.

Good health, Bill

Bill see FHUG KB Sources and Citations in Version 7 (for Upgraders) especially Should I Use Source Templates?

You are correct that if you have custom Queries that depend on your current Generic Source format then they probably will not work with Templated Sources. If you see no major advantage in using Source Templates then don't use them, just like you don't use some of the other FH 'advanced' features.

Bill, my advice is don't bother with the Source Templates. Others will have different views, but my opinion is it is too steep a learning curve, too much effort to convert previous entries and too much added complication with very little return on the effort. My advice to someone starting off would also be the same, but with different reasons.

I talk with some experience. I studied the templates for some time and started using some - ones I created, as I found the Essentials supplied with FH7 too lacking and the Advanced as incomprehensible. After creating about 600 sources using templates I came to regret it heavily and spent a lot of time backtracking and returning to Generic Sources. I won't bother going into the detailed reasons why.

There is also the problem that the underlying Gedcom file is highly unlikely to port into another product successfully if you use Templates as the receiving software is not going to understand them (Mike's Export Gedcom plugin does help here, but it cannot get around every facet). Again, I speak from experience as I load an exported Gedcom to my website on a regular basis.

I guess there is something to be said for consistency, in fact I'm a fan of it, but if you are recording the source of your information (the golden rule) then don't overly worry about templates and consistency and just enjoy your family history.

Thank you Mike, Adrian and davidf,

I had read the "FHUG Knowledge Base article on Sources and Citations in Version 7 (for Upgraders)" and concluded after reading davidf's post that I definitely fall within his 1st category of:

Some of us just use FH as a structured repository of data that we then refer to when "writing family history" - we have little interest in trying to get FH to write it for us.

and the following two categories of:

If writing for a "critical family member", it is probably enough to say "Beaumont Parish Records at Carlisle Record Office" possibly in a footnote.
For others they may find sources and citations "pedantic" - so you don't provide them.

Bearing in mind my "quirks" tend toward overkill, rather than minimal referencing, I think that I shall be staying with my current methodology, rather than the formalised template structure now offered.

Good health, Bill

After following this interesting debate, I will continue to use my generic sources rather than embark on a lengthy process to convert everything to templated sources. As mentioned in one of the replies, I too have developed a structured method of using generic sources, both Method 1 and Method 2, and where earlier source references do not conform to my current methods, the sources get updated as and when I return to make additions to my research. Just to ensure that anyone who picks up my research in the future, the source recording methodology is recorded in detail in the project header record.

I honestly think that the Templates originated some confusion for the users who had already structures in place and moving from a previous structure is quite difficult. I am sure the developers wanted to add something useful but I believe that this update regarding the Templates in many cases can cause some nuisance.

I also would like to add that many users are not basing their work from a UK or US perspective and therefore many of the templates render useless.

I wonder if it would be possible to in future design generic templates, rather than templates that are mainly destined to UK/US users.

Another issue I have found is that once you edit or create and save a custom template, you can not go back and re-edit the same, as it will present the same "edits" on the previous occasion. Is it a bug? As I can not effectively modify on the go the templates!

My view is the opposite - CP adding Source templates to FH7 was the final piece I needed to move from RM8. Also, I'm in Canada, with English and Polish heritage - I've adapted the built-in templates to record my Polish sources.

Also, I frequently edit my custom templates after cloning the default ones - have no problem whatsoever. I edit, check to see how it works, and, if necessary, go back and edit again - sometimes several times.

We're under no obligation to use the templates - you can add a generic source if you want. Many people use only the generic option. CP providing us with options for so many of its features is one of its strengths.

danielvb wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2023 17:59

<SNIP>I am sure the developers wanted to add something useful but I believe that this update regarding the Templates in many cases can cause some nuisance.

I also would like to add that many users are not basing their work from a UK or US perspective and therefore many of the templates render useless.

I wonder if it would be possible to in future design generic templates, rather than templates that are mainly destined to UK/US users.

Another issue I have found is that once you edit or create and save a custom template, you can not go back and re-edit the same, as it will present the same "edits" on the previous occasion. Is it a bug? As I can not effectively modify on the go the templates!