Family Historian User Group

This thread is prompted by the Updating Source Template Fields already populated - issues (21427) discussion.

I have two text fields (both entered at the citation level) at the end of all my templated source footnotes.
One is titled Annotation which EE would consider an additional layer to the citation. This is where I add additional information about the source if needed. For example, this is where I would enter the source of the information provided within an index on Ancestry I may have cited.
The second text field is titled Context Note. This is where I may add one or more sentences to provide additional information to bring important context to the source. An example of the type of information in this field would be the deceased person died without a will when citing a probate record or in the case of a deed, that the purchaser signed the document while residing in another county.

Curtis, I am interested in why you chose to use custom templated fields rather than the standard generic Where Within and Note fields that seem perfectly suitable for those two pieces of information.

Mike, 'Where within' is definitely not the same as 'Source of this Source'.

'Where within' is (say): Page 3, line 7.

'Source of this Source' would be (e.g. for a census found on Ancestry): TNA Class: RG12; Piece: 2269; Folio: 40; Page: 34

Maybe I’ve misunderstood, but I put both of those examples in the same field, so I don’t see the distinction. Whether it is an external reference (such as a National Archives code) or something purely internal to the document (such as a page or line number) is clear from the context. Sometimes it’s a combination of the two. On the rare occasion it might be ambiguous I add an explanatory note.

It's not just a reference, Mark. It's intended for sources where you don't view the original but (say) an image copy online and you only have the information from (say) Ancestry about what they imaged:

Original data: Census Returns of England and Wales, 1901. Kew, Surrey, England: The National Archives of the UK (TNA): Public Record Office (PRO), 1901.

For census returns I tend to just go with TNA, but for other online images it's important to specify because you can't always tell what was actually imaged from what is available online.

I think I'd agree with Helen's approach - "Where within" is where within the source that you've consulted. "Source of the Source" describes the origin of the source that you're looking at and (to me) the "Where within" might have zero relevance to the "Source of the Source" - they're pointing at two different things.

For me, an example would be citing an army article on Wikipedia. "Where within" would be the URL and title of the page in Wikipedia. "Source of the Source" would list the regimental histories that provided the info for that page.

The interesting thing is that (working from his text) Curtis' second item is something that I would definitely regard as being important - so much so that I'd include the text in the note for the event / fact / attribute, not against the citation! For example, my Probate events will often have a note that "X died intestate".

But frankly, anything labelled "Note" is fair game for whatever use you want to make of it.

by tatewise
Curtis, I am interested in why you chose to use custom templated fields rather than the standard generic Where Within and Note fields that seem perfectly suitable for those two pieces of information.

I am one of the many RM coverts using FH, using a mixture of "lumped sources" and "split sources". I try to follow EE guidance as much as possible - not because I think it is the only way to structure sources/citations, but I want to be consistent and since the templates provided in RM are based on EE (similar to FH advanced collection) I committed to following EE for consistency and efficient use the RM provided templates.

The creation of the Annotation field evolved from the template for citing online databases. RM used a field [Credit Line] or what EE refers to as Source of the Source. This field is part of the citation. As a side note - the" Database, Online" template in the FH Advanced collection has the same field {Credit_Line}. As I was citing sources, I found the need to include information specific to the source, (but not necessarily a source of the source), so I changed the name of the field to Annotation, restructured the template so the word "citing" must now be included in the field text and added the field to all my source/citation templates.

As far as my field Context Note, the flexibility and functionality of the Note fields in RM are, . . um, shall we say, "not as robust" as they are in FH. Within RM there is no way to add text within the note fields to sentence templates or citation templates. If I had started my software journey with FH, I would like to think I would have learned the flexibility of Note fields and not added the custom field within the Source Template.

Here is an example of a footnote for a deed, using both of these fields. Sorry, I could not figure out how to indent the footnote without the bullet. (italics is for illustration purposes.)

• Columbia County, Wisconsin, Deeds vol. 42: 176, Daniel Aherin et ux to Susan A Lyon, 2 January 1865; digital images, FamilySearch (https:/familysearch.org/search/catalog : accessed 4 January 2021) > DGS 8550258 > image 200 of 857; imaged from FHL film 1630157, item 2; deed recorded on 11 October 1865. The deed notes the property is subject to $1,600 mortgage to Daniel Mills.

The text "deed recorded on 11 October 1865" is entered in the Annotation field and is part of the footnote. The text "The deed notes the property . . . to Daniel Mills." is entered in the Context note field.