* Templates, titles, and footnotes

[divester]

As I continue to learn the ins and outs of FH, I’m befuddled by one aspect: how to generate footnotes from templates conforming to the formats of EE. I’ve resorted to simply using the footnote format as the title of each source, but that naturally has its drawbacks—really long titles that are less helpful in contexts other than footnotes. I suspect there’s a better way that I just don’t know.

I’ve tried filling out the text boxes for the various fields below the title in a template and enabling the function to autogenerate titles. In most instances FH generates suitable titles, though sometimes overly long ones. And in some instances, notably with census sources, FH generates an appropriately formatted footnote. (As an aside, is there a way to turn off the “head of household” notation that appears in census citations? Often the person of interest is not the head of household, and in any event that phrase needlessly lengthens citations; EE does not include it.) In other instances, though, the generated footnote falls short of EE standards, commonly including much less information. Generally, when I include information about images from Ancestry or FamilySearch, that does not appear in the generated footnotes (including those for census sources). Or if I include that information in the Reference text box, it appears in the middle of the footnote, rather than at the end where it belongs.

Can someone clue me in or guide me to where I can learn how to best use templates to generate titles and footnotes? (I’ve already read much in the Knowledge Base and Forum and watched some pertinent videos. That research has been informative and helpful, but hasn’t nailed this specific issue.

[sbell95]

I found the same issue regarding the source templates included with version 7 created by Calico Pie. They seem on first inspection to be EE-compliant, but they actually require heavy editing to generate correct citations. And like you have discovered, many of the ready-made fields are there but do not print as a footnote/record title... other (more wise) users on this forum may be able to illuminate the reasons why!

I resorted to creating my own source templates (this may or may not be something you want to do -- if you do, there is lots of guidance in the help files and in the forums). You could also just edit the pre-defined Calico Pie templates, or even just the record title formats.

As an example of what I've done, one of my source template is a "Frankenstein" definition for any vital record. The footnote code is as follows.

Code: Select all

<{Place}|<{Locality}, >{Jurisdiction}>, {Record_Type}, <{Volume},> <{Entry}, >{Name}, <{Event_Date}<; registered {Quarter}, {District}, {Subdistrict}, <{County}>><<; {Image_Type},> <"{Database},"> <{Database_Type},> <i>{Website}</i> <({Page_URL} : accessed {Access_Date})><, {Path}>>>; {Repository}, {Repository:LOCATION}. <{Note}.>

This would generate a footnote like: Christchurch, New Zealand, Register of Births, September quarter 1908, no. 1202, Norman Lloyd, 17 July 1908; Births, Deaths and Marriages New Zealand, Wellington.

The record title format is different -- this is so that it looks "nice" in the records window, which as you have discovered can be problematic with the default templates.

Code: Select all

{Jurisdiction}, <{Locality}, >{Record_Type}, <{Event_Date:YEAR}>, {Name}

This would generate a source title like: New Zealand, Christchurch, Register of Births, 1908, Norman Lloyd

I hope that's helpful -- I know it took me a couple of years (!) of using FH, reading the forums and watching videos to really understand and settle on something that works for me and is EE-compliant.

[divester]

Thank you for the kindness of your reply and helpful insights.

Having sat a bit with the information you offered, I see I’ve overlooked or not entirely understood and appreciated some basic stuff. It appears the trick is choosing the best specific template from the many presented in the Essentials and Advanced collections (or others like the Simple collection) based on how the information collected in any particular template translates into footnotes and titles. Even then, the choices of templates may not always offer the perfect fit, and some editing of footnotes may be necessary. As long as the extent of editing is tolerable, close enough may be good enough. Or alternatives, it appears, are those you suggested: editing this or that template or, like you have done, creating a template to achieve the desired results. Neophyte as I am, I hesitate to tip my toe into the mysterious pit of code to do that sort of thing. Perhaps editing a template is a small enough first step to get me started.

Once I work out the right templates, I’ll take on the task of conforming my current source records and citations. Having not been at this long, I have several hundred source records (not nearly the thousands or tens of thousands of records some FH users have amassed), so it will take a little time and effort to work through them, but entirely doable. And then going forward, I’ll take care to fit particular templates to the specific matter at hand, and hopefully have an easier time of it.

[fhtess65]

Once I work out the right templates, I’ll take on the task of conforming my current source records and citations. Having not been at this long, I have several hundred source records (not nearly the thousands or tens of thousands of records some FH users have amassed), so it will take a little time and effort to work through them, but entirely doable. And then going forward, I’ll take care to fit particular templates to the specific matter at hand, and hopefully have an easier time of it.

You can also Clone and the edit the templates FH includes in V7 - this is what I do. That way they produce the source information in a format I like. It's trial and error at first, but an option to pursue.

Teresa

[divester]

Thank you. I appreciate the tip--and look forward to taking advantage of it.

[sbell95]

Yes, I definitely suggest you play around with the different source templates, how the footnotes look, etc, using either the example project included with FH or your own 'working' copy of a project.

There have been many a topic posted on this forum about creating EE-compliant sources which you may wish to peruse. Version 7 definitely makes it easier. One thing to consider is your audience -- many on this forum don't see the need to have such detailed citations if they are only doing the research for themselves. But that, of course, is a personal choice.

I am a bit biased as a member myself, but Derek Heritage's Zoom user group is a great place to see others use FH in real time. He asks a small fee for joining, but so far it has been an excellent resource. All of the meetings are recorded, so there's an ever-expanding library of content that is useful for beginners.

[Gary_G]

Yes. Derek's Video Group has just put up a very nice intro to using and making templates. You may want to start there.

As a note...
If you've had some experience with something like RootsMagic templates, you'll find that the FH7 ones are quite similar.

The big exception I discovered is that Lumpers can only include source fields in the bibliography. I found this to be an issue with creating fully compliant EE-style citations. As the FH7 capabilities for managing sources are much better than RM, I decided to move over to being a splitter, so I could achieve my goal more fully.

You'll also want to read the documentation on creating source names. FH7 can automatically create them if the template is set up to do so.

Hope this helps.

[Mark1834]

I'm not a member of the Zoom group (yet), but I do join a similar group organised by my local FHS. Should we include a link to the group in the KB? Derek posted about the group in Groups.io recently, but Helen cut the discussion and locked the thread.

It gives the impression that we do not welcome competition, but shouldn't we embrace it as a new tool for FH users? There are a number of video resources now that their authors promote whenever they can, but a compilation in the KB would help. Most of the existing KB videos are looking rather dated now.

Note to moderators - I know I could post this in Maintaining the Knowledge Base, but it's rather low profile, doesn't appear in Active topics, and seems to be read by only the usual half-dozen suspects.

Note 2 - yes, I am willing to compile the page myself if we agree the principle - I'm not falling into the usual trap of suggesting something be done without being willing to roll my sleeves up...

[ColeValleyGirl]

Should we include a link to the group in the KB? Derek posted about the group in Groups.io recently, but Helen cut the discussion and locked the thread.

It gives the impression that we do not welcome competition, but shouldn't we embrace it as a new tool for FH users? There are a number of video resources now that their authors promote whenever they can, but a compilation in the KB would help. Most of the existing KB videos are looking rather dated now.

Note to moderators - I know I could post this in Maintaining the Knowledge Base, but it's rather low profile, doesn't appear in Active topics, and seems to be read by only the usual half-dozen suspects.

Note 2 - yes, I am willing to compile the page myself if we agree the principle - I'm not falling into the usual trap of suggesting something be done without being willing to roll my sleeves up...

Vyger has already offered to compile a videos page for the KB but has been busy -- I'll ask him if he wants some help, or for somebody else to take over. I also want to add a plugin to the KB so that we can display them like this. We won't be able to include the Zoom Group videos, of course, as they're restricted to members only.

Should we include a link to the group in the KB? As a member of the Zoom group, I had an email discussion about this with Derek in January; at the time, the webpage wasn't really ready for wider publicity. I'd also like it to be clear on the group's landing page that there is a (small) subscription required. I left it to Derek to decide when would be appropriate to add a link.

"Helen cut the discussion and locked the thread." There have been substantial discussion of the group on the mailing list, including one 120-post thread. The post I locked gave instructions to contact Derek off-list via the group's webpage, which was attracting 'please can I join responses' that were cluttering up the list.

And yes, Mark, this should be in the Maintaining the KnowledgeBase topic.

[Mark1834]

All good stuff, thanks - I can only comment on what I see, but glad to see there are things happening behind the scenes. I'm perfectly happy to leave the video page to Vyger - he's made a lot of them, and there's no hurry to complete it.

Personally, I'd be perfectly happy with a Zoom group link in the KB, as long as it was clear that it is a paying-members group.