* RM7 -> FH7, lost some citation formatting, other citation questions

[tatewise]

Yes, that feature can be added to the next version of the plugin.
Do you realise it only applies to Templated Sources where the Footnote Format includes formatting style codes?
The feature is invoked by the Extra Options tab Source Template: Reformat Metafields option.
Would it be sensible to make that setting the default for TNG+ as it is RMT+?

[harold]

Yes, that feature can be added to the next version of the plugin.

That would be great, thanks!

Do you realise it only applies to Templated Sources where the Footnote Format includes formatting style codes?

Yes, I understand that.

Would it be sensible to make that setting the default for TNG+ as it is RMT+?

From my point of view, Yes. Other TNG users may have differing points of view.

[tatewise]

OK, the option is only enabled in conjunction with the (+) Full Data mode, and can be changed if a user does not want it.
So that will be in the next published version.

[harold]

Thank you very much. Your quick responses are very much appreciated.

I do have one more somewhat related question which may have already been asked/answered (but I cannot find it). I noticed this behaviour some time ago but never followed up on it.

The footnote is exported to the GEDCOM TITL tag, but is there a reason that the Source record title is exported to the GEDCOM ABBR tag? I would have expected it would be the short footnote rather than the source record title which was assigned to the ABBR tag.

[tatewise]

That is simply so that the original Title is exported somewhere.
In my experience, the Short Footnote is not usually very significant or widely used.

[harold]

That makes sense. Unfortunately style codes are not applied to source record titles.

[ColeValleyGirl]

In my experience, the Short Footnote is not usually very significant or widely used.

I find it very useful, Mike.

[Gary_G]

"thestarsatnight";

Welcome from another RootsMagic "refugee"!

I imported from RM9 to FH7 and I'm finding that while one can function in FH7 using the "as-imported" database, one cannot really take advantage of all the handy features of FH7 by doing that. The design of RootsMagic, especially in RM8-9, tends to cause people to drift towards being some level of Lumper. While FH7 can technically handle both Lumping and Splitting, I found that it was easier to get access to all the possibilities of the software by converting over to being a Splitter. I had hoped that getting my feet under me in FH7 was going to be quick and easy, but its been like going from a Cesna to an F-16 aircraft; they both fly, but the mental approach required is quite different. You probably want to play on a test database for a few months and see what works for your style of workflow and citations. I'm just now finding what approach works for me and I've still a ways to go before I'm back into research mode. That said; I think you'll eventually come to the conclusion that the RM to FH import capability doesn't really buy one a lot (other than establishing the basic family tree structure) and that re-entering ones data, in custom Splitter source-templates, will make the things work a whole lot better and get you closer to the citations you want.

[tatewise]

In my experience, the Short Footnote is not usually very significant or widely used.

I find it very useful, Mike.

But is that in the context of exporting to other products as being discussed here?
If my recollection is correct, it was you who requested the Metafield Reformat option to export the Footnote as the Title with the Title moved to the Short Title.

[ColeValleyGirl]

In my experience, the Short Footnote is not usually very significant or widely used.

I find it very useful, Mike.

But is that in the context of exporting to other products as being discussed here?
If my recollection is correct, it was you who requested the Metafield Reformat option to export the Footnote as the Title with the Title moved to the Short Title.

Yes, it was me -- it seemed a sensible option to have in the toolbox.

Re the Short Footnote, it's essential to cut down the verbiage in reports -- and anyone using the EE approahc to sources will want it to export properly.

[Mark1834]

Isn’t “cutting down verbiage” and “following the EE approach” an oxymoron...?

[ColeValleyGirl]

Isn’t “cutting down verbiage” and “following the EE approach” an oxymoron...?

Nope. However, I have noted the tongue in your cheek.

[tatewise]

Re the Short Footnote, it's essential to cut down the verbiage in reports -- and anyone using the EE approach to sources will want it to export properly.

Can you suggest any way that can be achieved, because in a generic Source record there are not many fields available?

[ColeValleyGirl]

Labelled Note or Data field are the things that come to mind

[tatewise]

Labelled Note or Data field are the things that come to mind

By Data field do you mean the one that holds Events Recorded and Agency Responsible?
If so then that cannot hold text itself but a Note subfield can be added. Is that what you mean?

Would the Bibliography need similar treatment?

If you remember it is quite a complex process because the Title Format would have to be replaced with the Footnote, Short Footnote & Bibliography Format in turn and the Enable Auto Title function used in order to create the necessary text.
Then the Title Format must be restored. It is quite an awkward script and only worthwhile if Short Footnote and Bibliography are really needed in exported GEDCOM.

[ColeValleyGirl]

Fair point about the Data field.

By a note field, I mean a Local Note for the Source.

Yes, re Bibliography, if you do it at all.

It doesn't sound that complex a process, with the right functions defined, but don't do it fo rme -- wait for somebody who really needs it.

[tatewise]

The Footnote formatted Title feature was added on your suggestion over 2 years ago.
There has not been a clamour for adding Short Footnote and Bibliography.

[tatewise]

A review of this plugin feature in light of the recent suggestions has found some issues and some new ideas:

1. When the Reformat Metafields option uses the Source record Title field and format template to compose the Footnote text it leaves the Autogenerate Record Title option enabled instead of retaining its original state.
   That is rectified if the user uses the Edit > Undo Plugin Updates command as advised but not otherwise.
   That will be fixed in the next plugin version.
   *
2. The Record Title Format template does not support Citation-specific Metafields, so if the Footnote Format template includes such Metafields they will not appear in the exported Footnote text, because that relies on the Title formatting as explained above. There would appear to be no solution to that issue.
   *
3. That same issue affects any Short Footnote text composed by the same method.
   *
4. The suggestion to include the Short Footnote and Bibliography text as labelled local Note text has led me to the idea of including them and the Footnote text when either the Move to Note Record or Reformat Metafields options is chosen.
   So those three formatted citation texts would always appear alongside the Metafield labelled Note text.
   Whether style codes (<i>, <b>, <u>) were included would depend on the plugin Rich Text Formatting option setting.
   The Reformat Metafields option would copy the Footnote to the Title and the Title to the Short Title as now.
   The drawback is that the Move to Note Record option would also trigger the Plugin Updates state, but see below.
   *
5. It annoys me that the method used in 1. above causes Plugin Updates to the Source and Source Template records.
   Ideally, there should be a Plugin API function to Undo Plugin Updates which I would find useful in several plugins.
   The idea I have for a workaround is to create a new dummy Source record and dummy Source Template record.
   Then the plugin can copy each Source record and Source Template in turn to the dummies before composing the text.
   Finally, the plugin would delete the two dummy records. Although that would still trigger the Plugin Updates state, none of the user's Source or Source Template records would be affected even if Edit > Undo Plugin Updates is overlooked.

Feedback on the above issues and ideas is welcomed...

[harold]

Interesting proposal. I cannot see any problems with it at the moment. One question though. I am not familiar with the internals of plugins so the answer may be obvious to others but not to me. Is there any possibility of optionally triggering the Edit > Undo Plugin Updates from within the plugin itself? Does the entire process have to be completed before this can be accomplished?

[tatewise]

Harold, I realise you are unfamiliar with plugin internals, but if I could trigger FH commands like Edit > Undo Plugin Updates from within a plugin I would have done so. That is why I suggest there should be a Plugin API function to Undo Plugin Updates.