* 'Variant' Source Templates

[TennGen1900]

Still finding my way after moving from TMG to FH7, so I am supposing this is probably an import issue.
Within TMG, I had a single source type called: "Court Record (Filmed)" I have many court records from microfilmed records, from various courts, states, and counties, so this is the TMG setting I used for all of those kinds of records, regardless of which court or which state/county. It seemed to work just fine for me within TMG.
However, when I look at my sources within FH7, I find that I have many "variants" of Court Record (Filmed) such as the examples here:

FH-VariantSources.jpg (69.28 KiB) Viewed 858 times

I don't know why FH7 automatically created so many "variant" Source Templates. And I couldn't find anything when searching the forums or looking at the import Sources guidance from FH7 about TMG that mentioned anything at all about "variant" sources.
The end result of all of this is that now that I'm attempting to add a new court record to my FH7 database --- I don't have any idea which of the many "variants" I should use - because in TMG I just had the one.
Also, court records is not the only place I have many "variant" records. Census, deeds, others have multiple variants too.
Help or suggestions?

[tatewise]

I'm no TMG expert, but a quick inspection of the TMG Sample UK project reveals some clues.
Even an imported Project from that TMG Sample has many variant Source Templates.

It seems that in TMG after a Source Type is applied to a Master Source the formats can be Overridden as indicated on the Source Definition dialogue Output form tab.

So that results in variants of each Source Type that has a field Overridden in a Master Source.
In other words, the Source Type is not applied in an identical way to every Master Source that uses it.

It also seems possible to change the Field definitions that are used by the Source Type.

FH V7 requires a unique Source Template for each Source record so each TMG variant needs a separate Source Template.

Does that make sense?
Are you aware that your Master Source entries have Overridden their Source Type or changed the Fields used?

[TennGen1900]

Gosh. I'm very confused, but I think I'm beginning to grasp. I looked up in FH7 help about Sources and Source Templates, Getting Started with Source Templates, Source Template Definitions Dialog, and Source Template Definition Compare Dialog. All of those were somewhat helpful in even being able to understand and parse out what I think you are saying. Thank you for that.
I think I've concluded that, based on the Source Template Definitions Dialog https://www.family-historian.co.uk/help ... ialog.html helpfile, that (under "Used..." explanation:
"the two sets must have the same number of field definitions, and these must be in the same order, and the respective field definitions must have the same names and all other details must match"
So, if in TMG I had one court record that had a Volume designation - but maybe there was another court record that did not use a Volume designation --- even though in TMG I could use the same Source defnitions (it was all based on a single "Court Record (Filmed)" Master Source). In FH7 those yes-volume and no-volume items would require TWO DIFFERENT Source Templates, because they would violate the "same number of field definitions and same order" ---- right? Am I understanding that part nearly correctly?

[tatewise]

Yes, that is a reason for a 'variant' Source Template ~ a different number of metafield definitions.

[Linda Reinfeld]

I have imported from TMG, and found variants for my source templates.

The problem turned out to be as Mike described - but he called the fields as override fields.

What happened in my case was that in TMG I had changed source templates, adding fields and subtracting fields. This caused 'extra' data to remain in the source. Because the template did not support those 'extra' fields they were not reported on or used, and didn't cause any problem in TMG. However, it caused problems in FH. Perhaps you have the same problem?

I cleaned up my sources. removing the 'extra' data.

Linda Reinfeld

[precision.club]

I have been working on the best way for me to transition from TMG to FH, if it becomes necessary. What to do with my source templates is at the top of my priority list. The following comes from notes to myself on my procedure to recreate my TMG source template collection in FH. This is the section on handling all the "variant" templates. Since I'm not an experienced FH user, my FH terminology may be incorrect. Comments are very welcome. Please remember these are notes to myself on how I should handle my variant templates. Your mileage may vary.

• All "overridden" templates appear to import as a "variant". Compare these variant templates with their related sources in TMG. View > Other Record Lists > Sources, then sort by Template. If possible, change the overridden template in TMG to a standard template. This minimizes the number of source templates that need correcting.

• After taking care of the overridden templates in TMG, run Optimize > VFI and reimport. If it's not too onerous, check remaining template variants to see what's going on. Where possible, make corrections to standardize the template in TMG. A lot of my remaining source template variants seem to be sources entered with earlier versions of a source template. When updated to a newer version, no longer used element fields still contain information, creating a "variant". Update these master source entries in TMG to match my current standard.

• The most common "variant" source types I have are those with the non-printing [file reference] element for file storage information. (Note: Source element fields in TMG source types are determined by the template output definitions. If a non-printing element is desired, it can be added to any master source entry, but cannot be defined in the template output. In FH, these non-printing elements become fields without disturbing the output template.) This type of variant can be merged with the standard source type in Family Historian safely. From the "Source Templates" list in FH, Edit > Merge/Compare records, then compare each template with its variant and merge as desired to create the necessary unique template.

• I do not recommend simply merging templates in Family Historian without checking them closely. You might end up with strange templates.

I have created my custom "TMG Source Template" set in FH, but my "Notes to Self" section on this process is not very coherent, yet. In re-reading these notes, I'm not sure this is coherent, either. If it makes sense to other TMG users, great! If not, I'm happy to answer questions about it.

Susan Johnston