Family Historian User Group

I'm just extrapolating from previous experience, Theresa -- we might get a nice surprise.

If that's easy to do Mike, I'd be happy to see it.

Mike, as I said before I am just exploring the possibilities. When I have more time to spend on it, I'll get back to you if I want to request anything. I'm not a fan of stuffing ever more options into something just because 1 person asked, so I shall try to avoid that.

Witnesses are not well supported in FH reports. In the Individual Summary Report you will see that a person was e.g. godparent at a baptism in their section of the report , but not in the section of the report for the person who was baptised. An Individual Narrative report shows the witness in both ...

Caroline, you will now have some sources that don't have a valid template (e.g. Marriage Sources you created from the old Civil Registration Template). How many do you have? There's a manual method for moving them to the new Template but if you have a huge amount we will need to look at automating t...

Teresa, it isn't something I'll get round to any time soon, I'm afraid!

It is a little complicated while you're getting used to it, Caroline, so don't worry about getting frustrated.

It will help me write an article for the Knowledgebase about replacing a standard template with a custom one.

Calline, can you post a screenshot? Using the trial version should make no difference. You should be looking at a screen that looks something like this (but with your custom template listed as well): Screenshot 2021-04-18 120917.png If that isn't what you're seeing, you haven't used the top menu opt...

If you can wait a few months I'll have a set of DEAs ready that won't be fussy about which source template you're using... Alternatively, after creating your custom template, remove (delete) from your project the standard Source Template Record (View > Other Record Lists > Source Templates, select t...

Alternatively, it's possible to change the Title -- you would need to create a clone of the relevant template and then add a county code field and edit the Title template to something like:

<{Type}>< {County}>< {Principal:SURNAME} and {Principal_2:SURNAME}>, {Date}

Thanks. I haven't made the corresponding changes to the companion article yet because some of the pros and cons are different for new fh users.

I would like your feedback on the changes I've made, Mark, if you're willing. I really don't want to be steering people to a single solution without considering the pros and cons.

OK, I'll be more specific if that helps: The very first sentence says Family Historian version 7 introduces a new way of working with Sources and Citations , although it is possible (with a few customisations) to continue working in a similar way to Version 6 . IMO, it would be better to say Family...

However, right at the top it says you can carry on with an FH6 style of working with customisations. I think that’s potentially misleading. I work exactly the same way in FH6 and FH7 without the detailed customisations listed. The windows might look a little different, but the work flow is exactly ...

I'd much rather everything was in a Note, but I'll get back to you if it becomes a problem.

I shall stick with Method... after all, the word has existed longer than AS or the KB.

Would some other word such as Mode or Strategy or Tactic be clearer? Not without mangling the English language, I fear. The article is describing the methods to achieve something -- do this press that -- so Tactic and Strategy definitely don't fit; Mode might, but I don't think everyone can avoid t...

I'm still working through the possibilities at this stage, Mike, but thought it would be easier to handle the metafields all in the same fashion (especially as I won't be exporting Repositories, whichever route I go).

Mike, is there an option to NOT convert the Repository field from a Templated Source into a Repository link. (I've looked and can't see it but it may be staring me in the face). To me, it seems odd to handle one field differently from the rest, especially when the destination for export can handle a...

It is not really a Method 3 because it can be used for both Method 1 and Method 2 Source Citations.

I may be being pedantic, but it is really Method 3 of adding sources in V7. See https://fhug.org.uk/kb/kb-article/worki ... -heading-9

For non unique items I agree. You don't need to identify where you viewed a source.

For unique items you do.

And since providers like ancestry and fmp use different images and indexes very often I wouldn't call them non unique.

And while we're on generic sources... Another area CP would need to reprogrammed to include Citation fields in reports, if they were going to do the job properly rather than just bodge a change to templates. Re access dates… I find them useful: Fred: you said site X has that source! Me: it did when ...

Helen, how do you know it would be "a fairly significant architectural change"? If you move away from 1 source == 1 source record, the citation details change but what else does? The help file would need a revamp; but how embedded in the internal architecture (which we can't see -- only the gedcom ...

By verification, I mean verifying that the source has been recorded accurately, not that the source information is correct. For me, an individual source citation is more about the former, not the latter. I'm not sure you can ever be certain that a source has been recorded accurately. Partly burnt o...

I don't think FH says that its Bibliography is intrinsically bound with EE concepts, so its features could be expanded. They do however say a Source Record is created for every Source... which currently exclude Citation Level fields. I'm not arguing those shouldn't be an option, just pointing out i...