* Displaying Page URL (not Site URL) in source citations

[tbmmbt]

Hello,

Firstly apologies, I'm a complete beginner but trying to read up as much as I can! I'm working on my tree and want to try and get things right before I get too far in and realise I'm not doing things the best way. I've spent a few days trying to get my head around citations but I'm still a bit unclear.

I'm using sites like FreeBMD to find some basic info and then trying to add the URLs in my source citations so that I know where I got my info from if I need to backtrack or double check anything.

So I set up 1 separate source for each website like FreeBMD or FamilySearch.org as a Website template (I believe this is 'lumping'?)

For each website template I enter the main URL (e.g. https://www.familysearch.org/) into the Site URL field and then something like 'Familysearch' into the Site Title field.

Then whenever I add a new citation I choose 'Cite existing source' and choose whatever website template I need and copy/paste the specific URL that I've found into the 'Page URL' field.

All seems to be working as I expect but then for example if I run an Individual Summary Report, under the Sources and Bibliography sections of the report I can only see the root *Site* URL (e.g. 'familysearch.org') and not the specific *Page* URL that I entered (e.g. https://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/informat ... lah&scan=1).

The Page URL info is still there and I can see it if I go into the citation dialogue but having it show when I run a report seemed like a simple way of viewing it, especially if I want to email a report to distant family members so they can look at the URL and see if I've got the correct person.

No doubt I'm probably not doing this the right way but that all seemed like the most basic way just to keep a simple track of where I've got my info from.

I see under Preferences>Sources there's the ability to edit what gets shown on reports so I tried cloning the Website template and create my own. I just tried changing Page_URL to Site_URL but that just gave me an error saying:

"Errors found in templates. Record title errors: Citation field code not valid in this context: Page_URL'"

Is there a simpler/better way to get a specific Page URL to display as citations on reports?

[Mark1834]

Welcome to the FHUG. There will be plenty of advice here to get you started. You are doing absolutely the right thing in making sure you start recording things in a sustainable way before you go too far in. Note that I didn't say "correct" - there is no absolute "correct" way to do things, and different people will have different views about what works best.

My recommendation is to review what you are regarding as the source. In my view, a url from FreeBMD is NOT the source of the information. The source is the General Register Office, and FreeBMD is where you happened to find that copy. Think of a pre-internet analogy. If you were sourcing something in a widely available book, you would source the book and its publication details, not "New York Central Library, Shelf 4, third book along" for example. Site urls are completely outside your control, and while they don't often change, they could. This is particularly important once you start using paid sites like Ancestry and FMP. The url only works if you (or anybody you send it to) are a subscriber, even though the information may be obtainable for free elsewhere.

I would do it this way: The high level "lumped source" is the England & Wales GRO Birth Index, for example. The specific citation is the page reference you obtain from FreeBMD, so in the Citation-specific Details, the Where Within: is the detailed reference (e.g. Chelsea 1867 Q1, vol 1a, page 123), and Text From Source: is the person's name. With those details, you can find the information again on any site that offers the indexes. You could record the url as a Note, but remember in time you may get GRO information from different sites, so the Repository may change.

When you come to print a report, play with the options on Text from Source and Notes under the Sources tab to get the level of detail you want.

Hope that helps. Once you establish a method for one source type, you can extend and adapt it to others.

[LornaCraig]

I agree with what Mark has said. However, to answer your specific question about how to get a citation field included in the footnotes in reports, the answer is that it depends whether you are using a generic source or a templated source.

I am sticking with generic sources (for consistency, having built up a huge number over the years) but as a new user it is likely that you have decided to use templated sources.

For generic sources, the contents of the footnotes are largely determined using Tools>Preferences>Sources>Generic Source Formats. There are tick boxes for you to select which fields are to be included from the Source record itself and from the Citation. But note that whatever options you choose will apply to all generic sources.

Templated sources are more flexible in that different types can have different footnote styles. As I am not an expert on these I will leave it for someone else who is more familiar with templated sources to explain the possibilities but you may find that the default settings already do what you want.

[tbmmbt]

Thanks so much Mark, that's really helpful and clarifies it much more.

So just to double check I'm not missing anything critical, I've created 3 source record templates (for each of the GRO entries for Births, Marriages and Deaths) using the Civil Registration Index template in fh7.

For each main record template I've just used the Type (e.g. Birth) and Region (England and Wales) fields. I haven't bothered with the Repository, Collection or URL fields so I can keep things simple.

Then each time I want to record (for example) a FreeBMD citation I was planning on selecting 'Add Citation>Cite Existing Source' and then just using the 4 citation-specific fields of 'Name Recorded', 'Registration District', 'Reference' and 'Note' (for the page URL) as in the following example:



I didn't bother with the 'Date' field as the FreeBMD records only seem to be based around an approximate 3 month period so I just enter 'circa' if I'm using the info for someone's birth date.

I understand what you mean when you say there's no absolute correct way but I think the above should suit me to keep it simple unless you think there's anything else I could improve.

Thank you

[tbmmbt]

Thanks too Lorna, I'll investigate that more.

[tatewise]

Most users do enter the Date for the Index, especially as FH has a Quarter Date format for Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4.
Also, the more recent GRO Index entries identify the Month.

BTW: While exploring Source Citations, consider how you would enter BMD Certificates, Parish and Census records.
They are usually better suited to Method 1 'splitter' sources, but it is your choice.
Also, there is a companion Windows program called Ancestral Sources that streamlines the entry of such sources.

I assume you have discovered the FHUG KnowledgeBase wiki?

[redvanman]

Simon

I didn't bother with the 'Date' field as the FreeBMD records only seem to be based around an approximate 3 month period so I just enter 'circa' if I'm using the info for someone's birth date.

This is because the Registration Indexes only state in which quarter an event was registered. FH's data entry assistant for dates has a tab for quarter dates.

Alyn

[tbmmbt]

Thanks Mike, I might as well enter the month in my citations then.

Census source citations are my next area of investigation. I did originally install Ancestral Sources a few months ago but haven't really tried it yet as I got a bit overwhelmed with all the info! Will take a look...

One other question is that so far I haven't paid for any subscriptions and have just been getting info from free sources but I think I might be reaching a dead-end and need to pay for some more accurate info.

I think it might be a toss up between ancestry.com and findmypast and I'm veering towards FMP. Is one of these (or something else) better suited for mainly UK based research? I appreciate that's probably a very user-dependent opinion but just wondered if FH users have a general preference?

[ColeValleyGirl]

Simon,

it really depends where in the UK your ancestors came form -- the different sites have different sets of e.g. parish registers. You need to review what each of FMP and Ancestry have (also FamilySearch). Some people subscribe for six months or a year to one sight, and then switch over.

[tatewise]

Simon, give us some clues to what sort of dead-ends you're reaching and what source documents you're hoping to find.

[tbmmbt]

Simon, give us some clues to what sort of dead-ends you're reaching and what source documents you're hoping to find.

I suppose a large part of it is just wanting to verify that the info I've found so far is actually correct. I've got a feeling that some of my research could be an assumption because of similar names/birthdates. I think I've done quite well at cross-referencing free online hints along with what family members think sounds familiar but I've lost track of the number of times I thought I was about to verify something only to be hit with the 'Subscribe to read this info' paywall!

I'll often find that census results give me a more accurate idea if I'm on the right track because seeing groups of familiar names or occupations within a family seems like it's probably a more reliable indication than individual near-matches. But I haven't found many places I can view census results for free.

I'm more than happy to pay a subscription and the in-app hints in FH seem to point more towards FMP results so I might start with a 3 month trial and see how I go.

By the way, thanks for all the help from everyone so far - seems like a very helpful group here

[ColeValleyGirl]

FamilySearch is free (although some transcriptions point to a paid-for site to see the original image). And don't forget https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates which is the governments own free gro index site, but with mothers maiden name and age at death, both of which can help you check you have the right individual. Also, look out for 'free weekends' and such like for specific record types on each of the major websites (military records new Remembrance Day). When we can get out and about, some libraries provide access to e.g Ancestry from a library PC.

[tbmmbt]

FamilySearch is free (although some transcriptions point to a paid-for site to see the original image). And don't forget https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates which is the governments own free gro index site, but with mothers maiden name and age at death, both of which can help you check you have the right individual. Also, look out for 'free weekends' and such like for specific record types on each of the major websites (military records new Remembrance Day). When we can get out and about, some libraries provide access to e.g Ancestry from a library PC.

Thanks, so far I've mainly been using FamilySearch and FreeBMD along with the limited free parts of Ancestry, MyHeritage and FMP (and a couple of others).

I hadn't seen the Gov's online GRO index (or I'd seen it briefly but stopped as it looked like it was just for ordering certificates) so that's something else for me to look at. Also good to know that some libraries offer Ancestry access. When we're out of lockdown I'll get down there and see

[tatewise]

Yes, Census records are invaluable at establishing family relationships.

IMO don't bother with Focus Window 'hints' which only work for individuals you get into focus.
Try the Lookup Missing Census Facts and Lookup Missing BMD Records plugins.
You choose which individuals to research and they provide search URL for Ancestry, FMP, FamilySearch & MyHeritage.

Sometimes for some 'brick walls' you have to buy BMD Certificates as PDF and subscriptions don't help with that.

[RS3100]

You will find FreeREG and FreeCEN helpful as well.

[Mark1834]

My preference is to search manually if I’m working to break down a brick wall, so I can easily control how much I enter into the search box. For example, just given name and date/place of birth can give a strong lead for a female post-marriage if you don’t have any other details. Another tip - null results from sites like FMP are free, so can tell you for nothing that they don’t have any matching records. It’s worth checking what coverage a paid site has for the area of interest. For example, Ancestry is far better than FMP for London records, but it’s the other way around for the English Midlands. Other areas can be poor on both - it all depends on which site the archiving authority has partnered with.