* FH7 : Using Evidence Explained Style

Questions regarding use of any Version of Family Historian. Please ensure you have set your Version of Family Historian in your Profile
avatar
USMC7312
Diamond
Posts: 63
Joined: 12 Jul 2019 23:09
Family Historian: V6

FH7 : Using Evidence Explained Style

Post by USMC7312 » 11 Apr 2021 04:17

Can someone help explain how sourcing became easier in FH7? I was hoping that FH7 would have templates created for all the Evidence Explained (EE) that allowed lumping vs splitting automatically. The advance templates have all the source info but no citation data. So these templates look to appear to have not really made life much better unless you just want to live a splitters life.

Ideally, what I was hoping for would be something like this:

Scenario
I am adding my grandfather to my tree. So I start with his birth certificate. The birth certificate tells me;

Full Name
Date of Birth
Place of Birth
Certificate #
Mother
Mother’s Birthplace
Father
Father’s Birthplace

I create a new person for my grandfather.

For vital records, in the US, we like to split these up by state, county or even local government. So in my case, let’s say my grandfathers birth certificate is issued by the state but organized by county. So in my idea world, I want to split my birth certificates for Kentucky by county.

Source Data
Jurisdiction State
Jurisdiction County
Agency
Series
Repository
Repository Location

Citation Data
Type ie birth certificate
Number 19-23456
Cert Date 19
Name of Person John Smith

Based upon entering this data, I want to be able to produce the following

1. A single Bibliography
2. A Reference Note

Unless I am missing something and I hope to I am, the advance templates won’t allow for this. So I assume you must one off these templates and basically add the citation specifics?

Once you do this, can the software create a Bibliography page for me?
If I print an individual report, will it generate Reference Notes

Am I in the right ballpark here or am I back in the weeds? I understand, the desire to keep GEDCOM compliant and how hard this part must be, but there has to be someway of making this part easier.

User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 2774
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V7
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: FH7 : Using Evidence Explained Style

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 11 Apr 2021 07:25

Yes, most if not all of the templates in both Advanced and Essential collections are designed for splitters, and you have to create custom version to use them as lumpers. You will still be able to generate bibliographies and reference notes, including the Citation information.

The reason behind the apparent bias towards splitting is nothing to do with Gedcom-compliance -- the concepts of lumping and splitting don't affect that at all.

To mimic Tolstoy:
All happy families are alike, but every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way (Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina, 1878)
I suspect one of the reasons behind this is that splitters tend to split sources in roughly the same ways, whereas lumpers all seem to lump differently, and it would be an enormous task to design lumpers' templates that satisfied everyone.
For vital records, in the US, we like to split [lump] these up by state, county or even local government.
That's two or three variants right there. Add in the UK approach for BMD certificates of lumping them by type of certificate... and/or by country. Censuses lumped by year? or year and jurisdiction? Parish registers by Parish and/or event type? Bishop's Transcripts by Parish or Diocese (which is how they are collected).

If it's any consolation, I find the Advanced collection of source templates are too US-focussed and will need to create custom versions to handle UK sources more easily. At least we've been handed the tools to do the customisation whereas 'Generic' sources were a PITA to structure :D

avatar
Mark1834
Megastar
Posts: 707
Joined: 27 Oct 2017 19:33
Family Historian: V7
Location: South Cheshire

Re: FH7 : Using Evidence Explained Style

Post by Mark1834 » 11 Apr 2021 08:15

There are a couple of factors that you were probably thinking of.

These highly structured custom sources are GEDCOM compliant, as GEDCOM permits customisations. However, they are specific to FH, and cannot be transferred to other apps. At best, the details will be saved in Notes, but not with the original structure.

FH7 has improved matters for lumpers in some respects, but it still has an inbuilt bias towards splitting. When lumped citations are used to support multiple facts, they are duplicated, both in the database and in reports. It’s not a showstopper, but it is inelegant.
Mark Draper

User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 2774
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V7
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: FH7 : Using Evidence Explained Style

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 11 Apr 2021 08:32

Mark1834 wrote:
11 Apr 2021 08:15
When lumped citations are used to support multiple facts, they are duplicated, both in the database and in reports. It’s not a showstopper, but it is inelegant.
To be fair, Mark, there are options to mitigate this in reports:
  • Combine Identical Citations for Same Source
  • Use Short Footnotes for Citations to Already-Cited Sources
  • Use "Ibid" for Run of Repeated citations to a Source
As for 'duplicated in the database' as you know there is no database, just a Gedcom file and I believe Gedcom compliance dictates that citations (split or lumped) have to be duplicated.

avatar
Mark1834
Megastar
Posts: 707
Joined: 27 Oct 2017 19:33
Family Historian: V7
Location: South Cheshire

Re: FH7 : Using Evidence Explained Style

Post by Mark1834 » 11 Apr 2021 09:32

Combining lumped citations doesn't work if the citation has attached media. To be fair to FH, I suspect that is a bug that can be fixed, so I'll report it to them.

I was using "database" colloquially, to refer to the Project, but fair enough - lumped citations are repeated in the Project. You are partially correct. GEDCOM works fine for split sources. There is one copy of a source, and all citations link to that one copy. However, GEDCOM doesn't work well for lumped citations - it's a well-documented limitation. Information in the master source is stored once, but all the citation details are repeated each time the same citation is used. FH can't do anything about that, it is inherent in GEDCOM. What it could (and IMO should) do is manage these internally as a single entity.

Try it - copy a lumped citation to multiple facts, and change just one of them (say to correct a typo). FH does not recognise that they are no longer the same, and maintains different conflicting versions of the same citation. RM has the same flaw, but FTM does recognise the change and maintains just one coherent copy.
Mark Draper

User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 2774
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V7
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: FH7 : Using Evidence Explained Style

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 11 Apr 2021 09:41

Mark, we're getting way off topic.

However, for split or lumped sources the citations linking facts to them will (should) often have different details -- particularly Quality Assessment (especially now we have more values for that in V7), and Note. How could FH recognise which are supposed to be identical and which are supposed to be different? Citation X might have been created by copying Citation Y and then modified; replicating the changes back to citation Y would be just plain wrong...

avatar
Mark1834
Megastar
Posts: 707
Joined: 27 Oct 2017 19:33
Family Historian: V7
Location: South Cheshire

Re: FH7 : Using Evidence Explained Style

Post by Mark1834 » 11 Apr 2021 10:12

Agree - I was clarifying to the OP their GEDCOM comment and highlighting limitations for lumpers, but it's wandering off after I corrected your statement on GEDCOM. I would argue that if different citations have different assessments, they are no longer the same citation, but we won't resolve that one here. It's a limitation that irks me, but others more used to FH's idiosyncrasies are not bothered by it. Let's leave it at that...
Mark Draper

User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 1180
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: FH7 : Using Evidence Explained Style

Post by AdrianBruce » 11 Apr 2021 11:12

A couple of background points that may or may not be remotely relevant.

Firstly, Evidence Explained! "templates" (aka Quick Check Models) are neither splitting not lumping. They just show the whole of the "printed" output and you are told nothing about how to store that in your "database". Quite correctly in my view, ESM wants to go nowhere near how to use the many software programs. The EE style templates supplied with FH simply reflect how the people who created the templates thought of them. As I understand it, most of the thinking interpreted the EE Quick Check Models as split sources.

As Helen said, while virtually all splitters would agree how to interpret the EE Quick Check Models as split sources, lumpers may make the cut between sources and citations in different places. The Roots Magic guys rather gave the game away in some of their writings, when they referred to this issue of what to put where in their equivalents of sources and citations by saying, "It's up to you!". And I wouldn't disagree.

Perhaps what's needed is a way to easily migrate elements between source and citation level? Indeed from a position of ignorance (I'm still on v6), I wonder whether the division between the two is less clear in v7?

Secondly, the whole question of how to store source / citation element data (i.e. the individual parts) in a GEDCOM file was in the minds of (at least) the BetterGEDCOM initiative. Someone had analysed the EE style templates and the number of different elements, I worked out, was in the hundreds. (One cut of their Excel spreadsheet gave 600-odd elements). How could you cover all those elements in a revised GEDCOM standard? You couldn't. Some people put their hopes in something for Archives / Library cataloguing called Dublin Core because this was extensible. My view was that this missed the point - even if you used an extensible format, the chances of agreeing a standard name and meaning for 600 odd elements, where you'd get a new item every week, was impossible.

End of philosophy for this morning.
Adrian

User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 2774
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V7
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: FH7 : Using Evidence Explained Style

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 11 Apr 2021 11:21

Perhaps what's needed is a way to easily migrate elements between source and citation level?
Adrian, if you clone and then edit one of the supplied templates, you can mark or unmark fields as 'citation specific' in your custom copy.

User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 1180
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: FH7 : Using Evidence Explained Style

Post by AdrianBruce » 11 Apr 2021 14:23

ColeValleyGirl wrote:
11 Apr 2021 11:21
... if you clone and then edit one of the supplied templates, you can mark or unmark fields as 'citation specific' in your custom copy.
Oh - that seems easy enough...
Thanks
Adrian

User avatar
dpbeatley
Gold
Posts: 11
Joined: 08 Dec 2018 05:15
Family Historian: V7
Location: New York USA

Re: FH7 : Using Evidence Explained Style

Post by dpbeatley » 15 Apr 2021 16:00

Hi all!
Wow- now I’m totally confused on this issue. Background: I migrated from RM7 to FH6 2 years ago but had step back from genealogy due to medical issues. That said, downloaded the new FH7 as a trial before committing to an upgrade purchase since I liked what I saw in the version notes. Conflicted on which software to use -- RM, FTM, FH, HEREDIS 2021 etc. Now to my point.

Quoted from FH7 Tour Help section:
Version 7 supports a whole new workflow, based around working directly from sources. This is called Source-driven Data Entry, and it is designed to match the way genealogists typically work.
I came to this topic hoping it would clarify some confusion on my part. I am performing a total Genealogy Do-Over since I found numerous errors or incorrect citations on my part in RM7 that totally glitched in FH6. It would be far easier to start from scratch than try to correct these "mistakes" after importing a GEDDOM file into FH7.

My understanding is that you "should" use one source (say a census) and then use citations for each "fact" that you gleam from that census. I have quite a few family members that are in one census, eg 1910 US FED Census for Maryland City of Baltimore that have different households. So, if I understand this correctly, I would attach facts to each household but refer to the source - 1910 US FED Census Maryland... with citations referencing the page number/line number and so forth.

So is the so-called Source-Driven method the way to go? I see in this thread that there is much discussion over whether the Essential/Advanced templates support one method over another and so forth. If I thought I was confused over which way to approach entry of SOURCES vs CITATIONS, this thread only made my head swirl.

It must be noted that I mean no disrespect to the opinions expressed here - everyone has his/her methods. I'm just confused over what FH states in their Version notes vs the opinions here and elsewhere in the FHUG forums.

Sorry for the TL-DR post! :shock:
Time for a few pints -- cheers -- Dennis
-- Dennis ~ researching Beatley, Evans, Skitka, Morealli, Ziorka - US, Great Britain, Austrian-Hungarian, Slovakian.

User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 2774
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V7
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: FH7 : Using Evidence Explained Style

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 15 Apr 2021 16:19

Dennis, you are entering into the perennial 'splitter' versus 'lumper' debate, which hinges on what somebody defines as a 'Source'. Some people ('lumpers') would define1910 US FED Census Maryland as a single source and put more detailed information in the citations as you describe. Others ('splitters') would define a single household schedule as the Source and have little or no information in the citations (perhaps an Assessment and a Note about some aspect of the census as it relates to the Fact being supported).

Neither approach is right or wrong (and Evidence Explained is agnostic on the subject, as Adrian said) , but there are consequences: See Citing Sources: Method 1 and Method 2 for more detail on the implications of each approach. Source Driven Data entry will work with either approach, but the source templates supplied with FH are mostly 'splitter' templates.

User avatar
dpbeatley
Gold
Posts: 11
Joined: 08 Dec 2018 05:15
Family Historian: V7
Location: New York USA

Re: FH7 : Using Evidence Explained Style

Post by dpbeatley » 15 Apr 2021 18:07

Hi Helen!
Thanks for the insightful response. After reviewing the mess FH6 made with my RM import, I've come to the conclusion that I'm a 'lumper'. I ended up with so many source & citation records after the import that it drove me batty trying to fix inconsistencies that would fix some entries but broke a truck load of others.

Once I saw that FH7 was going via the 'lumper' style (at least that was the impression I got after reading the WHATS NEW in V7 & the TOUR section of FH7 help), I was somewhat pleased. Then I started reading up on the never ending debate over 'lumpers' vs 'splitters' in FHUG and elsewhere - either way is fine - but I'm tending towards being a lumper myself. I think its more tidy to have ONE SOURCE point to MANY CITATIONS (one-to-many relationship for us geeks). In my 1910 Census example, defining it as a splitter leads to far more entries to correct if, by chance you find errors. But as we all state - to each his/her own.

I was dismayed to learn that the FH7 templates seem to be in the splitter camp, something I don't really grasp as the company has said in its "new workflow approach" explanation, the essential templates would be "lumbers"! If I interrupted to correctly!

This debate has raged from time immortal it seems and as you state - neither approach is the right way. I'm going to set up a test project to see for myself how FH7 handles a "lumper" va "spiltter" approach to sources and I'll decide for myself which way is "right" for my way of thinking.

Also, I will read up on those links you provided prior to embarking on my grand adventure (shades of Frodo come to mind).

Again, many thanks. Cheers - dennis
-- Dennis ~ researching Beatley, Evans, Skitka, Morealli, Ziorka - US, Great Britain, Austrian-Hungarian, Slovakian.

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 21534
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: FH7 : Using Evidence Explained Style

Post by tatewise » 15 Apr 2021 18:22

Dennis, I don't understand your claim: "In my 1910 Census example, defining it as a splitter leads to far more entries to correct if, by chance you find errors."

The usual argument is the reverse. That 'splitter' Sources are easier to correct for errors.
Take the example of a Census household...

For a 'splitter' that would have a dedicated Source record holding all the details, the Census country, year, page, transcript of the household grid, media image of the page, etc. The Citations (in FH terms) attached to each household member's facts would usually have no more than a link to the Source record. So if anything needs correcting it is all in one place in the Source record.

For a 'lumper' many of those details such as page, transcript, media image for one household would be repeated in each Citation against each household member's facts. So those multiple Citations must be located and edited to correct an error, which seems more complex to me. It is unlikely that there will be errors in the Source record details because they just relate to the Census year as a whole.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

avatar
Mark1834
Megastar
Posts: 707
Joined: 27 Oct 2017 19:33
Family Historian: V7
Location: South Cheshire

Re: FH7 : Using Evidence Explained Style

Post by Mark1834 » 15 Apr 2021 18:40

When you read through the links, bear in mind that they are written from a FH perspective (not unreasonably, the clue is in the name!). RM and FTM store their data in databases that handle the more complex relationships involved in lumping, so lumping works well in those products (indeed, FTM only lumps). FH stores its data in GEDCOM, which doesn’t handle lumping well, so the optimum balance between methods is different for FH, and more towards splitting. As we all agree, no right or wrong, but the software design does influence the decision and what was right in one product may not work as well in another.

Mike’s comment illustrates that perfectly. The duplication he refers to is not a consequence of lumping per se - it is how lumping is implemented in GEDCOM and FH. New users sometimes get those points confused, and don’t distinguish between the fundamentals of the method and the software implementation.
Mark Draper

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 21534
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: FH7 : Using Evidence Explained Style

Post by tatewise » 15 Apr 2021 19:15

Good point, I often forget to mention the implementation differences in products.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
dpbeatley
Gold
Posts: 11
Joined: 08 Dec 2018 05:15
Family Historian: V7
Location: New York USA

Re: FH7 : Using Evidence Explained Style

Post by dpbeatley » 15 Apr 2021 19:42

Hi again
The points made by both of you seem to have finally settled the debate in my brain. When I imported from RM7 (and even a RM8 beta) my resulting FH project was so FUBAR that I was ready to shxxcan both pieces of software. My project was pretty decent in RM7 but it’s limitations/performance made me look elsewhere. Enter FH6/7. Liked what I saw & purchased FH6. Then as I mentioned I needed to take a genealogical break. Coming back a few weeks ago is what prompted this whole internal debate.

Now that I got how FH basically defines lumpers/splitters, I now believe I’m in the splitter group. In any event, I’m still going the do-over splitter route to get my project the way I want. Shouldn’t take too long to get my 350+ individual’s inputted 😜

Again, many thanks to all who contributed to my dilemma and questions. Very much appreciated.
-- Dennis ~ researching Beatley, Evans, Skitka, Morealli, Ziorka - US, Great Britain, Austrian-Hungarian, Slovakian.

User avatar
cwhermann
Diamond
Posts: 77
Joined: 20 Mar 2021 22:04
Family Historian: V7
Location: Amherst, New Hampshire, US

Re: FH7 : Using Evidence Explained Style

Post by cwhermann » 18 Apr 2021 11:56

I was also struggling with the lumping/splitting differences between RM and FH and the ability to use Evidence Explained Style. Fortunately (or unfortunately) I picked an a layered citation for an online image record to compare the differences between RM and FH. Other issues with importing and the templates for layered citations involving EE Style are also discussed in Import of RM7 Citations and Bibliography Citation-specific Metafields forums.
My initial thought was if I could work out the complications of importing a layered citation, the non layered would be easy.

Now that I have discovered that, unlike RM, (which allows the user to put any field in the template into one or more of the Footnote, Short Footnote, or Bibliography formats), FH "limits" the fields in the Bibliography format to Source record level fields only, I began experimenting with various lumping strategies in FH7. I decided to look at a "simple" citation for a jurisdictional record to see if I could get a better understanding of the differences between RM and FH when using EE style citations. I used the EE Local Record Book template in the FH Advanced Collection and tried to create different customized templates based on various lumping scenarios I have used in RM. Through the various scenarios I tried to create, it seems the "highest degree of lumping" that can be done in FH7 is based on the metafields used in the Bibliography format for the source being cited.

FH Advanced_Record.png
FH Advanced_Record.png (31.23 KiB) Viewed 997 times

The above represents a very typical lumping strategy for lumping various pages/records under a specific Jurisdictional Record Series. I used this template because my research, work flow often results in visits to a county courthouses where I would locate a number of different records (births, marriage, death, property, etc) for various ancestors. In RM7, I could lump all records at a given jurisdiction by creating a template with just the Jurisdiction and Repository fields in the Source record level. I could then work through the "stack of records" entering the series, vol/page, person, dates as I created the citations.
With FH7, the "highest level" of lumping would have to be for records of a given series (birth, death, etc.) at a given jurisdiction - based on the structure that does not allow any metafield used in the Bibliography to be entered at the citation level. My "stack of records" would need to be separated into stacks based on the record series.

My transition from RM7 to FH7 has revealed a downside to the "lump how every you like" flexibility provided by RM7. A review of my RM Master Sources (Source Record in FH), shows the lumping strategy is inconsistent and was based on the data entry task at hand when Master Source was created. All approaches result in the same Footnote, Short Footnote and Bibliography entries, I just need to adjusting work/data entry to the FH7 software.

The EE style layered citations for digital images is a unique situation that does not fit well with FH7's GEDCOM file data storage and that will need it's own solution. For other records, I have decided to modify my Master Sources in RM7 to a FH7 compatible format before completing the final transfer.
Curtis Hermann

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 21534
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: FH7 : Using Evidence Explained Style

Post by tatewise » 18 Apr 2021 13:23

Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
fhtess65
Diamond
Posts: 85
Joined: 15 Feb 2018 21:34
Family Historian: V7
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Contact:

Re: FH7 : Using Evidence Explained Style

Post by fhtess65 » 19 Apr 2021 00:05

ColeValleyGirl wrote:
11 Apr 2021 07:25
If it's any consolation, I find the Advanced collection of source templates are too US-focussed and will need to create custom versions to handle UK sources more easily. At least we've been handed the tools to do the customisation whereas 'Generic' sources were a PITA to structure :D
I would love to see examples of how to customize the Advanced collection templates to more UK based sources. My own style is based on Strathclyde with elements of EE added for granularity in my citations. I'm still working on really understanding how templates work in FH compared to those in RootsMagic.

Teresa
---
Teresa Basińska Eckford
Librarian & family historian
http://writingmypast.wordpress.com

User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 2774
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V7
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: FH7 : Using Evidence Explained Style

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 19 Apr 2021 06:33

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

User avatar
fhtess65
Diamond
Posts: 85
Joined: 15 Feb 2018 21:34
Family Historian: V7
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Contact:

Re: FH7 : Using Evidence Explained Style

Post by fhtess65 » 19 Apr 2021 14:25

ColeValleyGirl wrote:
19 Apr 2021 06:33
Teresa, it isn't something I'll get round to any time soon, I'm afraid!
Helen,

No worries. I'll play around with it myself, though I'm far less experienced than you at building templates. Of course, an eighth day in the week would really help!

Teresa
---
Teresa Basińska Eckford
Librarian & family historian
http://writingmypast.wordpress.com

avatar
Mark1834
Megastar
Posts: 707
Joined: 27 Oct 2017 19:33
Family Historian: V7
Location: South Cheshire

Re: FH7 : Using Evidence Explained Style

Post by Mark1834 » 19 Apr 2021 14:37

Teresa, with a bit of practice, editing and customising source templates is something most FH users will get to grips with. It doesn’t require any particular prior skills or experience. Creating a Data Entry Assistant to accompany that template is much more complex, but templated sources work fine without them. The process is actually very similar to that in RM - define what your fields are called, what type of data they hold, and whether they are source or citation level.
Mark Draper

User avatar
fhtess65
Diamond
Posts: 85
Joined: 15 Feb 2018 21:34
Family Historian: V7
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Contact:

Re: FH7 : Using Evidence Explained Style

Post by fhtess65 » 19 Apr 2021 14:44

Mark1834 wrote:
19 Apr 2021 14:37
Teresa, with a bit of practice, editing and customising source templates is something most FH users will get to grips with. It doesn’t require any particular prior skills or experience. Creating a Data Entry Assistant to accompany that template is much more complex, but templated sources work fine without them. The process is actually very similar to that in RM - define what your fields are called, what type of data they hold, and whether they are source or citation level.
Thanks, Mark - I have already done a little bit of work and created a couple of templates, and yes, very similar to those in RM. I just wish, as I do in RM, that the font in the template editor was adjustable. I've already created a Wish List request for this to be added.

Teresa
---
Teresa Basińska Eckford
Librarian & family historian
http://writingmypast.wordpress.com

avatar
Ruth
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: 27 Jun 2018 07:57
Family Historian: V7

Re: FH7 : Using Evidence Explained Style

Post by Ruth » 04 May 2021 04:43

I am not sure if this is the correct place to ask this, so apologies if it's not.
I am using the Church Register Essentials collection, and noticed some of the fields are not transferring across . For instance if using an online collection, the database name and url plus some other fields are not showing in footnote and short note. To fix this, I cloned the Church Register template so I could adjust these fields. However by doing this, the data entry assistant does not recognise the custom template. Is there anyway the data entry assistant can be linked. The templates are identical as far as the fields are concerned, its just linking the fields to the main tab on the source template. I hope that makes sense.
The other option I tried was to just amend the original template by clicking on the cog icon and adding the fields in there, however I was not sure if I would lose this if any updates were done.

Post Reply