* Source / Citation / Media errors - helping with reorganising

[samhinch]

Hi, I've just restarted my family history research since doing quite a bit back in 2007. So much more data, and so many more sources. I used Genbox previously, but obviously that has disappeared now, so I did a search and settled on Family Historian. I'm loving it so far, but as I have got deeper into it, I have realised I have made a rather large mistake in managing sources, citations and media. I would really appreciate some advice on the most effective way of resolving it. I am also rather a long way into reentering/validating a good sized tree (c.700 people so far and expected to go up to about 4000 when I have finished), so any automated methods would be appreciated.

I have created a single source for every document I have found - so far so good, this is what I understand to be classic 'splitter' source management. However, I have then added the media to the source, and not the citation. So I now have a few hundred Civil Registration sources, none of which have a descriptive title, all of which have separate media files.

With church registers, I have the same, however I have used the 'type' to log which collection the document is from, ie 'Wiltshire Marriages etcetc'. I took a look at Ancestral Sources, but this doesn't allow me to use my customised sources, so I am a bit stuck. My footnote and bibliography entry templates all look great, but my data entry is taking so long.

Ideally, I would like to start lumping on things like the GRO registers, keep splitting on the census records, but be able to retain the type on church registers. I would also like to shift my source media to the citations if at all possible.

Any ideas on the best way to unpick things?

Thanks

[tatewise]

Welcome to the FHUG Sam.

You may find it more efficient to use Ancestral Sources (AS) but you need to start from scratch with each document because AS creates the Source record with attached Media as well as the Citations and Facts.

If you are using the Method 1 'splitter' approach then the Media should be attached to the Souce record, not the Citations.
Please explain why you think those Media should be moved to the Citations.
If a single Source record, such as Census household, has many Citations then there would be a Media link on each Citation instead of just one link in the Source record.

Unless you are able to write a Plugin, I am afraid that you must go through all the Source records and fill in whatever details are needed.

I am a bit confused when you say none have a descriptive Title. Are you using generic Sources or templated Sources with Source Templates? Depending on which you have used the solution may be different. If you have used the supplied Source Templates and filled in the fields, then all the necessary details should be available.

[samhinch]

Hi Mike

Thanks for the welcome.

You are right, the media against the source for my split sources is fine, the ones I am now finding messy are the GRO or BMD records. I am using the template for civil registration index, and the title is just the "England and Wales Birth Registration Index" for example, rather than "England and Wales Birth Registration Index, John Smith, etc etc"

For the parish registers, by creating the new types, I now have source titles like this "Wiltshire, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1812 for Marriage of Thomas Alexander and Elizabeth Mills, St Michael and All Angels, Overton and Fyfield, Wiltshire, 3 June 1688" which is exactly what I am looking for, but doesn't seem to be supported by AS.

Census records end up like this:
"1901 England and Wales census, 8 Field Row, Belper, Derbyshire, Class: RG13; Piece: 3228; Folio: 87; Page: 26, head of household: Thomas Morley"

I will restructure my ramble into easier to answer questions :
1. How can I convert my split GRO sources into lumped sources, and move the media from the source to the citation?
2. Is it possible to achieve the same structure using AS as I have with my manual entry so far?

[tatewise]

1. The "Civil Registration Index" template is one of the few using Method 2 'lumper' technique which is why it has so many Citation specific Details. There should only be one Source record for the "England and Wales Birth Registration Index" with the specific details of each entry in the Citations. Many users do not bother with Media images for these because they add little or no information. There is usually only one Citation for each specific GRO Index entry.
   
   If you've created many Method 1 'splitter' Sources all with the same Title, then they will need to be merged in pairs using the Edit > Merge/Compare Record... command. The Media must be discarded or moved to each Citation by hand.
   
   You also mentioned BMD records, which I take to mean BMD Certificates. They should use the "Civil Registration Certificate" template, which is a Method 1 'splitter' technique because the Text From Source transcript and attached Media are better in the Source record than in multiple Citations.
   
   .
2. Yes, you must tell AS which template you are using and then that will get applied the same as you using it directly.
   In the AS Tools > Options > General settings, tick the Use Template Sources option, click the Help button and look under Source Templates for advice.

[samhinch]

Hi Mike, thanks for this explanation.

Quick update on what I chose to do following your advice.

I did the merging and discarding for my lumped GRO sources. I agree, I didn't really need the downloaded scans of those registers, so I've discarded them. Worked well, although my mouse is now feeling the strain from all that clicking!

Re: AS, thanks for pointing out that setting in AS. I gave it a whirl and did some test data entry, but I found that it didn't really make things any quicker for me when compared to the standard methods in FH7 with the data entry plugins. It also didn't construct my source titles in the same way, so I've decided it wasn't for me.

Thanks again for your advice.

[tatewise]

AS has many customisation options just like FH, so it can probably be adjusted to produce matching Source Titles.
One of its advantages is the consistent creation of the same type of Source Citations with consistent Titles, etc.
Certainly, the FH Source Templates offer some similar capabilities but I'm not sure they quite match AS yet.
Since the Titles are derived from the Source Template definitions of the Title Format, and AS and FH use the same Templates, then the differences must be down to the values entered into the metafields that contribute to the Titles. A review of those values that cause the differences may be revealing.

AS comes into its own for Sources that need a multitude of Citations. Census households are a prime example.
The speed of entry for Sources with fewer Citations is probably less significant.

However, everyone has their own preferred ways of working and there is no perfectly right way.