* Simple Citations Templates for Family Historian 7

Questions regarding use of any Version of Family Historian. Please ensure you have set your Version of Family Historian in your Profile
Post Reply
avatar
APerson
Diamond
Posts: 51
Joined: 19 Jan 2022 03:23
Family Historian: V7
Location: New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Simple Citations Templates for Family Historian 7

Post by APerson » 03 Aug 2022 19:50

I'm very excited to announce that after many months of tinkering and testing, templates that follow the Simple Citations model for documenting your sources have just been released! If you are not familiar with Simple Citations, I created it a long time ago to use with my own data. The model uses just three templates to document essentially everything.

The Simple Citations Templates may be download here.

A few of things to note:
  • The Simple Citations model was originally designed (more than ten years ago) to be used with RootsMagic.
  • If you wish to import data from RootsMagic, please note that while such data and the Simple Citations templates created by RootsMagic are recognized in FH, they do NOT import directly into the new Family Historian Simple Citations templates.
  • It is highly recommended that most users simply import existing files from RootsMagic into Family Historian and then install the new templates. (It is a very complex process to import the old RootsMagic templates into the new Family Historian ones; the new ones take advantage of features in FH that are not available in RM. Use the new templates only for new data.
I hope that these will help many users. I have used the model with my own data since its creation and have never had a need for any other templates. FYI, I'll soon be posting additional information on how to use the new templates.
Jeff La Marca

Want to cite your sources simply while maintaining accuracy?
Visit Simple Citations

avatar
LeslieP
Diamond
Posts: 62
Joined: 03 Jan 2021 16:38
Family Historian: V7

Re: Simple Citations Templates for Family Historian 7

Post by LeslieP » 06 Aug 2022 15:10

I'm so happy to see this! Your philosophy of Simple Citations makes so much sense to me.

Now I can get to work FINALLY cleaning up all of my sources that were at one time lovely in TMG and have been a complete mess throughout my time with RootsMagic.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!
Leslie P
Houston, TX
from TMG to RootsMagic to FH7
publish to web via TNG

avatar
APerson
Diamond
Posts: 51
Joined: 19 Jan 2022 03:23
Family Historian: V7
Location: New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Simple Citations Templates for Family Historian 7

Post by APerson » 07 Aug 2022 23:24

LeslieP wrote:
06 Aug 2022 15:10
I'm so happy to see this! Your philosophy of Simple Citations makes so much sense to me.

Now I can get to work FINALLY cleaning up all of my sources that were at one time lovely in TMG and have been a complete mess throughout my time with RootsMagic.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!
You're very welcome and thank you for your kind words! I've just added two (brief) pages on the Simple Citations site:

1. A "FAQs" page for the new Family Historian Templates, and

2. A page on Using the New Family Historian 7 Templates that explains how the new templates differ (slightly) from the ones that were created for RootsMagic.

I hope that the templates work well for you. My entire database has finally been converted to using them and it has made my own life a lot easier. I finally accomplished that just recently and is due entirely to the great design of Family Historian - that makes working with data so much easier! Additionally, entering data into them on FH7 is MUCH faster and more efficient that in RootsMagic. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks!
Jeff La Marca

Want to cite your sources simply while maintaining accuracy?
Visit Simple Citations

User avatar
fhtess65
Superstar
Posts: 265
Joined: 15 Feb 2018 21:34
Family Historian: V7
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Contact:

Re: Simple Citations Templates for Family Historian 7

Post by fhtess65 » 08 Aug 2022 00:02

APerson wrote:
07 Aug 2022 23:24

2. A page on Using the New Family Historian 7 Templates that explains how the new templates differ (slightly) from the ones that were created for RootsMagic.

I hope that the templates work well for you. My entire database has finally been converted to using them and it has made my own life a lot easier. I finally accomplished that just recently and is due entirely to the great design of Family Historian - that makes working with data so much easier!
Thanks!
Hi Jeff,

I just read through the Features page and am still not clear on your difference between the Repository (unique item) and Primary Repository. Currently I include both the physical repository where records are held and the online repository where they appear, if this is the case, such as Ancestry or FindMyPast. How does this usage translate to your SC template for non-traditional and census sources?

Thanks :)

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

avatar
APerson
Diamond
Posts: 51
Joined: 19 Jan 2022 03:23
Family Historian: V7
Location: New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Simple Citations Templates for Family Historian 7

Post by APerson » 08 Aug 2022 05:46

fhtess65 wrote:
08 Aug 2022 00:02

Hi Jeff,

I just read through the Features page and am still not clear on your difference between the Repository (unique item) and Primary Repository. Currently I include both the physical repository where records are held and the online repository where they appear, if this is the case, such as Ancestry or FindMyPast. How does this usage translate to your SC template for non-traditional and census sources?

Thanks :)

Teresa
Hi Teresa!

I was afraid that might be a bit confusing. Let me try again – if it’s not clear, I’ll keep trying!

Anyway, when I created Simple Citations, I was concerned (and still am) with the need for others who are examining your data (in whatever format it is presented) to be able to find the same sources again. For the most part, citations that use the “census” and “traditional” templates usually do not need to have anything included in either the “Repository (Unique Item)” or the “Primary Repository” fields (more on those fields in a moment).

Most census records are readily available from multiple sources – either online or from a library or other archive. Therefore, there isn’t a need to record anything pertaining to their location. As an example, here’s the completed template entry for the Bartholomew Crowley Family on the 1870 U.S. Census.
FH7_001.jpg
FH7_001.jpg (285.46 KiB) Viewed 713 times
The citation that results is:
United States, Census Bureau (8 July 1870). 1870 U.S. Census: Bartholomew Crowley Family. || p. 37. Henry Crowley. Millcreek Township, Erie County, Pennsylvania, United States; dwelling 268, family 279.
When you examine the above example and then the citation, you will notice that nothing was entered for either field - “Repository (Unique Item)” or “Primary Repository.” The reason is that the information provided in that actual citation should be more than sufficient to locate that same census record again (from Ancestry, MyHeritage, FamilySearch, the [United States] National Archives Administration [NARA} etc., etc.).

Now, let's take a look at a citation for a “traditional source” – e.g., book, magazine, periodical, etc. In this case, we’ll look at a book:
FH7_002.jpg
FH7_002.jpg (269.79 KiB) Viewed 713 times
The citation that results is:
Wright, F. Edward, compiler (1993). Berks County, Pennsylvania Church Records of the 18th Century: Volume 3. Westminster, Maryland: Family Line Publications || p. 91. Simon Riegel. Jefferson, Berks County, Pennsylvania, United States.
Notice that, once again, both the “Repository (Unique Item)” or “Primary Repository” fields are empty. They’re empty for the same reason as the first example – the information for this source (a book) is sufficient to locate it again, if not online, then through libraries (or even interlibrary loans).

For “splitters” who just need to enter something (Simple Citations, I believe, can’t really be classified as either the “lumper” approach or a “splitter” approach), may enter the repository (physical or other location) of the book in the “Primary Repository” field, but it is NOT required. Another way to make “splitters” happy may be to enter a DOI, ISBN, or call number in the “Misc. Ref. Num” field but again, that is NOT necessary.

The intent of Simple Citations has always been to provide just enough information to locate the source again.
I hope that’s clear – at least so far (if not, let me know).

Now the following explains the two fields - “Repository (Unique Item)” or “Primary Repository.” These fields are, probably, the only ones that have given me grief over the years.

So, for the first example, let’s look at the traditional template that was created for RootsMagic:
FH7_003.jpg
FH7_003.jpg (142.96 KiB) Viewed 713 times
The citation that results is:
Unknown (after 26 July 1918). "Obituary.": Unknown Publisher. || Elias S. Reigle. Hancock County, Ohio. Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com: accessed 29 January 2011).
Note that it was exactly this type of situation that caused me to create Simple Citations in the first place – how do we cite something that has no identifying information? Anyway, the example is for a newspaper clipping that someone posted on Ancestry.com, they did not state where they obtained it (or from whom), and there is no other identifying information. In order to cite it, something had to be done to allow others a chance in relocate it again. So, this is how I dealt with it:

1. The author/creator cannot be determined; therefore, in such cases, Simple Citations permits that “Author(s)/Editor(s)” to be listed as “Unknown” as the lead element (as this field is also required – hence, the “*”).

2. Simple Citations also requires a date to be provided but all that can be determined is that this obituary was created sometime after 26 July 1918 (the date of this individuals’ death, which was determined from other sources).

3. There is no title attached to the obituary, although it’s obvious as to what, exactly, it is so “Obituary” is listed as the “Title.”

4. The name of the newspaper (“Source/Book Title*”) is also a required field but, again, Simple Citations also permits “Unknown Publisher” to be listed under “Publisher*”).

Now that these problems have been identified and the required fields are completed, we can now look at the “Source Details” section.

Notice that we can complete most fields (none of which are required but which will greatly assist others in trying to find this rather mysterious source again). For the purposes of this discussion, the one we’re interested in is “Repository” (and remember that this is a RootsMagic example). As mentioned above, this “mystery” source was found on Ancestry.com and was posted there by someone else researching Elias S. Reigle. To document this in RootsMagic, we entered “Ancestry.com” into the “Repository” field.

(Continued on the next post in this thread.)
Last edited by APerson on 08 Aug 2022 06:04, edited 3 times in total.
Jeff La Marca

Want to cite your sources simply while maintaining accuracy?
Visit Simple Citations

avatar
APerson
Diamond
Posts: 51
Joined: 19 Jan 2022 03:23
Family Historian: V7
Location: New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Simple Citations Templates for Family Historian 7

Post by APerson » 08 Aug 2022 05:53

(Continued from previous post.)

Hopefully, that makes sense but now let’s look at the new FH7 “traditional” template for the exact same source.
FH7_004.jpg
FH7_004.jpg (250.93 KiB) Viewed 712 times

The citation that results is:
Unknown (after 26 July 1918). "Obituary," Unknown. Unknown Publisher || Elias S. Reigle. Hancock County, Ohio, United States. Ancestry.com, Inc. (http://www.ancestry.com: accessed 29 January 2011).
Notice that this is EXACTLY the same citation as generated by the RootsMagic Template, except that there are now two fields, instead of just one, for “Repository” – these are the “Repository (Unique Item)” and “Primary Repository” fields.
For now, let’s ignore the “Repository (Unique Item)” field (I’ll discuss that later). However, the “Primary Repository” field is now what the RootsMagic template refers to as “Repository” but with one big difference. FH7 allows templates to draw upon a “Repository” data table so that such information may be used throughout the program (I hope I’m explaining that clearly). As a result, unlike RootsMagic where this data had to be retyped every time a new citation was created, FH7 simply provides options to use existing data – which will save mountains of time!

Keeping my fingers crossed that’s clear – at least up to this point.

Now, let’s look at the FH7 “non-traditional” template. Generally speaking, the “Repository (Unique Item)” and “Primary Repository” fields do not have to be used for most census or traditional sources (unless you really want to). I have found, however, that many non-traditional sources (basically, everything that not a census record or source that is found in “normal” reference lists/bibliographies) need something to let your readers know how to find sources again.

As an example, let’s examine a very unique, one-of-a-kind source. Indeed, it’s one of my most prized genealogical possessions – my great-grandfather’s actual Naturalization Certificate in which he, along with his entire family (including my grandfather) became citizens of the United States. No other copies of this are known (or are likely) to exist. Let’s take a look now at the non-traditional template:
FH7_005.jpg
FH7_005.jpg (246.26 KiB) Viewed 712 times
The citation that results is:
United States of America, Supreme Court of Chautauqua County (3 December 1915). Certificate of Naturalization: Raimondo La Marca Family || Raimondo La Marca. Jamestown, Chautauqua County, New York, United States. Privately held by Jeffry La Marca. cert. 646169, vol. 1, no. 246.
Once more, this is exactly the same citation as generated by RootsMagic, except that when entering data into two fields - “Repository (Unique Item)” and “Primary Repository” and not one. Here’s why:

As noted, this is a very unique source that no one is likely to find or obtain anywhere else (because I have the only copy in my possession). So, starting with the “Primary Repository” field, I list my own name (and additional information about me is stored on the internal repository table).

So, what’s the “Primary Repository (Unique Item)” field? I mentioned above that this is a field that has always given me grief, but it’s always been there. In RootsMagic, one had to enter the following into the “Repository” field as follows:
Privately held by Jeffry La Marca.
This is exactly what appears in the citation and tells readers that I own the only known copy. That’s the only way they know that this source is not available anywhere else (and might spar them decades of futile searches for it.
However, as I explained above, the “Primary Repository” field in FH7 has replaced the RootsMagic “Repository” field in order to make data entry much faster. That, however, now presents another problem (ugh) – the qualifying statements “Privately held by” (when I own the only copy) or “Copy in possession of” (which is used if you or someone else only has a copy and the original doesn’t exist or can't be obtained again. As an example, I have a photocopy of a poorly typed transcript diary that someone sent me but the original no longer exists as it was destroyed in a fire during the 1960s). Thus, the “Repository (Unique Item)” field is ONLY used to include those two qualifier statements.

It would have been very nice to have avoided that field altogether and to have been able to include two “radio buttons” instead but I don’t believe that’s possible (yet) with FH7.

Finally (whew, this is a LONG post!), in response to where to include physical vs. online repositories, I generally only list the place where I actually viewed (and, hopefully, copied) the source. Although in most cases, repositories need only be listed when absolutely needed, I don’t think that there’s anything wrong in listing one via the templates. While Simple Citations wasn’t designed specifically for either “lumpers” or “splitters” – it’s more of a “minimalist” design to include only essential information. I’m afraid I do have some personal “splitter” tendencies and have had to guard against them when I created the approach – the only place that’s really evident, I think, is on the “Household ID” field on the census template.

I hope this explains things – I’ve struggled with this one issue, a LOT!
Jeff La Marca

Want to cite your sources simply while maintaining accuracy?
Visit Simple Citations

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 24655
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Simple Citations Templates for Family Historian 7

Post by tatewise » 08 Aug 2022 09:52

Jeff, maybe I'm missing something, but why not name your personal private collection Repository record such as:
Private collection of Jeffry La Marca

The Family Historian Sample Project has a similar Repository called Collection of Nigel Munro

Then there is no need for a Repository (Unique Item) which is apparently only used in that very rare scenario.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
fhtess65
Superstar
Posts: 265
Joined: 15 Feb 2018 21:34
Family Historian: V7
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Contact:

Re: Simple Citations Templates for Family Historian 7

Post by fhtess65 » 08 Aug 2022 14:55

Sorry, Jeff, don't mean to sound thick, but it's not clear to me, especially as you're using US examples and the majority of my records are English/Scottish/Irish/Polish/Canadian.

For example, I cite a LOT of baptism records (parish records and bishop's transcripts) and always include the original repository location, as well as the digital one. It's absolutely necessary as I've discovered errors in the info included in source material given by Ancestry, FindMyPast, and FamilySearch. If the digital archives no longer exist in the future, hopefully the physical ones will, and the person searching will have the correct information. Even if the archive has changed its filing system, the catalogue will include a former number.

See example below - hopefully it will illustrate my use of original repository and digital one. How would the fields I use correspond with those you have on your template?
ParishRegBaptism-example-FH7-sml.jpg
ParishRegBaptism-example-FH7-sml.jpg (323.83 KiB) Viewed 643 times
APerson wrote:
08 Aug 2022 05:46
Hi Teresa!

I was afraid that might be a bit confusing. Let me try again – if it’s not clear, I’ll keep trying!

Anyway, when I created Simple Citations, I was concerned (and still am) with the need for others who are examining your data (in whatever format it is presented) to be able to find the same sources again. For the most part, citations that use the “census” and “traditional” templates usually do not need to have anything included in either the “Repository (Unique Item)” or the “Primary Repository” fields (more on those fields in a moment).
---
Teresa Basińska Eckford
Librarian & family historian
http://writingmypast.wordpress.com

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 24655
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Simple Citations Templates for Family Historian 7

Post by tatewise » 08 Aug 2022 15:40

Teresa, I don't know if this will help, but this is my interpretation/explanation for Jeff's two fields.
Repository (Unique Item) is optional plain text that is prefixed before Primary Repository in the Footnote.
Primary Repository is the linked Repository record and appears in the Footnote.

Your Source Template involves many more fields such as Repository, URL, Online Repository, Original Repository Location, etc, that are in the Source Record as opposed to Citation-specific, so it would be next to impossible to map them onto the Simple Citations Template.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

avatar
APerson
Diamond
Posts: 51
Joined: 19 Jan 2022 03:23
Family Historian: V7
Location: New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Simple Citations Templates for Family Historian 7

Post by APerson » 08 Aug 2022 17:04

Hi Teresa and Mike,

Mike's explanation is a good one (and far more parsimonious that mine). His description of the relationship between the "Repository (Unique Item)" and "the "Repository" fields is correct.

He's also correct about the issues pertaining to the number of fields - you won't find a one-to-one correspondence between many of those on your example and those on Simple Citations templates. I believe that this is because of the different approaches each template (the one you used and Simple Citations). It appears as if the one you provided has been adapted from the FH7 "Essentials" template, "Church Register." Given the amount of information in it, that template has a lot of "splitter" tendencies and the additional fields, not included (as far as I can tell) in the original Essentials "Church Records" templates, makes it even more so. Given that you are citing a baptismal record, you would use the "non-traditional" template in Simple Citations.

In order for me to create a citation, I tried to find the same source online - I found Sarah Blundell Hill on Family Search, but that only referred to an "extracted IGI record" (which I have absolutely no faith in - especially because it's what I would call a "secondary source", and that links to a transcription of the IGI record but doesn't include the actual source. I also searched other sites (Ancestry, FamilySearch, and MyHeritage) but couldn't find the actual document. Unfortunately, it appears as if you obtained it from Ancestry.ca and I don't currently pay for the version to search International Records (the cost in astronomical, especially for my current lines of research. I also made a cursory attempt to search for it on the Surrey History Centre web site but didn't have any success.


The Simple Citations model, however, doesn't use either a splitter or a lumper approach. Rather, it was designed for things that are only essential to find the same source again. Therefore, many of the "splitter" fields would not be included in the actual citation, although those details could certainly be provided in the notes. I'm also going to presume that the correct church is St Mary's Church, Wimbleton. Assuming that I have interpreted the information in your example correctly, the Simple Citations template and citation would be:
FH7_006.jpg
FH7_006.jpg (247.01 KiB) Viewed 610 times
The citation that results is:
Church of England, St. Mary's Church, Wimbleton (27 December 1863). Parish Records (1560-1977): Sarah Blundell Hill || Merton, Wimbleton, Surrey, England. Ancestry.com, Inc. (http://www.ancestry.ca: accessed 12 June 1922).
The information from the remaining fields in the template you used would either be included in your notes or in the fields pertaining to the fact/event that you're documenting. BTW, was the file really "accessed" in 1922 or did you mean 2022?

Let me know if this helps!
Last edited by APerson on 08 Aug 2022 18:12, edited 2 times in total.
Jeff La Marca

Want to cite your sources simply while maintaining accuracy?
Visit Simple Citations

avatar
APerson
Diamond
Posts: 51
Joined: 19 Jan 2022 03:23
Family Historian: V7
Location: New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Simple Citations Templates for Family Historian 7

Post by APerson » 08 Aug 2022 17:43

tatewise wrote:
08 Aug 2022 09:52
Jeff, maybe I'm missing something, but why not name your personal private collection Repository record such as:
Private collection of Jeffry La Marca

The Family Historian Sample Project has a similar Repository called Collection of Nigel Munro

Then there is no need for a Repository (Unique Item) which is apparently only used in that very rare scenario.
Hi Mike,

Great question! I just looked at the example you provided from the Family Historian Sample Project and see what you mean as including Collection of might be another way to deal with the situation. However, it also raises a couple of other issues:

1. Currently, there are two phrases that the "Repository (Unique Item)" may use: "Privately held by" and "Copy in possession of" Using the example I gave earlier; I actually have my great-grandfather's naturalization papers. Therefore, the combined Repository (Unique Item) and "Primary Repository" fields produce Privately held by Jeffry La Marca. (Your example phrase, "Collection of," also works and also includes four fewer characters/spaces, which I like.)

2. But what if I have a copy of a very unique document, that is actually owned by someone else and what if that is a is also a copy of a document or transcription that is now lost or perhaps destroyed? What if the original no longer exists? Perhaps the person who had the original document has passed on and the document was tossed out by unsuspecting heirs? In such cases, I don't have the original (or it's now lost/gone), so the phrase that the Repository (Unique Item) field would need to use is "Copy in possession of"; that would output as Copy in possession of Jeffry La Marca.

So, in order to address both situations, your suggestion would work but two different repositories would need to be listed for me in order to distinguish between if I had the original or just a copy. Using the approach that currently exists in the FH7 template, additional typing is needed in the Repository (Unique Item) (which I don't like) but then only one repository (for me) is required.

Of course, I'm open to suggestions. As I mentioned, I've really struggled with this a lot as so many very unique and one-of-a-kind sources exist.

Thanks!
Jeff La Marca

Want to cite your sources simply while maintaining accuracy?
Visit Simple Citations

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 24655
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Simple Citations Templates for Family Historian 7

Post by tatewise » 08 Aug 2022 19:24

To cater for the presumably rare case of holding a document copy where the original no longer exists, could another field convey the fact that it is a copy? Then there only need be one Repository.
e.g. the Source Description or perhaps Misc. Ref. Num. could say Copy of ...

You claim that "The Simple Citations model, however, doesn't use either a splitter or a lumper approach."
However, your definition of splitter and lumper appears to be different from the FHUG Knowledge Base definition in Citing Sources: Method 1 and Method 2 where the Method 1/Splitter model has "little or no data in the Citation". So the Citation-specific details would be empty which does not work with your model. To me, your model is a lumper approach.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

avatar
Jean001
Gold
Posts: 29
Joined: 03 Mar 2021 11:49
Family Historian: V7

Re: Simple Citations Templates for Family Historian 7

Post by Jean001 » 08 Aug 2022 21:31

I have a number of 'document copies'. Information as to the possessor (at the time of my making the copy) is annotated on the document copy. In FH I record that information in the source record. The Repository records me as the holder of the document copy.

In several cases, I no longer know who has the original, nor even if it still exists.
Jean

User avatar
fhtess65
Superstar
Posts: 265
Joined: 15 Feb 2018 21:34
Family Historian: V7
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Contact:

Re: Simple Citations Templates for Family Historian 7

Post by fhtess65 » 09 Aug 2022 15:11

Thanks, Mike - now I get it...

And yes, you're correct - there's really no way to map what I do into the SC template, at least not for what Jeff terms "non-traditional" sources.

Teresa :)
tatewise wrote:
08 Aug 2022 15:40
Teresa, I don't know if this will help, but this is my interpretation/explanation for Jeff's two fields.
Repository (Unique Item) is optional plain text that is prefixed before Primary Repository in the Footnote.
Primary Repository is the linked Repository record and appears in the Footnote.

Your Source Template involves many more fields such as Repository, URL, Online Repository, Original Repository Location, etc, that are in the Source Record as opposed to Citation-specific, so it would be next to impossible to map them onto the Simple Citations Template.
---
Teresa Basińska Eckford
Librarian & family historian
http://writingmypast.wordpress.com

User avatar
fhtess65
Superstar
Posts: 265
Joined: 15 Feb 2018 21:34
Family Historian: V7
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Contact:

Re: Simple Citations Templates for Family Historian 7

Post by fhtess65 » 09 Aug 2022 15:18

Thanks, Jeff - I get it now. Overall I can see now that at least for the "non-traditional" sources, your template won't work as is, though I could edit it to do so, which, of course, defeats the "simple" aspect!

OTOH, for the traditional sources it's perfect - I used it just the other day to cite pages from a book my cousin sent to me :)

I haven't tried the census yet - will see how it lines up with English/Canadian census fields.

As far as I can see, at least for Sarah Hills' baptism, the access date is correct a 2022...not that it's unusual for me to make that error as I spend a lot of time in the past these days!!!

Thanks again for all your input :) Were I just starting out, I might adapt your method 100%, but given where I am now, it won't work, at least not for all my sources. For some, however, I can see me using your templates :) And I'll definitely let people know about them, especially those new to genealogy and citation.

Teresa

APerson wrote:
08 Aug 2022 17:04
Hi Teresa and Mike,

Mike's explanation is a good one (and far more parsimonious that mine). His description of the relationship between the "Repository (Unique Item)" and "the "Repository" fields is correct.

He's also correct about the issues pertaining to the number of fields - you won't find a one-to-one correspondence between many of those on your example and those on Simple Citations templates. I believe that this is because of the different approaches each template (the one you used and Simple Citations). It appears as if the one you provided has been adapted from the FH7 "Essentials" template, "Church Register." Given the amount of information in it, that template has a lot of "splitter" tendencies and the additional fields, not included (as far as I can tell) in the original Essentials "Church Records" templates, makes it even more so. Given that you are citing a baptismal record, you would use the "non-traditional" template in Simple Citations.


The information from the remaining fields in the template you used would either be included in your notes or in the fields pertaining to the fact/event that you're documenting. BTW, was the file really "accessed" in 1922 or did you mean 2022?

Let me know if this helps!
---
Teresa Basińska Eckford
Librarian & family historian
http://writingmypast.wordpress.com

avatar
APerson
Diamond
Posts: 51
Joined: 19 Jan 2022 03:23
Family Historian: V7
Location: New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Simple Citations Templates for Family Historian 7

Post by APerson » 09 Aug 2022 21:15

tatewise wrote:
08 Aug 2022 19:24
To me, your model is a lumper approach.
Hi Mike,

That’s interesting. I suspect that the approach may lean towards the lumper approach. When I created the model, I really tried to start from scratch - as much as was feasibly possibly. My goal was to identify the most salient components needed for others to find a source again - I kinda/sorta/maybe tried to think of the task as conducting a factor analysis but with subjecting anything to genuine statistical procedures.

The FH7 definitions you linked to are also very interesting. There are so many definitions of trying to identify if someone is a splitter or a lumper. I’ve also thought that, perhaps, the best way to start a fight at a genealogy conference is to raise the question, Which is superior, splitting or lumping?” :lol:

Anyway, thanks for the feedback, I’m always interested in what others think.
Jeff La Marca

Want to cite your sources simply while maintaining accuracy?
Visit Simple Citations

avatar
APerson
Diamond
Posts: 51
Joined: 19 Jan 2022 03:23
Family Historian: V7
Location: New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Simple Citations Templates for Family Historian 7

Post by APerson » 09 Aug 2022 21:59

fhtess65 wrote:
09 Aug 2022 15:18
Thanks, Jeff - I get it now. Overall I can see now that at least for the "non-traditional" sources, your template won't work as is, though I could edit it to do so, which, of course, defeats the "simple" aspect!

OTOH, for the traditional sources it's perfect - I used it just the other day to cite pages from a book my cousin sent to me :)

I haven't tried the census yet - will see how it lines up with English/Canadian census fields.

As far as I can see, at least for Sarah Hills' baptism, the access date is correct a 2022...not that it's unusual for me to make that error as I spend a lot of time in the past these days!!!

Thanks again for all your input :) Were I just starting out, I might adapt your method 100%, but given where I am now, it won't work, at least not for all my sources. For some, however, I can see me using your templates :) And I'll definitely let people know about them, especially those new to genealogy and citation.

Teresa
Hi Teresa,

I’m so glad things worked out! Feel free to adapt the templates for your own needs. After all, I created the approach just for my own use but, after I started using it, was very happy with the results so I shared it with others.

I’m very happy the traditional template works for you, and hope the census template works too.

Not to worry about the date! LOL that’s a REALLY EASY error to make!

I’m sure I posted this elsewhere but I created Simple Citations about 11-12 years ago, although I’ve worked on my family history since the Pleistocene era (1970s) - LOL. I’ve used it exclusively ever since and my goal was to convert all of my existing citations - many of which were originally created during the late 1980s (when home computers made recording our data practical). Over the past 11-12 years, I have spent enormous amounts of time trying to covert my entire RootsMagic database to use Simple Citations. However, it wasn’t until I started using FH7, in January of this year, that I was able to complete that project - I immediately fell in love with FH7, for that reason alone! I’m able to work SIGNIFICANTLY faster and more accurately with FH7! With that in mind, it would still be a major task for anyone wishing to convert existing data to use new templates. (I’m just REALLY NEUROTIC) about my own data. LOL!)

Anyway, good luck and let me know if you have any other questions!
Jeff La Marca

Want to cite your sources simply while maintaining accuracy?
Visit Simple Citations

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 24655
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Simple Citations Templates for Family Historian 7

Post by tatewise » 10 Aug 2022 09:26

IMO, you should consider two forms of Simple Citation Template for FH.

The current template is very much a Simple Citations Lumper Template because so many details are in the Citation.
In FH if there are multiple identical Citations derived from one Source there will be multiple copies of a lot of details.

The alternative form would be a Simple Citations Splitter Template with all the details in the Source Record section.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
LornaCraig
Megastar
Posts: 2560
Joined: 11 Jan 2005 17:36
Family Historian: V7
Location: Oxfordshire, UK

Re: Simple Citations Templates for Family Historian 7

Post by LornaCraig » 10 Aug 2022 09:47

APerson wrote:
08 Aug 2022 17:04
BTW, was the file really "accessed" in 1922 or did you mean 2022?
Not to worry about the date! LOL that’s a REALLY EASY error to make!
Jeff, In Tess's defence she didn't make a mistake.
In the screenshot of her source record the Access date is shown as 11 Jun 2022.
It's only in your screenshot of your reconstruction of her source using your template that the date shown as 11Jun 1922. :D
Lorna

User avatar
fhtess65
Superstar
Posts: 265
Joined: 15 Feb 2018 21:34
Family Historian: V7
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Contact:

Re: Simple Citations Templates for Family Historian 7

Post by fhtess65 » 10 Aug 2022 15:56

APerson wrote:
09 Aug 2022 21:59
<SNIP> Over the past 11-12 years, I have spent enormous amounts of time trying to covert my entire RootsMagic database to use Simple Citations. However, it wasn’t until I started using FH7, in January of this year, that I was able to complete that project - I immediately fell in love with FH7, for that reason alone! I’m able to work SIGNIFICANTLY faster and more accurately with FH7! With that in mind, it would still be a major task for anyone wishing to convert existing data to use new templates. (I’m just REALLY NEUROTIC) about my own data. LOL!)

Anyway, good luck and let me know if you have any other questions!
I too moved from RM to FH earlier this year after using FH for several smaller projects as a test. Like you I find data entry far, far easier and overall FH works better for me than any other family tree software I've used (FTM, Legacy, RM)...I'm slowly creating new citations for all facts as I work on various people - tree is a bit of a mish-mash, but at least the information is all there and backed up frequently.

Thanks again for sharing your templates :)

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

Post Reply