Sources and linking media


Heather Williams
 

Hi,

I hardly know where to begin as I have found I am in a complete muddle with sources. I am embarrassed to say I have been using Family Historian from the very beginning but have never got to grips with all the functions, some of which seem rather techie. I am now in a position to make sure my tree is in a fit state to pass on to family members but I find I have made some mistakes in entering sources and I can't work out how to rectify that.

I have FHv6 and basically I have used the programme like a database and I have 2290 families and 7489 individuals. Over the years I have added media and can do that ok and link faces on photos etc. I have also added sources BUT I made one general source for each census and events such as "birth", "marriage" and "death". Every time I entered a birth. for example, I added it from the source list and did not make a new source for each individual. This means I now have 152 citations under "birth".

I didn't hit a snag until I decided it was time to link all my media to the sources for everyone. All seemed ok until I checked on the show media link within the source pane and it showed the very last media I had linked in that category and not the media for that person. The media tab itself on the record does contain all the correct media.

Is there any hope of me correcting this or do I have to delete all my sources? I am not sure I can start again. I know I have to go through and unlink all the wrong media and I am not sure how to do that either. Any help would be greatly appreciated.


Heather


Mike Tate
 

Hi Heather,

One thing did strike me as odd.

You say you have 7489 Individuals and presumably they were all born.

Yet your Birth source has only 152 Citations and not 7489?

 

Anyway, you need to make some crucial decisions about how to rationalise your Source Citations.

 

It seems you have correctly linked photos of people to the Individual record Media tab.

 

Now you need to decide where to link the Media images of documents and other Source Citation details.

The question they need to answer is “How do I know this fact happened to this person on this date in this place?”

e.g. How do I know the birth of John Smith happened on 1st April 1900 in London?

 

Also, what about the other information on say a Birth Certificate such as the parents’ names, addresses and occupations.

Do you want to add Citations for those facts as well?

 

One option is to add those Media images and other details to each Citation.

That is what many FH users call Method 2 ‘lumped’ Source Citations.

 

The other option is to create a separate Source for each document and Titled to describe that document.

Then the Media image, a transcript, references numbers, etc, can all be added to that Source record.

The Citations would simply link each derived fact to that Source record but contain very little information.

That is what many FH users call Method 1 ‘splitter’ Source Citations.

 

There is a companion program called Ancestral Sources that streamlines the creation of Source Citations.

 

The FHUG Knowledge base has advice for ‘Citing Sources: Method 1 and Method 2’

https://fhug.org.uk/kb/kb-article/citing-sources-method-1-and-method-2/

I suggest you study the options and decide what path to take.

Then we can advise how best to follow that path.

 

Mike Tate

 


Heather Williams
 

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly Mike. I will definitely read up about the different methods of adding sources and I will get back to you.

Just to explain how I got to this stage with so few birth sources, when I started my tree many years ago I learnt how to input enough data to create the family records and I always intended learning how to add sources but somehow time went on and I hadn't done that. Eventually I thjought I would add media and link photos etc. and I didn't have any problems. When I finally looked into sources, a long time ago now, I did consider using AS but at that time I think I was confused by what to put in which field and I decided I preferred to just carry on inputting everything person by person.

For the next few years I added a source when I had one (e.g. a certificate) and sometimes I just added a note to say where I had found a particular record or what the census reference was. Over the years I bought certificates and so much more information was made available over the Internet that could be downloaded so I started a tree on Ancestry with the idea I would only add people to that as I verified them and amassed the census entries etc. I am well aware I should have been adding sources as I went but I often felt truly overwhelmed.

I am pleased to find I hadn't gone completely wrong by having blanket sources for each census etc. I guess I must have read that from the instruction manual at the time. I will reserve final judgement until I have followed the link you sent me. It would be great if I didn't have to delete too much and could rescue my media/source lniks.

Thank you for your offer to help once I know more about sources.
Heather


Geoff Johnson
 

I've got a T shirt for this one too!
Personal factors come in here.  Some users seem to not worry about sources at all or, if they do, their system is often inconsistent.  That’s the way I started.

I define it this way.  Sources are meant to be where the information came from, whereas Citations should define how and in what way the source is relevant to the topic in question.

Commonly a source might be Find My Past Census records.  The Citation might be HO 107 Piece 7 Bk1 Fol 3 p2

But that’s hard work!  And the most important thing is that neither identify who it’s about!

You know what you’ve found is available in one of several sources of census data.  But the key thing is who it is you’re interested in.  In this case my combined Citation AND Source example is `Joseph Peacock b1742 1841 Bolnhurst HO 107 Piece 7 Bk1 Fol 3 p2

 

So, to that end, I prefer to keep both Citation and Source stuff, both information and images, the same.  Occasionally a less frequent type of source may be a bit unusual.  Typically:

·         a gravestone or graveyard book entry, a letter dd/mm/yy from `Aunty Florence’, TNA WW2 Officers record etc.

 

Obviously, such Sources may need to be more specific.  However, I don’t believe in `sourcing’ what is just bog-standard data from Parish records or Censuses.  I just `cite’ what I have found, and keep that the same for the source.
Consistency

As I’ve said, since I started my research a couple of decades ago my source referencing had been totally inconsistent!    So, a couple of years ago I changed my ways.  Now, pinned to the wall in front of my desk, I have, a standard aide-memoir notice that reads (see also attached Jpeg):

File Entry Format - for Family History Sources
Name > Birth Year > Type > Location > Event Date

Folder Types:  •  Baptism  ‬• Marriage • Death •  Burial • Other Docs

 

I’ve been following that practice as religiously as possible; continually making amendments to the `old stuff’.  The benefits are slowly becoming apparent, and life is getting more consistent.  The practice definitely helps.

 

I also keep the citation text the same as the file name for the image.

For example: suppose I obtain a baptism image.  I give it a filename as per format on my notice.  I select and copy that same filename to clipboard.  Move to the right place in FH and create the `fact’ entry as a baptism entry.  Then create the source by pasting the same filename.  I can then `Add media for the Citation’ by the following process.
Adding Images

In Family Historian, if you add an image in the Fact/Citation area it doesn’t appear in the Source Pane area.  I advise that you always add images to the `lower’ Source box first: they then automatically appear as a Citation.
There are complications in V7 that upset my method.  For me it's necessary to always opt to `Add New Generic Source'.  I haven't got my head around Source Templates yet and feel I'm unlikely to change now!
Geoff Johnson


Paul Sillitoe
 

As a newcomer to FH  but not to referencing primary sources, I'm not able to see how the distinction is being drawn between sources and citations in FH.

To my mind, the source is the evidential record upon which interpretations are made. References to such records need to be as granular and unambiguous as is necessary for readers to be able to find the same source.

In the context of family history sources such as are being discussed here, it would seem that the reference to source level needs to go down to at least the page, or individual item record if possible. That is the source. Hopefully, it is a physical record or a digital image. If it is a transcription or other non-original abstract or copy, that needs to be clearly stated.

The citation, then, is the form of words in which the reference to the source is written, using a standard syntax or style. Published papers will normally specify such a style APA, Chicago, etc. Perhaps such a standard form.is specified in FH, but this thread seems to indicate either that it is not specified, or is not widely known. 

Best to all

Paul Sillitoe




Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone but not so smart as to usefully auto-correct the typos from my large fingers 🙂


-------- Original message --------
From: Geoff Johnson <geoff@...>
Date: 27/02/2021 12:20 (GMT+00:00)
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Sources and linking media

I've got a T shirt for this one too!
Personal factors come in here.  Some users seem to not worry about sources at all or, if they do, their system is often inconsistent.  That’s the way I started.

I define it this way.  Sources are meant to be where the information came from, whereas Citations should define how and in what way the source is relevant to the topic in question.

Commonly a source might be Find My Past Census records.  The Citation might be HO 107 Piece 7 Bk1 Fol 3 p2

But that’s hard work!  And the most important thing is that neither identify who it’s about!

You know what you’ve found is available in one of several sources of census data.  But the key thing is who it is you’re interested in.  In this case my combined Citation AND Source example is `Joseph Peacock b1742 1841 Bolnhurst HO 107 Piece 7 Bk1 Fol 3 p2

 

So, to that end, I prefer to keep both Citation and Source stuff, both information and images, the same.  Occasionally a less frequent type of source may be a bit unusual.  Typically:

·         a gravestone or graveyard book entry, a letter dd/mm/yy from `Aunty Florence’, TNA WW2 Officers record etc.

 

Obviously, such Sources may need to be more specific.  However, I don’t believe in `sourcing’ what is just bog-standard data from Parish records or Censuses.  I just `cite’ what I have found, and keep that the same for the source.
Consistency

As I’ve said, since I started my research a couple of decades ago my source referencing had been totally inconsistent!    So, a couple of years ago I changed my ways.  Now, pinned to the wall in front of my desk, I have, a standard aide-memoir notice that reads (see also attached Jpeg):

File Entry Format - for Family History Sources
Name > Birth Year > Type > Location > Event Date

Folder Types:  •  Baptism  ‬• Marriage • Death •  Burial • Other Docs

 

I’ve been following that practice as religiously as possible; continually making amendments to the `old stuff’.  The benefits are slowly becoming apparent, and life is getting more consistent.  The practice definitely helps.

 

I also keep the citation text the same as the file name for the image.

For example: suppose I obtain a baptism image.  I give it a filename as per format on my notice.  I select and copy that same filename to clipboard.  Move to the right place in FH and create the `fact’ entry as a baptism entry.  Then create the source by pasting the same filename.  I can then `Add media for the Citation’ by the following process.
Adding Images

In Family Historian, if you add an image in the Fact/Citation area it doesn’t appear in the Source Pane area.  I advise that you always add images to the `lower’ Source box first: they then automatically appear as a Citation.
There are complications in V7 that upset my method.  For me it's necessary to always opt to `Add New Generic Source'.  I haven't got my head around Source Templates yet and feel I'm unlikely to change now!
Geoff Johnson


Mike Tate
 

Hi Geoff,

Certainly, consistency is an important consideration for Source Citations.

 

I was fascinated that your description focusses on Census records yet your aide-memoir notice does not mention Census.

 

You say “if you add an image in the Fact/Citation area it doesn’t appear in the Source Pane area”.

Indeed, images added directly to Facts do not appear in any Source area, but do appear elsewhere.

Images added to Citations most definitely do appear alongside images added to Source records.

They can be accessed via the ‘Show Media’ button in both the Facts tab and the yellow Sources For pane.

They appear in the ‘Sources’ section in Reports.

 

Mike Tate

 


colevalleygirl@colevalleygirl.co.uk
 

A source is a historical record – the source of some information. As you say, it needs to be clearly and unambiguously identified.

 

A citation is a link from a fact/assertion to a source. It may have additional information associated with it (‘where within source’, ‘assessment’ etc.)

 

How much information goes into the source record versus citation depends on whether you’re a lumper or a splitter., as described at https://fhug.org.uk/kb/kb-article/citing-sources-method-1-and-method-2/

 

As a newcomer to FH you may find https://fhug.org.uk/kb/kb-article/sources-and-citations-in-version-7-for-new-users/ useful.

 

V7 has source templates which can be used to structure how sources are identified and also references to sources/citations in footnotes, bibliographies etc.  There are two sets provided (the Essential collection based on work at Strathclyde University) and the Advance collection (based on Elizabeth Shown Mills work). You can also define your own templates.

 

Of course, some people have ways of working that diverge from the above.

 

 

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Paul Sillitoe
Sent: 27 February 2021 12:51
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Sources and linking media

 

As a newcomer to FH  but not to referencing primary sources, I'm not able to see how the distinction is being drawn between sources and citations in FH.

 

To my mind, the source is the evidential record upon which interpretations are made. References to such records need to be as granular and unambiguous as is necessary for readers to be able to find the same source.

 

In the context of family history sources such as are being discussed here, it would seem that the reference to source level needs to go down to at least the page, or individual item record if possible. That is the source. Hopefully, it is a physical record or a digital image. If it is a transcription or other non-original abstract or copy, that needs to be clearly stated.

 

The citation, then, is the form of words in which the reference to the source is written, using a standard syntax or style. Published papers will normally specify such a style APA, Chicago, etc. Perhaps such a standard form.is specified in FH, but this thread seems to indicate either that it is not specified, or is not widely known. 

 

Best to all

 

Paul Sillitoe

 


Paul Sillitoe
 

Thank you, CVG
 Where does the oft-cited Ancestral Sources fit in, please?

Best

Paul



Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone but not so smart as to usefully auto-correct the typos from my large fingers 🙂


-------- Original message --------
From: colevalleygirl@...
Date: 27/02/2021 13:05 (GMT+00:00)
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Sources and linking media

A source is a historical record – the source of some information. As you say, it needs to be clearly and unambiguously identified.

 

A citation is a link from a fact/assertion to a source. It may have additional information associated with it (‘where within source’, ‘assessment’ etc.)

 

How much information goes into the source record versus citation depends on whether you’re a lumper or a splitter., as described at https://fhug.org.uk/kb/kb-article/citing-sources-method-1-and-method-2/

 

As a newcomer to FH you may find https://fhug.org.uk/kb/kb-article/sources-and-citations-in-version-7-for-new-users/ useful.

 

V7 has source templates which can be used to structure how sources are identified and also references to sources/citations in footnotes, bibliographies etc.  There are two sets provided (the Essential collection based on work at Strathclyde University) and the Advance collection (based on Elizabeth Shown Mills work). You can also define your own templates.

 

Of course, some people have ways of working that diverge from the above.

 

 

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Paul Sillitoe
Sent: 27 February 2021 12:51
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Sources and linking media

 

As a newcomer to FH  but not to referencing primary sources, I'm not able to see how the distinction is being drawn between sources and citations in FH.

 

To my mind, the source is the evidential record upon which interpretations are made. References to such records need to be as granular and unambiguous as is necessary for readers to be able to find the same source.

 

In the context of family history sources such as are being discussed here, it would seem that the reference to source level needs to go down to at least the page, or individual item record if possible. That is the source. Hopefully, it is a physical record or a digital image. If it is a transcription or other non-original abstract or copy, that needs to be clearly stated.

 

The citation, then, is the form of words in which the reference to the source is written, using a standard syntax or style. Published papers will normally specify such a style APA, Chicago, etc. Perhaps such a standard form.is specified in FH, but this thread seems to indicate either that it is not specified, or is not widely known. 

 

Best to all

 

Paul Sillitoe

 


colevalleygirl@colevalleygirl.co.uk
 

Ancestral Sources is a companion program for FH that helps to create sources and also the facts derived from them (for common source types e.g. BBMDB and Census). It works with V7 and can use generic or templated sources. More at https://fhug.org.uk/kb/kb-article/ancestral-sources/

 

V7 also has Data Entry Assistants (DEAs) which start from a source you’ve already prepared a citation to and creates the facts derived form that source. They’re not as mature as AS, but are worth investigating; I’m working as fast as I can to write them for common source types...

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Paul Sillitoe
Sent: 27 February 2021 13:13
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Sources and linking media

 

Thank you, CVG

 Where does the oft-cited Ancestral Sources fit in, please?

 

Best

 

Paul

 

 

 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone but not so smart as to usefully auto-correct the typos from my large fingers 🙂

 

 

-------- Original message --------

Date: 27/02/2021 13:05 (GMT+00:00)

Subject: Re: [family-historian] Sources and linking media

 

A source is a historical record – the source of some information. As you say, it needs to be clearly and unambiguously identified.

 

A citation is a link from a fact/assertion to a source. It may have additional information associated with it (‘where within source’, ‘assessment’ etc.)

 

How much information goes into the source record versus citation depends on whether you’re a lumper or a splitter., as described at https://fhug.org.uk/kb/kb-article/citing-sources-method-1-and-method-2/

 

As a newcomer to FH you may find https://fhug.org.uk/kb/kb-article/sources-and-citations-in-version-7-for-new-users/ useful.

 

V7 has source templates which can be used to structure how sources are identified and also references to sources/citations in footnotes, bibliographies etc.  There are two sets provided (the Essential collection based on work at Strathclyde University) and the Advance collection (based on Elizabeth Shown Mills work). You can also define your own templates.

 

Of course, some people have ways of working that diverge from the above.

 

 

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Paul Sillitoe
Sent: 27 February 2021 12:51
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Sources and linking media

 

As a newcomer to FH  but not to referencing primary sources, I'm not able to see how the distinction is being drawn between sources and citations in FH.

 

To my mind, the source is the evidential record upon which interpretations are made. References to such records need to be as granular and unambiguous as is necessary for readers to be able to find the same source.

 

In the context of family history sources such as are being discussed here, it would seem that the reference to source level needs to go down to at least the page, or individual item record if possible. That is the source. Hopefully, it is a physical record or a digital image. If it is a transcription or other non-original abstract or copy, that needs to be clearly stated.

 

The citation, then, is the form of words in which the reference to the source is written, using a standard syntax or style. Published papers will normally specify such a style APA, Chicago, etc. Perhaps such a standard form.is specified in FH, but this thread seems to indicate either that it is not specified, or is not widely known. 

 

Best to all

 

Paul Sillitoe

 


Mike Tate
 

Paul,

The concepts of Source and Citation in GEDCOM FH terms are sometimes different from user’s perceived definitions of source and citation.

Your definition of a citation being a form of words of a reference is different from a GEDCOM FH Citation.

Your definition is more like a FH V7 template for a Footnote or Bibliography.

This kind of terminology translation is quite often necessary.

 

Mike Tate

 


Adrian Bruce
 



On Sat, Feb 27, 2021, 12:50 Paul Sillitoe <paul@...> wrote:
As a newcomer to FH  but not to referencing primary sources, I'm not able to see how the distinction is being drawn between sources and citations in FH.

I think that part of the problem may be that the term "citation" has two different meanings. To people who are adept at citing sources in written documents, I think that I'm right in saying that the whole footnote, endnote, bibliography, whatever entry is considered as a citation. 

In FH and many other systems inspired by GEDCOM, the information in a real world citation is split between a source record and what FH users refer to as a citation. If I look at the cliched source of a book that is referenced several times (such as a Directory, say), the common bits that appear in all the printed citations (Directory title, publisher, edition etc) go into the Source Record. The bits specific to a single reference (page number, whether it's primary or secondary information relative to the fact being supported, quoted text etc) all go into what FH users refer to as the citation.

The printed citation then contains data from the source record and the FH-citation. 

The contents of the Source Record are effectively defined by GEDCOM. Ditto the FH-citation. Having said that, of course, anyone can shift text that someone else would put into the Source Record over into the FH-citation. It's all just text at the end of the day. This is the eternal debate between splitters and lumpers. Does your Source Record define a single physical object such as a parish register, or an individual entry in that parish register? It's not a question that comes up in formal citation guides, I think, because they only consider the final printed citation, not where the data is stored in any system.

Anyway, that's my attempt at distinguishing the source and citation concepts in FH, with a nod to what I think written citations mean. 



colevalleygirl@colevalleygirl.co.uk
 

Mike, quite a lot of the genealogy world (also Historian and other academics) use ‘citation’ according to e.g. the ESM definition:

 

“Citations are statements in which we identify our source or sources for a particular assertion. In history, citations are typically written in a sentence and paragraph form...[snip] The term citation is obviously not synonymous with the term source, and the two should not be used interchangeably.”

 

i.e. it is not about particular database elements but about the outputs.

 

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike Tate
Sent: 27 February 2021 13:42
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Sources and linking media

 

Paul,

The concepts of Source and Citation in GEDCOM FH terms are sometimes different from user’s perceived definitions of source and citation.

Your definition of a citation being a form of words of a reference is different from a GEDCOM FH Citation.

Your definition is more like a FH V7 template for a Footnote or Bibliography.

This kind of terminology translation is quite often necessary.

 

Mike Tate

 


Paul Sillitoe
 

Confused.com



Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone but not so smart as to usefully auto-correct the typos from my large fingers 🙂



Ron Chapman
 

Can I add one thing. Part of the source /citation system is to enable another researcher to find the same information. But to truly do that you need a third bit of information and that is the repository. So I always have Repository/Source/Citation. For an example my father wrote an number of books, only one of which was published. In my family history when I refer to one of these unpublished books I am the Repository, the book is the source and the citation is the fact that I wish to include from the book. If I did not supply that information then other researchers could not access it. This must be the same with people who hold diaries, letters etc. I also cite information from a book held by the British Library and they hold the only copy in the country.

Ron

On 27/02/2021 13:47, Adrian Bruce wrote:


On Sat, Feb 27, 2021, 12:50 Paul Sillitoe <paul@...> wrote:
As a newcomer to FH  but not to referencing primary sources, I'm not able to see how the distinction is being drawn between sources and citations in FH.

I think that part of the problem may be that the term "citation" has two different meanings. To people who are adept at citing sources in written documents, I think that I'm right in saying that the whole footnote, endnote, bibliography, whatever entry is considered as a citation. 

In FH and many other systems inspired by GEDCOM, the information in a real world citation is split between a source record and what FH users refer to as a citation. If I look at the cliched source of a book that is referenced several times (such as a Directory, say), the common bits that appear in all the printed citations (Directory title, publisher, edition etc) go into the Source Record. The bits specific to a single reference (page number, whether it's primary or secondary information relative to the fact being supported, quoted text etc) all go into what FH users refer to as the citation.

The printed citation then contains data from the source record and the FH-citation. 

The contents of the Source Record are effectively defined by GEDCOM. Ditto the FH-citation. Having said that, of course, anyone can shift text that someone else would put into the Source Record over into the FH-citation. It's all just text at the end of the day. This is the eternal debate between splitters and lumpers. Does your Source Record define a single physical object such as a parish register, or an individual entry in that parish register? It's not a question that comes up in formal citation guides, I think, because they only consider the final printed citation, not where the data is stored in any system.

Anyway, that's my attempt at distinguishing the source and citation concepts in FH, with a nod to what I think written citations mean. 



Mike Tate
 

Helen, I agree with you. That is what I thought I said.

The concept of citations as statements is different from the ‘Citation’ database structure described in GEDCOM & FH.

The same word has two different interpretations and that is no doubt confusing until it is recognised.

The ESM & academic definition does not consider database elements, but the database elements still exist and are called Citations.

 

Or have I misunderstood your point? Are you saying ESM citations are the same as GEDCOM Citations?

 

Mike

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of colevalleygirl@...
Sent: 27 February 2021 13:55
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Sources and linking media

 

Mike, quite a lot of the genealogy world (also Historian and other academics) use ‘citation’ according to e.g. the ESM definition:

 

“Citations are statements in which we identify our source or sources for a particular assertion. In history, citations are typically written in a sentence and paragraph form...[snip] The term citation is obviously not synonymous with the term source, and the two should not be used interchangeably.”

 

i.e. it is not about particular database elements but about the outputs.

 

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike Tate
Sent: 27 February 2021 13:42
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Sources and linking media

 

Paul,

The concepts of Source and Citation in GEDCOM FH terms are sometimes different from user’s perceived definitions of source and citation.

Your definition of a citation being a form of words of a reference is different from a GEDCOM FH Citation.

Your definition is more like a FH V7 template for a Footnote or Bibliography.

This kind of terminology translation is quite often necessary.

 

Mike Tate

 


colevalleygirl@colevalleygirl.co.uk
 

Ni,. Mike, you haven’t misunderstood, but your original email sounded as if ‘FH right’, ‘users perceived definitions’ wrong. Especially when you use the word perceived, rather than acknowledging that that definition of citation has been around a lot longer than Gedcom.

 

 

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike Tate
Sent: 27 February 2021 15:19
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Sources and linking media

 

Helen, I agree with you. That is what I thought I said.

The concept of citations as statements is different from the ‘Citation’ database structure described in GEDCOM & FH.

The same word has two different interpretations and that is no doubt confusing until it is recognised.

The ESM & academic definition does not consider database elements, but the database elements still exist and are called Citations.

 

Or have I misunderstood your point? Are you saying ESM citations are the same as GEDCOM Citations?

 

Mike

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of colevalleygirl@...
Sent: 27 February 2021 13:55
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Sources and linking media

 

Mike, quite a lot of the genealogy world (also Historian and other academics) use ‘citation’ according to e.g. the ESM definition:

 

“Citations are statements in which we identify our source or sources for a particular assertion. In history, citations are typically written in a sentence and paragraph form...[snip] The term citation is obviously not synonymous with the term source, and the two should not be used interchangeably.”

 

i.e. it is not about particular database elements but about the outputs.

 

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike Tate
Sent: 27 February 2021 13:42
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Sources and linking media

 

Paul,

The concepts of Source and Citation in GEDCOM FH terms are sometimes different from user’s perceived definitions of source and citation.

Your definition of a citation being a form of words of a reference is different from a GEDCOM FH Citation.

Your definition is more like a FH V7 template for a Footnote or Bibliography.

This kind of terminology translation is quite often necessary.

 

Mike Tate

 


Heather Williams
 

Mike,

After reading the various articles about sources, citations and media as previously suggested it is apparent that I have used the “lumped” source method and all the details I recorded on the individual records were actually citations.

I have to confess that I never understood the difference between sources and citations and I didn’t add them to my records in the way recommended in the articles. Until now I have never used the Add option and therefore had not seen the source record property box with its tabs including media. I might not have had this problem if I had done so. My method was to open a record and click on the Show Source scroll icon and then I clicked on the Add Citation button in the Source panel. This seemed to do what I needed but, as previously explained, I had no idea that was different from adding all the details to the source itself. In Facts if I was entering a census I would use the family option for the husband and wife and fill in the age, address and occupation and maybe make a note of anything unusual. I would then enter the reference details in the source panel. I then entered the census details for family members on their records and copied in the census reference using the Copy/Paste Citation buttons.

Any time I produced a report all the information and any photos were displayed correctly and that suited me fine. I did not feel the need to have every little detail recorded but all main facts were there. In wanting to pass my tree on to family members in the future I realised the census entries should be linked to the individual records so that they could be read if wanted. And that is when I came unstuck because I didn’t know I had to add them to the citations rather than sources. I have now learnt how to add media to citations but I still have a couple of questions.

The big one, obviously, is how do I delete my incorrect media entries that are showing on the wrong records? All the entries I recently made to attach media to the actual source records still show on each individual’s record, and the links also show on the relevant family records, so can I transfer them to the citations? In fact, is there a way of seeing a list of all the citations and what media I have already connected? Sorry if I am jumping the gun here.

Since writing this I have seen much discussion on this topic of citations versus sources; my thanks to all who have made suggestions on how to add them consistently. Some comments are rather academic and confusing, though, and if anything confirm to me why I got into difficulties in the first place. If I can just sort out the immediate muddle I am in I will happily continue with my tree. I look forward to hearing if you can help me. Many thanks for your time.


Mike Tate
 

Heather,

In the Individual Media tab click the red X and choose to Unlink Only.

That disconnects the Media but keeps it so it can be linked elsewhere.

 

Then you can add them to Citations using Link to Existing Media Record.

 

You are correct that you have been using the ‘lumped’ technique.

If you are intending to add Media and perhaps other details to your Source Citations then it may be better to switch to the ‘splitter’ technique.

I think you will find it easier to manage now that you have discovered the Media tab on the Source records.

 

Many users find revisiting their information in this way is very worthwhile.

You may also want to investigate using Ancestral Sources to capture all this information from scratch and finally remove your ‘lumped’ sources.

 

Mike

 


Mike Tate
 

Heather,

I forgot to explain how to find where Media and Sources are used.

In the Records Window on the Media tab or the Sources tab (or any other tab for that matter).

Select the record you want to investigate and use View > Record Links… to list where it is used.

You can then expand and investigate those parent records further to find exactly where used.

There are also Plugins such as Where Used Record Links that will give the same information more quickly and in more detail.

See the FHUG Knowledge Base ‘Finding Where Records are Used’:

https://fhug.org.uk/kb/kb-article/finding-where-records-are-used/

 

Mike

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike Tate
Sent: 27 February 2021 16:15
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Sources and linking media

 

Heather,

In the Individual Media tab click the red X and choose to Unlink Only.

That disconnects the Media but keeps it so it can be linked elsewhere.

 

Then you can add them to Citations using Link to Existing Media Record.

 

You are correct that you have been using the ‘lumped’ technique.

If you are intending to add Media and perhaps other details to your Source Citations then it may be better to switch to the ‘splitter’ technique.

I think you will find it easier to manage now that you have discovered the Media tab on the Source records.

 

Many users find revisiting their information in this way is very worthwhile.

You may also want to investigate using Ancestral Sources to capture all this information from scratch and finally remove your ‘lumped’ sources.

 

Mike

 

_._,_._,_


Heather Williams
 

Mike,
Thank you for your further help. At the moment I am in panic mode at the thought of having to check through all my records. I was rather hoping that there would be a Standard query for listing Citations separately from Sources but if I understand everything correctly now, citations in FH are just part of a source record so presumably I will be able to  work my way through the list of  All Sources. If so, and I unlink my recently added media from Sources will I lose all the links to family members and have to re-do them in Citations?

It seems that one thing always leads to another and I need a bit of time to re-read the articles slowly and make sure of the methods I want to use and that I know what I am doing but my brain is on overdrive thinking through what else I need to change. It is an enormous task because I haven't until now put my media into subfolders, they have all just been in Media. If I make new folders and put, say, certificates in one, how would I then change the file path so that they still show in the correct individual records?

I am relieved to hear that others have also felt the need to revisit how they have kept their records. FH is a wonderful but complex software programme. I appreciate that there are users who are technological wizards as well as learned genealogists. Family history for me has been an interesting and absorbing hobby over many years and while I feel I am a competent  computer user, I am not fluent in computer speak or genealogy speak and I really appreciate you helping me in understandable terms.
Heather