6 replies to this topic

[JeffH13]

I've run into this problem before.

I just changed one of my own templates by adding fields. Now, in the endnotes of the narrative, the new field names are shown rather than the data I've entered.

Here's my template:

[Jurisdiction]<, [Agency]>, [Series], [Record]<; [Repository]><; [Format]>< held by [Owner]><, [YearOwned]>.< [Provenance:Caps]>

The fields from [Format] onward are new; they are all detail fields. I did not delete any existing fields.

A source which uses this template now appears like this in the endnotes:

7. Pike County, Ohio, Office of the Probate Judge, Marriage Licenses, John Reynolds – Margaret Harrison, 20 July 1851; [Format] held by [Owner], [YearOwned]. [Provenance:Caps]

If I delete the citation and add it back in, it appears properly in the endnotes with the fields all filled in.

Any ideas?

Thanks,
Jeff

[TomH]

My memory on this is rusty but I think what happens is this. You have citations using a source template. Then you revise the source template and add more fields. These fields do not exist in the existing citation records and RM does nothing to modify the citation records to include them. When a foot/endnote is generated using the new source template, missing fields have the fieldname outputted - that's what you saw. You might try creating a new Master Source for each of the sources using the revised template and merge the old source into the new but I don't remember if that fixes the citation record either - I doubt it does.

Maybe the only sure ways are to create new citations as you have done or to dive boldly into the world of SQLite queries. To convert Free Form citations to my !MyFreeForm3 custom source template, I had to process both the citation records and source records to include the new fields. See Source Template, A Better Free Form.

A long outstanding request for improvement is a source conversion utility that would enable transforming of sources and citations from one template to another.

[JeffH13]

Tom,

Interesting thought about what's happening. Also, I have never done a source merge and had forgotten about that. I'll give it a try (backing up first of course!).

Thanks,
Jeff

[TomH]

I think I had suggested some time ago a revision to RM to not output the names of fields in a source template that are absent from the source or citation records. Or to make it a user option. My thought was that it may be a holdover from the days when source templates were novel and was useful for debugging. It can still be useful to find and correct those citations that are not fully compatible with a source template. But users may be perfectly happy with the way existing citations came out before the change to the template and only revised it because of some new source they wish to add.

[Renee Zamora]

Confirming enhancement request is in our tracking system.

[JeffH13]

You might try creating a new Master Source for each of the sources using the revised template and merge the old source into the new but I don't remember if that fixes the citation record either - I doubt it does.

I did a quick test on this. I merged the old source into the new (which contained additional fields). At first, on purpose, I did not enter any information into the new fields. The endnotes contained the names of the new fields rather than blank (Even though I had I put < > around the field name in the sentence structure.) Then I added info to the new fields and the endnote displayed properly. Then, I deleted info from the new fields and the footnotes still displayed properly. That is, no field names. Finally I filled the new fields again and endnotes displayed properly.

So, it appears the merge technique works, but only if you fill all the new fields that have been added.

Jeff

[TomH]

It's not that the merge technique works to solve the display of the [MissingFieldName]. Rather, you have confirmed it does not. So you might as well edit the citations without merging as that seems to be the only way within RM to fix the display (i.e., update the citation record so that it has all the field names).

I'm curious whether a RM Explorer Find criterion such as Source (General) > footnote contains > "[MissingFieldName]" actually finds them.