Jump to content


Caused problem myself by stupidity, but weird source details problem

  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 texas_nightowl


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 79 posts

Posted 24 August 2013 - 08:33 PM

OK, I have a source template. Let's call it "Master Template A" or MT:A for short. I have multiple "Sources" based on MT:A. For example I have a Newspaper Source and a state vital records source which both derive from the same MT:A. MT:A is based on myfreeform3 template. In all these, I have 2 source details fields called "Details" and "Key".

Now, I was having one of those nights where I really just should have stayed away from the computer. Anyway, I was frustrated and got fed up by the word "Details" being what seemed like everywhere.

So I brilliantly went into List > Source Templates and selected MT:A and clicked edit. Then I proceeded to *rename* the Field Names for the Details and Key fields (and edited my citation fields).

At first, I didn't see anything wrong. And then...I went to edit a citation for a person where the citation previously existed. And I see that in Citation Manager, the Source Name is present (Newpaper A) but the Details column, which had previously held information, was blank.

So I started checking out a few more records where I *know* that I had populated the source details fields. Blank.

Example pic:
Posted Image

I *promise* the date, page number, and person name from the Details and Key fields used to be there.

Not good.

Here's where I got confused though. Just because...no real reason...I generated a "Source List" Research Report. Under the report section for the Newspaper Source, where it shows Citations (ie. the person and event the source is used for) which includes the values from my Details and Key fields. And in the report, those values (from the renamed Details and Key fields) are present!

Pic for proof! (Though I did blank the person's name out, you can see data there.)
Posted Image

Now I'm confused. The values from the fields for Details and Key obviously still exist somewhere but do not show up when I'm trying to view/edit the citation but do show up in a report.


Now luckily, since the report for some reason does have the data...and because there aren't a horrendous amount with the problem...I can go through and just rekey the data.

But does anyone have suggestions for how I could get that data to show back up in Citation Manager/Source Details? I did try renaming the fields back to their original names, but no go.

Am I just not logical enough to understand why the values still exist and show up in the report but don't show up when I want to edit the citation?

#2 TomH


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6086 posts

Posted 24 August 2013 - 09:20 PM

When you edit a template, nothing is changed in the source or citation data until you edit them. At that time, the new or renamed fields are added but the old fields and their values remain. The old values do not get transferred to the renamed field. The source list report simply lists all the field values found in the citation data, whether the fields are defined by the current template or not. The template dictates what you see on the Edit Source screen and in report footnotes. That's why you see the old field values in the source list report but not in the Edit screen.

I think you could not have restored the source template to exactly what it was when the sources were created and cited else the edit screen and footnotes should have returned to the way they were. For the !mff3 source template, The field name is [Page] for the field labelled "Details"; "Key" labels the field named [ShortPage]. You can change the labels to whatever you want but you must not change the field names as you will be unable to access the data.

Hope you get this sorted.

Tom user of RM7550 FTM2017 Ancestry.ca FamilySearch.org FindMyPast.com
SQLite_Tools_For_Roots_Magic_in_PR_Celti wiki, exploiting the database in special ways >>> RMtrix-tiny.png app, a bundle of RootsMagic utilities.

#3 texas_nightowl


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 79 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 09:17 AM

Ah...you just totally jogged my memory.

I was working on re-entering data from the report into their appropriate citations. Still a few to go, but as mentioned, not as bad as it could have been. But yes...I did change the field names. I totally forgot that they started off as [Page] and [ShortPage]. As I was working thru the report I was trying to figure out why some citations were fine and others were missing data. And yes, they go back to when I initially changed [Page] and [ShortPage].

Anyway, I've gone back and edited the name of my MT:A to be "MT:A *don't edit else data loss occurs*. So next time I get frustrated I will remember to make a copy and do what I want with MT:A2.

I only have another 20 citations to correct, so it could have been a lot worse.