Jump to content


Photo

Source Templates To Be Fixed


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#21 kbens0n

kbens0n

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3360 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 07:35 PM

Any help in removing this default information will be very greatly appreciated. If it is, in fact, a programmed default then its presence frustrates the convenience of templates altogether, imo.


One cannot remove the default text of the default template(s) - that would defeat their purpose ;-)
Highlight the <Military, Muster Rolls (manuscript)> template and click the <Copy> button. A new template will be created named <Military, Muster Rolls (manuscript) (Copy)>. Highlight that and click the <Edit> button. Rename it if you wish and remove the 'NA–Washington' and 'National Archives, Washington, D.C.' parts from the template and click <OK> to save your changes. You now have a new template to always use, if you wish. Also, FYI, renaming it with a punctuation character ( like asterisk, dash, slash, ETC.) as the first character in it's name will cause it to sort and appear at the top of the list of templates.

---
--- "GENEALOGY, n. An account of one's descent from an ancestor who did not particularly care to trace his own." - Ambrose Bierce
--- "The trouble ain't what people don't know, it's what they know that ain't so." - Josh Billings
---Ô¿Ô---
K e V i N


#22 motleycrew

motleycrew

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 12:36 PM

Small problem in source template, "Newsletter Article, online images": there's no space between the elements "Newsletter title" and "identifier," yielding this example:

O.T. Corson and F.B. Pearson, "Life Certificates," Ohio Educational Monthlynewsletter, 65 (February 1916): 448; online images (http://books.google.com/), Beulah Brooks Brown.


Should be a piece of cake to fix. Thanks.

#23 Paul Harris

Paul Harris

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 152 posts

Posted 22 June 2014 - 08:27 AM

Just a comment on the 'thread' of this thread. I have been using genealogical software of various types for over twenty-five years. I have yet to see a developer that can author a set of 'built in' templates that punctuate correctly OR fully comply with any existing standard that exists at the time. Where I do give credit is to those developers that have put in our hands the tools to bring the templates into our own definition of compliance. RootsMagic is as capable, if not more capable, than any other program out there, to that end.

 

Having said that, I believe that those who want turnkey, built in Source Templates to satisfy their every need are doomed to a lifetime of disappointment and frustration. That is why, long ago, I relieved my developers of the responsibility to provide perfect templates. I let go of using built in templates and opted for making my own for the two primary reasons I use templates in the first place:

 

  1. First and foremost, I use templates as a reminder for what elements may be required for a citation. Then, once those elements are entered, the template 'assembles' them in the correct format, which makes my work go faster and be more consistent. Some built in templates do not break down the elements to the extent that I wish.
     
  2. The second reason I like to use Source Templates is that by parsing elements into variables, I can subsequently change the format of a citation, globally, just by rearranging the elements (variables and fixed text) in the template. Let's just say, for example, that you are using a template for vital records certificates that lists the certificate number, followed by the event year in parentheses [ certificate no. 45871 (1906) ]. Then, sometime down the road, for whatever reason, a new standard exists that dictates [ 1906 - certificate number 45871 ] . If you are using custom templates, this is a simple edit to the template. If you are using built in templates, you are stuck with what you have, unless you can convince the author to modify the built in templates.

It's just my opinion, and we all know .... but I think users' time would be better spent learning to build/modify their own templates than trying to influence the design of built in templates.

 

Best,

 

Paul



#24 Laura

Laura

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4276 posts

Posted 22 June 2014 - 02:29 PM

Go to Lists, Source templates.

 

Program default source templates can not be edited.  Only user defined source templates can be edited.

 

Highlight  the Military, Muster Rolls (manuscript) source template.  In the right pane, you will see the sentence templates.   Anything between brackets is a field name and will print the entries you make into the fields.  Any other text will print as it is typed in the sentence template.

 

Copy the program defined source template and edit the sentence templates deleting or changing any fields or text you do not want printed.

 

I place a character before the name of my user defined source templates to sort them to the top of the list.

 

You could even create a new field, [NARA], and enter National Archive, etc. into that field when you did need National Archive, etc in the sentence.  You would use  < [NARA]> in the sentence template.  This will print the field if there is an entry in that field or not print it if there is no entry.



#25 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2878 posts

Posted 22 June 2014 - 09:58 PM

 

 

It's just my opinion, and we all know .... but I think users' time would be better spent learning to build/modify their own templates than trying to influence the design of built in templates.

 

 

 

 

This is not the Wish List forum, but your opinion comports with several of my wishes for RM7. In particular, I would agree with you and counsel nearly all users to set up their own source templates, perhaps using the built-in ones as models. Anyway, my source template wishes are for RM7 are:

 

  1. The workflow a user goes through to set up a source should make it very easy for users to select a copy of a built-in source template rather than a built-in source template itself. Indeed, the workflow should make it impossible to use a built-in source template. This process should all be very simple and transparent. That way, the templates a user is actually using will always be editable without exposing the built-in templates to damage.
  2. Duplicate source templates should be very easy to find and merge. And GEDCOM export/import out of and back into RM should not create duplicate source templates.
  3. It should be possible (and relatively easy) to switch a source from one template to another one.

The templates are intended to assist in making easier the process of creating accurate and standards compliant sources. But I think the built-in templates are much too hard to use, and in fact I think they make the process of creating accurate and standards compliant sources harder rather than easier.

 

I won't get into all the reasons that bring me to that conclusion in this particular message. I would only point out that simply picking which template to use is a huge challenge and it's very easy to pick the wrong template. And having picked the wrong template, your only recourse to fix the problem except for SQLite is to delete the entire Master Source including all its citations and start all over again. For example, there are no less than 17 templates for books. How on earth is a reasonable person always going to be able to pick the correct one of the 17?

 

Jerry



#26 JoopvB

JoopvB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 08:46 AM

I am a splitter. So to enter a new source (usually one of my own making) I use "Cite existing source". To be able to easily find back the source I use a naming convention. This convention I document in the description of the source template (seems appropriate and consistent with RM's own practices). What I would expect see when entering a new source for that template (new or cite existing) is that description. Alas, the sun not always shines on me. Please have it show up on top of the right pane where it also shows the footnote etc.

 

Thanks very much, Joop



#27 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 7584 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 10:30 AM

If I understand your request right you want the Lists>Source Template description fields to show up in the Lists>Source List, based on the source template used to create that Master Source. I'm not sure how well that would work for everyone. Because I use source templates based on the fields they contain and not the actual descriptions.

 

Example:

Source type: Military Records, Databases

Description: Military Records, databases, online; war records, enlistment papers, POW

 

I use this one all the time for websites that have multiple database collections. It doesn't apply to military records at all.

 

So far the box to enter the Master Source name has been sufficient for me to note a description on what its about. Are you looking for a field where you can give more description than what the Master Text tab will give you about the source? Or are you wanting to describe the template your using?


Renee
RootsMagic

#28 LornaHen

LornaHen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 105 posts

Posted 26 September 2014 - 07:13 PM

My wishlist item is for sensitivity/private markers {} to be honoured wherever they appear on all data, including sources.

My trial TMG import shows that some data input with {} in a source is being output even when exclude private is checked.

Yes, I can see in help how the template can mark some fields as private with the <![field]|this field marked private> construct but that excludes the whole source field on output if exclude private is checked.

Some ?many? of my imported sources do have data included inside {} markers - which imported fine.

 

Experimentation shows that {sensitive data} either in the Source Template itself, or in the Source Details are being output on reports where private data was excluded.



#29 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 7584 posts

Posted 03 October 2014 - 09:36 AM

Confirming enhancement request is in our tracking system. 


Renee
RootsMagic

#30 moresawdust

moresawdust

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5 posts

Posted 10 January 2015 - 12:01 PM

To say that punctuation should/must be included inside quotation marks is saying that the punctuation is a required part of the title/name/etc.  Since that is rare, I attribute the boneheadedness of such a practice to be just that - boneheaded.  It makes absolute zero sense - and I mean the kind of absolute zero like "absolute molecular STOP".  (<== Note the position of the previous period.)  We're talking zero degrees Kelvin.

 

[ OK, so I'm opinionated about data.  I'm a DBA, have been for 30 years.  Don't get me started on normal forms in database design... if you do, you'd better pack a lunch... ]



#31 Klectica

Klectica

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 12 January 2015 - 01:01 PM

Hi - new user here - finding discussion helpful - If you heavy users will pardon a newbie's question - is it possible to italicize a word in the source/citation?  After reading all of the above, I'm thinking I need to either just enter source/citation/bibliography information in my own format, or teach myself how to create my own templates as suggested above.  (And if this question doesn't belong here, please just tell me where to go :-) )  Thanks!



#32 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2878 posts

Posted 12 January 2015 - 01:08 PM

To italicize a word in a source/citation, surround it with the <i> tag, that is, with a <i> before the text to be italicized and a </i> after the text to be italicized. This works either in text you type into a template, or within the body of the template itself.

 

Jerry



#33 Klectica

Klectica

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 14 January 2015 - 01:39 PM

Thanks very much!



#34 Klectica

Klectica

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 14 January 2015 - 01:40 PM

Hmmm - I tried to "like this" - that is your reply, and I got an error message saying I had "used my quota of positive quotes".  Never having "liked" anything in this forum before, I guess that means I can't "like" anything????



#35 kbens0n

kbens0n

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3360 posts

Posted 14 January 2015 - 01:55 PM

Never having "liked" anything in this forum before, I guess that means I can't "like" anything????


GOOD guess - purposefully disabled :)

---
--- "GENEALOGY, n. An account of one's descent from an ancestor who did not particularly care to trace his own." - Ambrose Bierce
--- "The trouble ain't what people don't know, it's what they know that ain't so." - Josh Billings
---Ô¿Ô---
K e V i N


#36 Lethdun

Lethdun

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 22 September 2015 - 09:05 PM

Source Templates:

 

Census, U.S. Federal (Online images):

 

Bibliography:

 

Missing italics around [WebSite].

 

Ref: EE, QC-6, p 240

 

TomD


It's been real... It's been fun...


#37 Lethdun

Lethdun

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 28 September 2015 - 11:00 AM

Source Templates:

 

Census, U.S. Federal (Online images):

 

Bibliography:

 

Missing italics around [WebSite].

 

Ref: EE, QC-6, p 240

 

TomD

Hi Renee, I'm just wondering if you picked up on this for the tracking system?

 

TomD


It's been real... It's been fun...


#38 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 7584 posts

Posted 28 September 2015 - 11:23 AM

I haven't been noting on this thread everything that is in the tracking system. I have another process I am keep track of them on. So they have all been recorded.


Renee
RootsMagic

#39 Lethdun

Lethdun

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 28 September 2015 - 12:10 PM

Ah-ha! I didn't know how you handled all of these various things, so I just wanted to check with you. :)

 

Thank you, TomD


It's been real... It's been fun...


#40 DerickH

DerickH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 173 posts

Posted 14 December 2015 - 03:50 PM

I would certainly love to be able to merge multiple sources into one. Period.