How to merge a Web Page URL source and a "Copy of" that same source ?
I've created many new sources (mainly RC baptism records from the National Library of Ireland and civil registration records from IrishGenealogy.ie) by going to the Sources tab and selecting Add Source, Add New Source, Source Type Web Page URL.
By default the new source is put in my Source Box and I can then add it other relevant individuals.
However, my Source Box was getting unwieldy so I emptied it.
I'm now in a situation where I need to add several of the sources I've removed from my Source Box to another individual but I can't see any way to do that, either from the expanded view of the source on the Source tab of an individual to whom it is already attached, or from the page for the source itself accessed via the View button for the source on the Source tab of an individual to whom it is already attached.
I thought that Copy To Source Box from the page for the source itself would simply undo the removal, although the "Copy of" prefix that it adds worried me.
So I now have my original source here "Ireland, civil birth registartion for William Corbett, 14 October 1865" attached to the child, mother, and father, and a separate but identical source "Copy of Ireland, civil birth registration for William Corbett, 14 October 1865" attached to the informant, the occupier (and grandfather)
Since these two sources are in reality a single source I want to merge them, but I can see no way to do this.
If I can't merge them this will cause me a big problem, as this is just the first of many sources that I no longer have in my source box that I need to attach to additional individuals).
Best Answer
-
Unfortunately, no, there isn't a way to re-connect such sources. If it's not in your source box, then the only way to expand the set is to start over. The other option is to give up on the connection between the already-attached instances and the new instances. (There is one consolation: you can at least skip the data entry step by using the "copy to" option.)
I think this is the one big flaw of FS's otherwise-wonderful sourcing scheme, and I don't understand why this limitation exists. Would the ability for multiple users to have instances of a connected set in their source boxes somehow mess up the system?
1
Answers
-
That's a tad disappointing.
Giving up on the connection between those already attached and any new ones just doesn't feel right, so my inclination is to start over (but one external source at a time, as and when I come across them again during my normal browsing of the FamilySearch tree). And this time either keep it in my Source Box, for which I'll have to sort out a sensible folder structure, or attach it to every mentioned person (so witnesses/sponsors, etc as well for baptisms/marriages) before deleting it as before
However, a thought struck me regarding the way normal FamilySearch sources are handled - if I understand correctly a birth record that names the child, mother, and father is set up as three separate "sources", one for each individual mentioned, like this:
- "Birth record for child"
- Mother in "Birth record for child"
- Father in "Birth record for child"
From the Sources tab of any individual to whom the record is attached (via the appropriate "source") you can view the record itself (and image if available) and click through to any of the other individuals to whom it's been attached (via the list of people it's attached to).
If I create a single external source and attach it to all the individuals it mentions then I have an ability to click through to any individual mentioned in it. But this doesn't seem to fit the FamilySearch one source, one individual approach.
But if I create an external source and attach it to just the principal individual and create a separate copy of that source to attach to each additional individual mentioned, then that fits the FamilySearch one source, one individual approach but completely loses the ability to click through to the other individuals mentioned in the source.
To me the second approach seems useless without the click through ability, so I plan to use the first.
With this in mind, I wonder what the preferred way to attach external sources is ?
0 -
kob3203 "If I create a single external source and attach it to all the individuals it mentions then I have an ability to click through to any individual mentioned in it. But this doesn't seem to fit the FamilySearch one source, one individual approach."
You have misunderstood the "one source, one individual" bit. If there is a census record with a head of house and 5 family members, that one source can - and should - be added to 6 individuals. For a will that mentions a wife, 4 children and 2 sons-in-law, that source would be correctly attached to 8 persons. What we are not encouraged to do - but I have done it - is to put a census record for John Smith on 2 different John Smiths. We are supposed to do research on the John Smiths by looking at their family, their birth and death dates and any other information to determine which John Smith is the one in the source.
Attaching any source to all the people mentioned in that source is what connects generations and confirms that you have correct relationships on the tree.
Also, never clear your source box!!! You can search it and customize titles.
1 -
The "one source, one individual" concept only applies to indexes, and I find it annoying: it means that I have to add the transcription in three or five places, and if I discover a typo, I have to correct it on three or five profiles.
If it's a record that I found and attached "the long way" (back before it was indexed), then I don't bother amending the indexed versions, but if I don't already have such a connected-set citation for it, then it's kind of six of one, half a dozen of the other: do I go to all of the profiles to edit the existing indexed sources, or do I go to all of the profiles to attach the image-based connected source? (Unfortunately, another annoying result of indexing is that FS disables the "Attach to Family Tree" button on images that have index entries attached, meaning that creating a "connected set" citation for the image no longer has the "immediate family" shortcut that that button offers.)
(Yes, I know I can go to my profile view of my source box and attach things to multiple profiles, meaning that I don't actually have to visit every profile involved, but it's still a lot more steps/clicks than that blue button.)
1 -
@Gail Swihart Watson, you're using a (slightly) different definition of "source" -- likely because this is another word (like "record") that is rather, um, overloaded on FamilySearch.
Your usage matches FS's usage for unindexed material, where "a source" is basically one image of one historical document. In practice, we seldom actually mean the entire page/image, but rather, whatever part of it records a single event or group of people that we're interested in -- or whatever part of multiple pages/images apply to that event or group.
For indexed material, however, FS's concept of "a source" is much narrower than that: in "one source, one person", they mean the single database entry, with a unique URL, referring to that one person in one image of one record of one event or group. Ideally, one of the fields in that database entry is a pointer that links it with the other participants in the event or members of the group, but for purposes of this definition, the index entries for those other people count as different sources. If the record makes multiple mentions of one person, and they were each indexed as separate entries, then each of those entries is a different source. (Unless it's a fully-correctable index.)
1 -
Julia Szent-Györgyi LOL. I am going to have to read your posts in the morning right while my brain is still in gear. It doesn't make any sense right now, but I have 100% confidence you must be right.
1 -
@Julia Szent-Györgyi OK, I think I get it now. Many times when using indexed material (such as a census which names the entire family), the source linker takes over in an adequate manner with separate URLs. But some wills and census records index only the primary, either because family members are not named; they only counted, OR the primary is the only one indexed and others named are not, which I've seen. In this case that unique URL has to be reused in order to put the information in the other person pages. This can be done from the source box and should not be inappropriate. Am I missing something?
I fully agree on the case where the source mentions the same person multiple times in separate indexed images. (I've actually not seen that though other than in Fold3 where they routinely do it. You think you have 10 sources for someone in Fold3 but all it is is a document where the name is found 10 times and each instant is indexed separately.)
0 -
@Gail Swihart Watson, I think that what you describe about only the principal being indexed from a census or will is exactly why the "copy to source box" option exists on index entries, despite the "one source, one person" concept that Source Linker is built on. It's a nod to the fact that the index-centric setup of FS is contrary to genealogical (and general research) best practice, which is to treat the document as primary, not its various finding aids.
(I encounter multiple mentions indexed as multiple entries primarily in the GenealogyBank obituaries. They're annoying on multiple counts, starting with the fact that I can't see the originals, lacking that subscription.)
1 -
After reading through the above several times I think I now understand the idea of a source being either:
- an entry for an individual in a transcribed index - this should only be attached to one person
- the original document, image and/or transcription, which can be attached to many people
I'm now happy that the external sources I'm adding fall into the latter category, so it's perfectly okay to attach them to several people.
So I'm nearly ready to start redoing all my external sources but there's another, hopefully final, query. What should I do about witnesses for baptisms, marriages, etc ? A witness named John Smith is most likely a friend or relative, but if I don't know of any John Smith should I create a new individual? And if there are several John Smiths who might be the witness then what should I do?
0 -
kob3203 If you are trying to bust through a brick wall in a line, people such as witnesses for marriages, baptisms, etc should all be researched very thoroughly as they can provide critical clues about the family. I have one such instant where a female witness in a marriage document is elsewhere found in a separate document listed as "sister". In the marriage record she had the same surname as the bride, but you can never be sure if that is a blood or in-law relationship, and even if blood, you have no certain confirmation of there being a sister relationship. Only by researching HER, I found the other document declaring them sisters. She became part of the chain of information leading to a partial background of the family.
If there is no brick wall with the lineage in your case, I personally would not spend the time looking at or documenting witnesses.
However, there is this thing called "the bug" and if it bites you, you cannot help yourself. If these witnesses are calling to you, feel free to research them as much as possible. It is NOT against any rules, and you can link them to the family with the "Other Relationship" feature.
1 -
Where do I find this "Other relationship" feature?
0 -
On any person page, scroll all the way to the bottom.
0 -
Thank you.
Returning to the original question and Julia's original answer might it not be a good idea to mention that on the dialog when you remove a source from your source box ? If there had been any indication of this when I removed the sources, I would have kept them in my source box.
1 -
I agree that it should say something like "Removing this source will not detach it from the profiles that it has been attached to, but the ability to attach it to further profiles will be irrecoverably lost."
I just checked on a thought I had earlier: no, removing a source from your source box is not shown in the source's change log. Yes, sources have their own change logs, but no, your source box does not (that I have ever been able to find).
0