By now, I always have to add a source to both the person and the relationship to have it show up in both places, but I don't think it should be this way since a relationship source is usually a source to all people involved in it.
Perhaps you could expand on this issue in a little more detail. Specifically, please give examples of the sources to which you are referring.
One thing I feel is rather dated is that a marriage source is titled in the format of the woman as being in the record of the male in the record. A woman does not seem to be able to have a marriage / relationship record "in her own right" in FamilySearch. I believe this reflects the FamilySearch structure in indexing such records.
My first (somewhat snide) reaction: you mean there are places in the world where FS has indexed something other than baptisms?
Since relationship sources are effectively invisible, I have completely stopped bothering with them. I attach marriage citations to the main Sources list of all of the named parties, while decrying the inability to include two families in the Attach to Family Tree button's functionality, and then I move on. (For church marriage records in the parts of the world I work in, it can be taken as a given that the image is unindexed and the Attach button is what's available.)
The other spouse's parents often get skipped because of the button's limitation. Including them gets highly tedious: I have to remember the dratted source box checkbox before I attach to spouses and one set of parents, navigate to the other spouse, navigate to one parent's sources, attach from source box, three clicks (at least) to get to the other parent's sources, attach from source box, remove now-unneeded entry from source box (three clicks just for that), go back to parent and try to remember what I was doing. (It's even more fun if I recognize a wedding witness as an uncle or cousin -- and don't even get me started on funeral notices.)
The other spouse's parents often get skipped because of the button's limitation.
I never use the source box for this task. Instead, in the source linker I change the focus person from bride to groom, or vice versa. Then I can attach the other parents. Here is what it looks like on the web interface. The phone app works the same way.
[Oops, the screenshots attached in the wrong order and I cannot find a way to change them.]
@dontiknowyou, we're talking about two different things.
Yes, Source Linker can change focus people and thereby include multiple families. However, it only works with INDEXED data.
I'm working with UNINDEXED images.
Note particularly the top right and bottom left corners: the blue "Attach to Family Tree" button, and the message that "No indexes are available." These two things go hand-in-hand: if there is indexed data associated with an image (no matter how erroneous or partial), the button is grayed out and unavailable.
Clicking the blue button lets you fill in what will become the Title and Notes fields of the source citation, and there's a checkbox for saving the citation to your source box. This is important if there are multiple families involved and you want to preserve the link between instances of the citation, so that fixing your transcription (say) in one place fixes it everywhere. Here's what I've managed with the above image (which is in Slovak, which I don't know):
Yeah, yeah, the checkbox isn't checked, but it's a marriage between a widower and a widow, and I don't see any sign of the groom's previous wife, so if I choose the bride in the next step, I should be able to get everyone I recognize. (I'm not even trying with the witnesses. These people aren't actually related to me, they're just famous names from my maternal-maternal line's hometown.)
So I chose the bride in step 2a (above on the left), which gave me a list with her husbands, children, parents, and siblings in step 2b (on the right), from which I clicked the circles next to the two husbands (those being the people named in the record, that I can decipher). Clicking Next gives step 3, which in my opinion is superfluous -- I almost never find it necessary to fill in the reason statement for attaching a source, because obviously I'm attaching it because I believe it applies -- but at least it gives a nice summary of who you've got:
As you can doubtless tell from the styling, the Attach button is old technology. It definitely predates the "sort by" date on citations, so you have to go back and fill that in on one of the instances it creates, and I believe it also predates source tagging. At any rate, as you can see, it does not offer any chance to tag anything to anyone; again, this is something you have to go back and do, individually with each instance, on each person's Sources tab. For example, here's the new citation at the bottom of the groom's sources tab:
If it had been a more informative type of marriage record, with parents for both bride and groom and a cousin or two as witnesses, the work would not end yet: I'd still have to go to each additional relative's sources tab and add the citation from my source box. However, if someone comes through and translates the Slovak for me, it'll only need to be added once, which is a wonderful feature of the linked citations created by that blue button, one that Source Linker does not share.
In my ideal world, the source-attachment tool would be a cross between the blue button and Source Linker, with the handy box right next to the image for transcriptions, and the linked instances allowing edits to be made just once, but with more flexibility for choosing attachment points and the ability to tag facts for each person all in one place.
Wow, @Julia Szent-Györgyi, great explanation! You are a very expert contributor.
I tried going down this route myself but I found it so painful and unsatisfactory that I decided to step back and wait for systematic indexing. I've also helped along the indexing by putting some sweat equity into it, although not on any image sets of interest to me.
That said, my sense is that @Dominik Krämer is talking about the source linker tool. So I thought you also were referring to the source linker tool. My mistake.
Welcome to the FamilySearch community. Thank you for the time you spend asking questions.
Regarding: we received your comments about ' I always have to add a source to both the person and the relationship to have it show up in both places, but I don't think it should be this way since a relationship source is usually a source to all people involved in it.
We love to hear from our quests regarding their observations, as it helps our engineers to always improve the features in FamilySearch.
We have attached a knowledge article for your review.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Also, thank you for using this wonderful website and we wish you much success.
@dontiknowyou, I don't think Dominik's suggestion is actually related in any way to how one attaches sources. He (along with many of us) just wants any citation attached to the basically-invisible relationship section to also show in the regular sources section of each of the profiles involved, automatically, without requiring duplicate effort.
@lstolk36, isn't that exactly how Dominik's question ended up here? As in, are you instructing him to do exactly what he has already just done? Or are we all utterly missing some weird subtlety about how the Powers That Be intend for this confusing mess of a support-and-feedback site to be used?
Perhaps I am confused, but when I attach a marriage record I use the linker page as in my screenshots. That attaches the record to both spouses in almost one step and puts the marriage information in the relationship field for the couple.
I am aware some contributors attach sources in the relationship field but I do not bother with that. I don't find it useful to have sources linked there. Why is it useful to others?
ok i have a 6th great aunt named abigail patterson she was born in 1740 in virginia my issue is yes they have a baptisim record for her.when she was 4 years old she was left out of her grandmothers will when it was drawn up.there is aboustley no mention of her.but when search her name she appears in records when she was born and what year she died in 1807 in buncombe co nc i tried to even find her death record in the co its self but nothing ever surfaced not even a mention on her entire life i tried serveral times to research her same thing with her father i have his will no mention of her she would have been about 31 in 1775 what was the reason for the say no speaking about his own daughter.on anything record wise she never married i dont think or had children.