When Generating a Descendant Narrative report NEHGS and including endnotes or footnotes (with reuse and use ibid checked), the detail from the source in the “item of interest” field does not display in the endnote. This is apparent in the report preview window even before the file is exported to word or RTF. Interestingly if I take the individual and select that individual for the report that the “item of interest” detail does not show on and start with that person as the descendant report, then the detail prints. This is a RM7 database, however I am seeing the exact same thing when I import the database into RM8. This is not just one individual but many actually. Finally, it is the first time the footnote is printed so I believe it should be the full footnote not the short footnote, correct? I did move a group to a new file and the error moved with it. As a test, When I export the data directly into Family historian 7, the footnotes/endnotes print out correctly. I am using windows 11 with all current updates.
In the included image note Jane Gray footnote #3 does not display the item of interest (Jane Gray Baptised 21 August 1825) while Sarah gray from the same family DOES display the Item of interest. I did run the database tools to see if that did the trick but it did not. I look forward to your thoughts on this! I am sure it is something I have done, but cannot for the life of me figure out what!!
Any Help would be appreciated.
Now I think I am even more confused. I just looked at the source template and both are the same master source, “Church Records, Parish Registers (FHL-GSU microfilm)” and neither one of them show the Item of interest in the short footnote, yet it IS displaying for Sarah and not for Jane.
So if I may ask, what determines whether the footnote or short footnote usage. In both footnotes above it is the first time they are displayed, but it appears that Janes is using the short and Sarah is using the full?! Or am I missing something?
Let’s take endnotes and footnotes separately. Also, let’s take RM7 and RM8 separately. The following is for endnotes on RM7
The Reuse Endnote Numbers option only works for endnotes, not for footnotes.
If you turn on the Reuse Endnote Numbers with endnotes, the short footnote and the Ibid option are irrelevant. Each citation prints just one time using the full full footnote format. There are no short footnotes and there are no Ibids.
If you turn off the Reuse Endnote Numbers with endnotes, the second and subsequent occurrences of a citation are always printed, and they are printed either as a short footnote or as an Ibid. In order to see a citation print as an Ibid, the Ibid option has to be turned on and two citations in a row have to be the same.
The following is for footnotes on RM7.
There is not a Reuse Footnote Numbers option. Instead, each footnote on the same page prints separately no matter what other options are set. If the Reuse Endnote Numbers option is set, it is ignored.
The second and subsequent occurrences of a citation on the same page are always printed, and they are printed either as a short footnote or as an Ibid. In order to see a citation print as an Ibid, the Ibid option has to be turned on and two citations in a row have to be the same.
These options work very reliably in RM7. If something is not working, then most likely one of two things are happening. One possibility is that the footnote sentence and/or the short footnote sentence are not defined properly. Normally the short footnote sentence omits some of the information that is included in the footnote sentence but otherwise is similar to the footnote sentence. The other possibility is that one or more data elements have not been fully defined when creating the source and the citation. Would it be possible for you to post a screen capture of the source template in question and also a screen capture source and citation from the Edit Person screen?
The following is for both endnotes and footnotes in RM8.
All the same options work exactly the same in RM8 as RM7 and the options work very reliably in RM8 with one exception. If you can get the endnotes or footnotes to work correctly in RM7, they should also work correctly in RM8.
The exception is that RM8’s options to use short footnotes and Ibid and Reuse Endnote Numbers only work for Reused citations. They do not work for citations that have been Copied. RM8 treats each citation that has been Copied as a completely separate citation and gives it its own separate full footnote or full endnote. Citations in RM8 become Copied if you do a Memorize and Paste/Copy, or if you import a database from RM7 into RM8 without subsequently running RM8’s Merge Duplicate Citations tool.
Hey Thanks so much for the detailed explanation, it does help. I am attaching the screen prints I believe you are asking for. I accept that what I may be seeing is that only the short footnote is printing though I do not know why. I also accept that I may entering something differently between the citations but they sure look the same to me. The main reason for clarifying “reuse and ibid” as checked was to provide as much detail. Additionally, it does not make a difference whether I select footnote or endnote the behaviour is the same. What does change is if I select the report and Start with Jane then the footnote includes “item of interest” it is only when she is not the starting person in the report that item of interest is not included. Also FWIW when I import the entire database into FH7 the footnotes print correctly, so the database seems to be correct. I wonder if it is the report engine? Finally just to clarify, Jane Gray is not the only person this is happening to. if she was the only one I would be fine with deleting her and the citation and re-entering.
I have spent considerable time just now trying to recreate your problem on my computer. Everything I put in for Jane looks right and also matches what you have posted.
Everything that is entered in the yellow area will be the same for each use of the master source. It’s difficult to see how there is any problem there.
Everything that is entered in the green area will have to be different for each use of the master source. Let’s just focus on the [ItemOfInterest] problem. Can you look in the green area for the citation for one of Jane’s ancestors and see if the “Item of interest” box has been filled in. I suspect that it has not been filled in. The “Item of Interest” box is placed into the [ItemOfInterest] variable in the footnote sentence. If you see the [ItemOfInterest] variable itself in the footnote sentence without a value, that usually means that the “Item of Interest” box has been left blank.
If there is still a problem at this point with the ancestor, could you post a screen print for the ancestor with the problem. It’s only the second screen print that is needed (the one with both the yellow and the green areas). The first screen print is not needed any further at this point.
First, thanks so much for working with me to try to resolve this! As this is my first foray into the forums (and have been using RM since 4!) I will try to clarify something to see if this is still what you are looking for. To clarify he quote above:
When Jane is the start person for the report, HER footnotes print as expected. When Her father or grandfather is the start person, HER footnotes do not print the "item of interest. And yes, I agree I was not as clear as I should have been. Looking at the fist screenprint I uploaded, footnote 1 is actually Janes father and as you can see the “item of interest” does indeed print. Additionally when I run a report on John’s father (edward FWIW) then the Item of interest for Edward and John print as expected. In all of the scenarios however Janes Item of Interest does not print.
That being the case, could you post your “second screen print” for Jane. Go into Jane’s Edit Person screen, go into her citation for Catwick Parish Registers 1471221, and print screen it. Something in her Source Details boxes has to be blank.
What’s clear from both this and the earlier screenshot is that the variable for Item of Interest is not included in the sentence template for Short Footnote. If Short Footnotes are not disabled in report settings then, after the first output of the Citation’s full Footnote, all subsequent outputs will be Short. Is that not what you are seeing?
Yes I agree. However the footnotes we have been reviewing are the first time the citation is output, therefore I would expect the full footnote. But yes I agree that what I am seeing is probably the short footnote. By disable do you mean unchecking reuse number and use ibid? If so I have just done that and printed both with footnotes and endnotes and ibid unchecked and this issue remained.
Not sure what the next steps are…
I’m going to be away from the computer for a few hours, but the most recent screenshot appears to be just fine for Jane. So now could you post a screenshot of the apparently incorrect citations as they appear in as footnotes or as endnotes in an actual report? It’s hard to think of a reason the footnote sentences and short footnote sentences would not appear the same as footnotes and endnotes in reports as they do in the Edit Source screen.
Also, there are the source templates from your template.
I know I have posted quite a few screenshots, the first one however satisfies your request I believe?! for Jane it is footnote #3, which I believe is incorrect. Sarah is footnote #4 which I believe is correct.
Your first image is from a page in the report with footnotes, not endnotes, right? If RM is working as designed and described, Sarah’s footnote is clearly the first output of that Citation (the full Footnote) and Jane’s is clearly a subsequent output of its Citation that has occurred on a previous page. As you have described, when the narrative starts with Jane, not with her ancestor, that Citation for her Baptism event is outputted for the first time in the report and uses the full Footnote sentence. If you search earlier in your report of concern, I am confident you will find the full Footnote is used for a Citation for an event for an ancestor. Perhaps you shared her Baptism event with one of her parents or duplicated the Citation and tagged it to the couple.
Correct, the first image is from a page in the report with footnotes, however it is the first page of the report. I have regenerated the report and have pushed up the first page of that report. I do agree that it certainly appears to be outputting the short footnote though:
So, thinking maybe I did a copy paste (which I typically don’t do, but…) of Johns citation then edited the citation with Janes information, I deleted Janes citation and re entered it. The results are the same. For whatever reason, the report engine is seeing Jane as a repeat entry.
Question: Since the Source is the same for both John and Jane, Does that mean any subsequent use of that source, even for a different citation is considered to be the short footnote?
And again, when imported in FH7, the footnotes all print as expected. Stumped…
Hmmm, it’s beginning to penetrate! Is this report from RM7 or RM8?
Does footnote #2 contain the Item of Interest value (if it’s the same template)?
I’d suggest you export Jane’s family with John and Anne as parents to a new database. Check you are seeing the same aberration. Submit a request for help to Tech Support with a backup of the small database file. It certainly seems that the footnotes are not behaving as intended.
A second step might be to reduce the verbosity of your Master Sources, given the citation is of just one of those registers, So
Church of England Parish Church of Catwick (Catwick. Yorkshire. England). Baptisms, marriages, burials, 1586-1668. Baptisms, marriages, burials. 1679-1728. Baptisms, burials. 1729-1781. marriages. 1729-1754. Baptisms, burials. 1781-1812. Baptisms. 1813-1890. Marriages. 1755-1812 Marriages. 1813-1837. Marriages. 1838-1891… Baptisms. 1813-1890. page 11, entty 83. image 872.
could become something like:
Church of England Parish Church of Catwick (Catwick. Yorkshire. England). Baptisms. 1813-1890. page 11, entty 83. FHL microfilm 1471221, image 872.
Maybe that might resolve the problem and make for a cleaner report. I don’t know how the report generator knows if a citation has been outputted. If it is a string search, maybe it stops comparing after 255 characters or some silly thing like that.