I am using source lumping for a majority of my sources and have customized templates so a majority of information is on the citation. The problem I am now facing is when I publish a source with the citation information. The footnote information only shows up at the beginning of the report with the tags of the field names. It is obviously pulling information from the source, which doesn’t even have these fields.
Is there anyway to get footnote information for each citation on a report and not at the beginning of the report.
Bibliography: . Minnesota Department of Health. Birth Registrations.
Text: Minnesota U.S. Births and Christenings Index 1840-1980 [database on-line]
Comments: Minnesota Births and Christenings 1840–1980 Index.
Citations:
Bank, Abraham (1898 - 1910) - [BIRTH CERTIFICATE] 1898 Minneapolis Minnesota
Abraham Bank; Minneapolis; FHL Film Number 1498843; 23 February 1898. Detail comments: Minnesota, Births and Christenings, 1840-1980, database
FamilySearch FamilySearch.org
5 February 2020), Abraham Bank, 1898.
I’m not sure I understand. It doesn’t seem like you have run a report. By “a report”, mean something like a narrative report or a Family Group Sheet or an Individual Summary. Any reports like that for your person should show the citation located where you expect it to be located.
That appears to be the Source List report which shows the constructs of the three sentence templates with the Source variables expanded with the values of the named Source and the unexpanded Citation variables’ names in the square brackets in position.
After Source Text and Comments, you have one Citation of the Source which is used once. It begins with the Citation Name and then the list of Citation Variables’ values concatenated with the semi-colon+space separator. That’s followed by the Citation Text and Comments fields and then the where-used list.
At no point in this report will you see the fully expanded Footnote, Short Footnote sentences unless there is no Citation variable in their sentence templates, i.e., the Sources are split extremely.
What I want to see on the report is the detail from the citation.
Footnote: Abraham Bank, birth certificate FHL Film Number 1498843 (23 February 1898), Minnesota Department of Health
Short footnote: Abraham Bank, Minneapolis birth certificate FHL Film Number 1498843 (1898).
Bibliography: . Minnesota Department of Health. Birth Registrations.
Repository:
Provo, UT
Source text:
Minnesota U.S. Births and Christenings Index 1840-1980 [database on-line]
Source comments:
Minnesota Births and Christenings 1840–1980 Index.
FamilySearch, Salt Lake City, Utah, 2009, 2010.
Index entries derived from digital copies of original and compiled records.
Detail comments:
Minnesota, Births and Christenings, 1840-1980, database
FamilySearch FamilySearch.org
5 February 2020), Abraham Bank, 1898.
Such a report does not exist in RM10. The Source List report is the closest. So you could make a request to RM to provide such a report as an enhancement of the Source List report or as a new report.
Sorry to have been so dense in trying to respond. I didn’t realize you were running the Source List report and I was thinking you needed to run one of the other reports and then look at the footnotes.
I was further dense in not taking into proper account that you described yourself as a source lumper. It turns out that I’m an extreme source splitter. For an extreme source splitter, the Source List report works great and it contains everything you need to see. But now that I understand the issue, I totally agree that the Source List report is inadequate for users who are not extreme source splitters. You don’t have to be at all extreme in your lumping to have the problem in running the Source List report. Anybody who is not an extreme source splitter will have the problem in running the Source List report. Solving this problem needs to be an enhancement.
So, after all of this, the bottom line is even if the template is setup to put information on the citation (detail) the report always pulls information from the source. That is what I was trying to understand and verify with this post. It would be nice if you could not have the footer show up on the report, but since it does print out detail comments, I can still use the report.
