FTM-TECH-L Archives

Archiver > FTM-TECH > 2009-04 > 1239913579

From: Forrest Ladd <>
Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] Source-Citation Follow Up
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:26:19 -0500
References: <000501c9be19$b0253ca0$106fb5e0$@winters@pc-bs.com>
In-Reply-To: <000501c9be19$b0253ca0$106fb5e0$@winters@pc-bs.com>

Thanks for the presentation, Greg. I find myself usually entering
only Footnote Test, and it does exactly what I want it to do, i.e.,
convey my source or comment for that particular item and no other,
and placing it in the endnotes where it belongs. The Notes section
serves an entirely different purpose for me.

At 05:29 PM 4/15/2009, you wrote:
>Wow...thanks for all the discussion! I'm afraid I'm going to have to side
>with Lawrence on this one. A little contextual regression is required...
>In FTM 16 (the pre 08/09 example I'll use), we have 'Master Source,'
>'Citation Text,' and 'Footnote' as the major players in the discussion.
>This was a brilliant stroke of design which demonstrated good understanding
>of proper format of printed reports, particularly the Descendant Narrative.
>As a matter of fact, this Source citing and documenting structure was one of
>the prime reasons I selected FTM over all of the other major brands of
>software: no other product would create footnotes as cleanly and
>consistently as FTM.
>First, you had 'Master Source' which allowed a generic description of a
>source, including a nice section for Comment. What this allowed the user to
>do was create a Source with information which would be applicable to all
>Facts it was associated with. Next, there was 'Citation Text' that allowed
>the user to add clarifying text or partial quoting from the original source.
>When Citation Text was added to a single Fact, even though the Source it was
>being applied to could be linked to many other Facts, the Citation Text
>would appear only for the Fact that it was originally entered - none of the
>Lastly, but most importantly for me, there was 'Footnote' - the unique FTM
>element. As with Citation Text, Footnote text remained unique to the
>particular Fact it was entered with, but there was an important distinction:
>FTM's creators used this field to allow the user to present important
>information about a Fact in a footnote *format* - at the end of the
>document. This was HUGE for me. (For those of you who suggested that I use
>the Notes field, you can now see that this is not an adequate solution.
>Notes are printed in the *text body* and seriously impact the outline layout
>that the Descendant Narrative utilizes to display information.)
>I created nearly 8000 Footnotes prior to upgrading to '08. These were
>imported into '08 as Reference Notes. Now here's the curiosity (which
>deceived me at the beginning): Although the Sources are linked to multiple
>Facts, the Reference Note that was *imported* remained unique to the Fact
>that it was originally entered with! The import process somehow was able to
>distinguish between the Source with generic data and the Source with unique
>footnote data.
>What I'm not sure of now, however, is how accurately FTM's 08 import read
>the original Footnotes and how it knew to link the Sources on import. It
>seems as though if it found identical footnote text from the same Source
>(e.g., "Gives the city of birth only."), then it was comfortable linking
>this to other Facts with the same text. The problem? It linked to
>different *types* of Facts, and now I'm wondering if this whole thing is
>trashed. I tested one of the links and it was wrong: the Source was
>correct, but the supplementary ('Reference Note') is incorrect.
>List information page
>Online Support for Family Tree Maker
>Version 16 and earlier
>Version 2008 & 2009
>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without
>the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

This thread: