How is everyone doing sourcing? Coming from RM and Evidentia, I am very used to doing my sources in the Evidence Explained style, but I just can’t seem to get it to work well in Gramps. The very basic inbuilt source/citation manager doesn’t seem to have much flexibility at all. I find myself putting the link into the Volume/Page line and then putting the ACTUAL citation in the notes section. But that leaves me with reports that don’t output the source correctly:
It also becomes an issue when I need to cite a living person in my source. Is there any way for that name to be redacted on reports?
Surely someone here has run into the massive issue of appropriate sourcing and has some idea how to fix the issue. That’s like foundational, we can’t all be just not sourcing stuff, right?
I do what you are doing. I don’t have an issue with it.
Pick the source, enter the corresponding info in the Vol/page field like “volume: 32 page: 6” and then I append the URL to the field also.
I cut and paste the transcribed text into the citation note field.
I upload my tree to WikiTree and this method works well on that site.
Using the : as a separator allows me to use the search feature with good success.
This format also prints out well in reports.
But how do y’all get standard sources on reports or outputs? I’m kinda shocked that sources and citations, which are arguably the most important part of ethical genealogy are such an after thought.
How are professional genealogists using gramps with this limitation?
Different users different solutions
I have in the past and continue to argue that URL’s should not form part of a citation
a) because they are largely generated by Publishers of copies of original data which are not Repositories as defined by GRAMPS
b) because in general Publishers are largely commercial organisations which may or may not exist in 10 years
c)URL’s change and therefore (ie http to https) mean altering/updating all your data
But each to his/her own
phil
The Citation Edit window is absolutely missing a field for a link/URL to the source.
I work very much the same way as @Davesellers and @DaveSch adding the URL to a note. In addition I also mark the URL, click the Link button (U-turn sign), choose “Internet Address” from from the Link Type drop down list and add (copy) the URL to the [Internet Address] field.
All this just because a URL is missing in the Citation Edit window.
From my point of view a Citation URL should be a separate field, both for clarity and for easy and intuitive use. Also when the URL is in a field in its own, it will be very simple to click and open a window to the source.
In another thread (sorry I don’t remember who wrote it) I read that the Volume/page field can contain both volume/page and url as key:value pairs. This might be fine for GEDCOM export/import, but in Gramps the URL should be single entity. If GEDCOM doesn’t have a citation URL, then it should be the task of the GEDCOM export function to add the URL as a key:value to the Vol/page.
I guess it depends on sources.
Most of my sources come from French archives that actually stores the original physical data. Barring any catastrophic event, these will still exist in decades (or if they don’t, then the citation will be as obsolete as the URL).
As for URL changes, it is not really a problem when organizations generate ARKs. They update the base URL themselves in the NAAN registry and the resolver takes you to the new place. Well, I guess this is more saying that in this case ARK, not URL, is part of the citation, and the URL can be easily reconstructed. In a corner of my brain, with a million other projects, is the idea to build an ARK resolver addon for Gramps (along with a citation plug-in to generate the current URL for reports maybe ?).
All that to say that the URL should not be the only identifying part of the citation when possible, but it can be a very useful resource
For now, I do store the URL in a “Link” note, and I am toying with the idea of storing the ARK in an attribute. I have not yet tested reports and exports.
I can see no problem with your suggestion of ARK or storing as an
attribute just as long as it does not go in the Vol Page box.
To make life perfect for me just need “Publisher” added to Sidebar along
with Repository, Source, Citation.
phil
As I indicated in my reply earlier I put the URL in the Vol/Page field (appended at the end). With it in that field, when it is uploaded to WikiTree it is grouped with the source/citation. However, if the URL was in a separate note it would just show as a single line in the === Note === section with no connection to which citation it was for.
This might work if I saved a note with a copy of the transcription and included the URL, however a copy is not always taken. My workflow varies as to what goes in the Vol/Page field, from a lot to nothing, but it will always contain a URL if the citation was found online.
I agree that a URL field would be nice, but the exporter must append it to the Vol/Page field to be compatible with other application/sites.
I have no issues including an ARK in a citation, but even when it is not an ARK, most citation formats would call for a base “familysearch.org” style URL. There are just so many fields that are missing, or that we need to cram into notes that don’t print. Layered citations? Discursive notes? Collection? Item type?, Artifact ID? Owner’s location (and the redaction that goes with that!) The difference between the first citation, subsequent citation, and then the source listing?
I’m leaning into just writing the citation in Word and then pasting the whole thing into the Page/Volume, which to me says that this needs serious thoughts on an overhaul, or at the very least a “free-form” citation box.
The WebConnect module (with its quickviews and the recent Gramplet adaptation by @Urchello) seem to be doing similar passthroughs (substitutions) with Gramps data fields.
Maybe this could be adapted to an ARK-like gramplet? Where a “UUID” attribute a Source (or Repository Call Number?) could be substituted into a URL locally and eliminate most of the redirects?
The limitation in the Gramps Data Model of only Sources being linked to Repositories seems like a problem. Unless the RepoRef (and its Call Number, Media Type fields) was extended for use by other objects in addition to Sources, the table of Source objects would become quickly polluted by workaround placeholder Sources.
Or maybe the URL handler could add special gramps:/ and ark:/ protocol cases? There seems to be a precedent for the Gramps one in the linking markdown for Notes.
One option would be to use attributes together with a custom citation formatter addon. This could either combine attributes or just use free-form text.
We only have a two layer citation model at the moment (three if you count repositories as an extra layer). Citations are aggregated by source when they are displayed in the bibliography at the end of reports.
I agree. I planned to include “URL” and “Date Accessed” fields in v5.3, but we ended up making a fundamental change to our object storage format instead.
Just wanted to drop this here as a resource and background information for those of us sourcing genealogy data in the US, and the US standards and conventions that the corps and larger community is moving towards.
Starting with Gramps 5.2, citation creation was separated in the code to allow users to organize their citations in other formats. The default S/C that is installed with Gramps is called Legacy and is set in Preferences. Another addon S/C format can be downloaded as an addon. Note it is listed as an Expert, Beta addon so in the addon manager, set your filters as needed to access it. The Enhanced citation brings the Repository into the generated citation for reports.
If this still does not meet your needs, you can use the enhanced addon to modify it creating your specific citation.
Some things to be aware of.
Citations are placed in Gramps reports as end notes. Placing them as foot notes would be a major rewrite of report codes.
Currently, only one S/C format can be set and is used for all types of Sources. Books, Newspapers, digital online, etc.
In Gramps, a Citation record cannot exist without it being attached to a Source. Sources do not need to be attached to a Repository.
The available fields in a Source, Citation, and Repository are finite. But each can have attached Attributes and Notes.
So you can have a crack of creating a format to you liking, or give us a list of which fields in which order and when a period, comma, or semicolon is needed and maybe we will be able to help to create a new format.
And remember, even Lisa Stokes within the first 2 minutes of her presentation state “there is no one right way that you have to do a citation.”
Use Zotero or JabRef as your source system and copy the citation or bibliography from the program you chose, both of these software use CSL, so if you can’t find the right citation style for you, you can create one yourself..
Then just copy the generated citation string or bibliography string into the “Vol/Page” field or a note…
That is I think my current plan. Or just using Evidentia, since any tricksy sources will need to go in there for analysis. I’m still just a little perplexed that Gramps has such a basic source system. I mean, almost all of the style manuals call for some sort of first reference, subsequent ref, and bibliography style. I also haven’t quite figured out how to generate a bibliography yet.
This helps in conjunction with playing around with source names, and I will probably become what “in the industry” they call a Lumper, which is NOT at all how I work in other software. But with only the Volume/Page line to work with I think that a more generic source under a repository might be best.
As a side note, I’m not a programmer (other than hacking my job with VBA and power automate ), but as someone that has sourced a lot of things in a lot of different styles, EE, AP, APA, MLA, Chicago, etc, if there is ever a Sourcing Side Project that happens, I would love to be involved.
there is talk and work going on with the source and citation system in Gramps, but it was more important to change the datastore form pickled blobs to JSON…
But you can write anything you like in the text field for the citation…
I use a full bibliography-string in APA style, add attributes needed like page and section etc., and include a web link or an app-link to Zotero (depend on the source).
I have tried to advocate for a CSL-JSON or BibTex supported system…
So basically your end notes on reports are in bibliography style, and then the details are in the attributes? Is there a way to update reports to include those attributes in the endnotes, or are you working more within the database and referencing it in the citation screen and less in producing external facing reports with all of the citation info?
I feel like for right now, the former works for me, as I’m not collaborating, but I worry that there will be a time that I want to produce my work for archiving in a format like a book or pdf, and I won’t be able to easily get all of the information into that.
in this case, when I talk about “attributes”, I put them in the Citation/bibliography string as key pair or whatever format the citation style demands.
When you chose a “copy” style in e.g. Zotero, you get some choices, but usually there will be some information that is not included, I add those manually in Gramps.
Reason for me to write Citation and or Bibliography is because different people have different needs, you can copy both from Zotero.
I find that for some styles the bibliography-string from Zotero is more like a citation in Gramps with a few extra attributes added, like page or section, or PoI if you need that.
My best suggestion is to try and edit the copy string in Zotero to your liking, there is a lot of information about how to configure those things for Zotero… or you can make a your own CSL style…
), but as someone that has sourced a lot of things in a lot of different styles, EE, AP, APA, MLA, Chicago, etc, if there is ever a Sourcing Side Project that happens, I would love to be involved.