# Immediate Family filters

**URL:** https://gramps.discourse.group/t/immediate-family-filters/2491
**Category:** Ideas
**Created:** [June 9, 2022, 5:57pm UTC](https://gramps.discourse.group/t/immediate-family-filters/2491 "2022-06-09T17:57:09Z")
**Posts on this page:** 4
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![emyoulation](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/gramps.discourse.group/emyoulation/32/67_2.png) [@emyoulation](https://gramps.discourse.group/u/emyoulation)
#### Post date: [June 9, 2022, 5:57pm UTC](https://gramps.discourse.group/t/immediate-family-filters/2491/1 "2022-06-09T17:57:09Z")

</div>

It is too many steps to extend the scope of a view so that the patterns that interrelate the records can be perceived. And which allows redundant records to be spotted & merged.

The Family view is under-developed for this purpose. The @cdhorn CardView expands the scope and exposes patterns & duplicates. But that subset of records has to be in a list (or grouped list) view before extended selections are enabled and merging can happen.

However, if a matched set of filters could narrow the scope of a view, then discovering winnowing down duplicates becomes much easier.

So adding a few built-in rules could greatly simplify merging duplicate branches:

- **Family rule:**  
"_Families of \<people filter\>_"  
Inclusive:  
Include Families where Person is a Partner  
Include Families where Person is a Child

- **Person rule:**  
"_Family members of \<family filter\>_"  
Inclusive:  
Include Parents  
Include Children

- **Events rule:**  
"_Events of \<family filter\>_"  
Inclusive:  
Include Family events  
Include Parent events  
Include Children events

- **Place rule:**  
"_Places of \<family filter\>_"  
Include Family event places  
Include Parent event places  
Include Children event places

- **Sources rule:**  
"_Sources of \<family filter\>_"  
Include Family sources  
Include Parent sources  
Include Children sources

- **Citations rule:**  
"_Citations of \<family filter\>_"  
Include Family citations  
Include Parent citations  
Include Children citations

- **Notes rule:**  
"_Notes of \<family filter\>_"  
Include Family notes  
Include Parent notes  
Include Children notes

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![GeorgeWilmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c57346/32.png) [@GeorgeWilmes](https://gramps.discourse.group/u/GeorgeWilmes)
#### Post date: [June 9, 2022, 10:20pm UTC](https://gramps.discourse.group/t/immediate-family-filters/2491/2 "2022-06-09T22:20:29Z")

</div>

I was looking for such filters a few months ago, and now I can’t remember. It might have been when I was trying to find a way to check whether I had accidentally put a child into multiple families with a mother or father relation of “Birth”. I rhink that might require something more than what you suggest.

Another thought, if such filters are created, it would be good if they could also consider the sources, citations, and notes that are attached not only to persons (parents and children) and families but also to ChildRefs.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![emyoulation](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/gramps.discourse.group/emyoulation/32/67_2.png) [@emyoulation](https://gramps.discourse.group/u/emyoulation)
#### Post date: [June 9, 2022, 11:10pm UTC](https://gramps.discourse.group/t/immediate-family-filters/2491/3 "2022-06-09T23:10:46Z")

</div>

> [@GeorgeWilmes](#):
>
> Another thought, if such filters are created, it would be good if they could also consider the sources, citations, and notes that are attached not only to persons (parents and children) and families but also to ChildRefs.

Yes, if you’ve been exploring @cdhorn 's CardView, you’ll notice that the Citations column has “Indirect” as well. Those are where the Citation are attached to Secondary objects. It is a very sweet refinement.

It is likely that rules such as these will have surprise twists. So they would benefit from being released as add-ons before being converted to built-ins. And there might be ways to optimize the rule too. When dealing with the potential geometric growth (Individual count as you go from Person → Families), optimization is going to be important.

I have no doubt that this functionality can be created with @kku 's SuperTool, but these rules ought to be standard, not bespoke. The skills that @Mattkmmr has to code an add-on filter rule or @PLegoux has to design it in SuperTool are beyond the ability of the majority of the community.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![PLegoux](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/gramps.discourse.group/plegoux/32/413_2.png) [@PLegoux](https://gramps.discourse.group/u/PLegoux)
#### Post date: [June 10, 2022, 5:04pm UTC](https://gramps.discourse.group/t/immediate-family-filters/2491/4 "2022-06-10T17:04:07Z")

</div>

You’re right. This is not a problem to do this kind of filters with Supertool.

This is not your request but [this one](https://www.geneanet.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2032470#p2032470) [fr] finds Individuals who were neither born nor died in a city and have no events there, but have citations from a source originating from this city (probably because they lived there) now go up with this individuals filter. ([GEPS 015](https://www.gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php/GEPS_015:_Repository_Research_Support) like)