Even if I have used Gramps for a while now I still have trouble with the logic behind how citations are displayed in the People Tree view.
I have a source/citation (in this case a church record) from which I can extract references to three different persons, one family (the same three persons) and three events.
In the People Tree view for one of the persons I have now seven instances of the same citation:
for the other two persons three instances each. Double clicking on any of these instances opens the same Citation window.
I somewhat understand that this multitude of instances has something to do with the actual number of references for each person, but if so I believe my main person should have five instances, not seven. But even if each one of the citation instances do point to its own reference I don’t really see the relevance of repeating just the citation seven times (in this particular case). Or is it something I have not understood? Or something I am doing absolutely wrong?
A shared citation will NOT be counted or displayed in another person’s Citation tab.
It will display for all instances where the citation is set within a person’s record. ie a Baptism citation also added to Birth as its proof. This will count as two entries in the tab.
The citation will also be added to a person’s Citation tab if it is added to something that is attached to person’s record. ie if the citation is also attached to the Church place record. One instance will be for the event Baptism and one for the Place record attached to the Baptism record.
You can double-click any of the records in the Citation tab and it will bring up the Citation record. Go to its References tab and this will display all of the various records where this citation is being used.
Many thanks, Dave! At least I know that I didn’t do anything wrong (something I feared when suddenly seven identical citations materialized).
But would it be more understandable if each of the identical citations (in the Person’s Citation tab) in addition could say something about why it was listed (i.e. listing the reference in question)? Would this be a question for the “Ideas”-section?
I am not a coder (I can only hack what someone else has already coded) but looking at the code, it would not seem easy. So yes, you could put it out there as an idea or file a feature request that may or (more likely) may not get implemented.
For myself, I only source the Fact that the bit of information actually Proves. So using the baptism record as an example, I would source the Baptism but not the Birth if that information is included. While the birth info is probably true, it is actually second hand information in the Baptism record. I enter this birth information, but until I actually find the Birth record, I consider it a clue. This limits how often I share a citation within in a person’s record. This also limits what I call citation clutter.
I know others have different methods for sourcing and want to know where they got that clue of the Birth date. We each develop our own work methods. No one method is either correct or wrong.
I do not see the “Problem”. As I stated, if a baptism record contains information on the birth, I include it in the person’s record and attach the source to the Baptism which is what the Baptism record proves.
And Gramps recognizes that often, the baptism is the only event we will be able to find and treats it as a “fallback” record when the actual birth event is unknowable.
The only thing we each do differently is which records we attach the source. And as I clearly state each method is neither correct nor wrong.
Without taking the Scandinavian missing Birth records into consideration here, I understand and accept Dave’s approach here: When you have a multitude of sources giving the same information, use just the one closest to the real event. For a birth event it would be a Birth record, in Scandinavia it would perhaps be a Baptist record.
But in addition to a Birth (Baptist) record, I have a number of Census records, a Confirmation record, a Death record etc., all with birth dates. And I think I would prefer all sources to be completely documented. So maybe I would have to accept Dave’s “citation clutter”.
Oh well, establishing a “best practice” is not easy when you don’t know all the possible “practices”. But I really do appreciate your input and time!
The Best Practice is what works for you, the user.
Do a test. Add the multiple sources throughout a person’s record. Then run a test of the reports you most often use or send to relatives. An event in Gramps can easily handle multiple citations. How does that look like in a report?
