Hi! I’m using GrampsWeb and trying to choose a consistent Sources vs Citations workflow for certificates (usually a single-page extract/copy).
When I edit an event and click Sources → +, GrampsWeb opens New Citation and forces me to select an existing Source. There’s no “create new Source” option in that dialog, so I have to do it the long way around: create the Source in the Sources section first, then go back to the event and add the Citation.
Since I can attach the scan/photo on the Citation level, I’m considering:
One document = one Source (clear, but many Sources).
One general Source (e.g., “death records extracts”) and each document as a Citation with act number + the scan attached (fewer Sources, but I’m worried about losing functionality).
Questions:
Is approach #2 considered acceptable/good practice in GrampsWeb?
In GrampsWeb, do I lose anything by doing this (searching, reports, export, navigation)?
Gramps 6.0.6
Gramps Web API 3.5.0
Gramps Web Frontend 25.11.2
Gramps QL 0.4.0
Sources are in relation to a repository. So using all death records together as one general source is a bad idea in my opinion. A source could be a church book with death records. This source belongs to an archive (or a website) as repository.
Thanks, I understand the idea of that hierarchy (Repository → Source → Citation) and it makes sense from a archival/library perspective.
What frustrates me in GrampsWeb is the workflow: when I’m editing an event for a specific person and click Sources → +, I only get New Citation with “select an existing source”. There’s no way to create the missing Source (and optionally the Repository) right there in the same flow, so I have to close the dialog, go to the Sources section, create it, then return to the event and add the citation. It feels unnecessarily “roundabout” for day-to-day data entry.
I migrated to GrampsWeb because I loved the modern, simple UI, but this particular part makes me wonder if I’ll be able to stick with it long term without getting annoyed. If there’s a recommended shortcut or a planned improvement (create Source from the Citation dialog / quick-add), I’d love to know.
I agree 100%. That is one of the reasons why I still prefer to use webtrees for adding new data to my tree. There you can add a source citation and a new source in one step. But adding a new repository for the new source is in webtrees impossible too.
I agree, and this also goes for the desktop version of Gramps. There’s really room for UI improvement, but apparently the UI doesn’t have high priority.
Having said this, there might be a way around the workflow. Have you considered opening a new tab or window when clicking the [+] sign? I’m using macOS so holding Cmd key down, while clicking the [+] signs open a new tab. I guess that using Ctrl on other OSs does the same. In this way you can easily get back to e.g. the Event page, just by selecting another tab in the browser.
The issue isn’t a huge blocker in day-to-day genealogy work, but I’m currently facing a bigger cleanup task: I need to review around 600 people in my tree to organize data and check inconsistencies (I previously maintained the tree in parallel in MyHeritage and in DG / Drzewo Genealogiczne PLSOFT). In that context, the extra “roundabout” steps add up.
All that said, I can only hope the developers eventually find the time and motivation to streamline this workflow (e.g., quick-create Source from the Citation dialog). Thanks again for taking an interest in the topic.
Add the repository or add the new source to an existing repository, add the citation(s) for the proof in the source, add the event, link the the citation, add any people to the event as participants…
I was about to contribute to this thread in a constructive manner, but I find this comment so insulting that I’ll close the laptop for the day.
Look at the number of releases this year and at the number of UI improvements and think again if you want to claim that “UI doesn’t have high priority”. Thank you and merry Christmas.
I know your comment wasn’t directly responding to my specific point, but I wanted to share some feedback and send some positive energy.
Like I do with any project that catches my interest, I took a quick look at the GitHub Insights numbers and it’s great to see the project is active and gaining momentum. As a PO/PM, I totally understand the roadmap trade-offs: balancing requests to polish core workflows with the desire to introduce new features that keep contributors and users excited.
I’m rooting for the project, and I have one more “How do I…?” question:
When editing an event (e.g., a birth), there’s a metadata field for “witnesses”. What I’m missing is the ability to link a witness to an existing Person in the tree (pick from the People list), rather than entering it as plain text.
Is this something already planned/on the roadmap, or is there a recommended workaround (or best practice) for modeling witnesses today?
Suggestion have you not thought of using the Forms plugin for Birth
Marriages and Death. You can then create the citation and use the Fields
of Witnesses which comes in as Attributes.
You do need to create a Source first and link the Form to the Source
All my census info is done this way.
phil
You can share an Event with Persons/Families (other than those with the pre-defined Primary or FamilyRole). Use the Share button (in the Events tab of the Winess’ Edit Person dialog) to select the Event for the object selector dialog. Or drag the Event from the Primary Person to that Witness’ Event tab.
An Event Reference Editor dialog will appear (for the Witness) with the Role set to Unknown. (Instead of the Primary default role when creating a new Event. As shown in the screen capture below.)
and merry Christmas.
