URL in source citation

Help
,
1

Continuing the discussion from How are we doing sources?:

Gramps v6.0 on MacOS

I was looking at the Gramps 6.1 roadmap as well as the github pull requests, but couldn’t find anything regarding adding URL to source citation.

Can I just create a pull request in github?

This is how I would like the source citation to look like:

Gramps citation with url
Gramps citation with url1276×1075 101 KB

It’s made in Gimp, so there’s no code behind the image. A click on the “arrow” icon would open the source (in preferred browser).

For GEDCOM export 5.5 I believe the data would go into the “Volume/Page” tag as a key:value pair. For GEDCOM 7 I believe there is a URL tag. For Gramps I guess it should be stored in the citation object.

2 Likes
2

We already have an Internet tab for other object types.

It seems like it would be better to not have a different interface for the same functionality. Plus, the ability to have multiple URLs for a citation would be useful.

(It would be nice if it handled PDF [local URI and remote URL] with page/indexing support.)

17511294871022815049161723913412

17511295560503765368942441190256

3

It should absolutely not be an extra tab to the source citation editor, but a new field as shown in the image.
Whether it’s called “Web address” or “Link/URL” I don’t mind, as long as it’s usage is intuitive.
I don’t like the text button, when the rest of the layout uses graphic icons.

1 Like
4

There could an alternative data-entry citation “view” that gives direct access to more fields, including a primary/preferred link. But the built-in view should conform the common interface with a tab.

Having a URL is atypical of standard citation formats. Particularly since Internet-based sources are generally considered low-confidence and ephemeral. Yet having a field implies that every citation is expected to have one. That sends mixed messages.

5

Here’s what works well for me: I attach a Note to the citation, put the URL in the Note, and it appears (and is clickable) in the endnotes that Gramps adds to reports.

6

I total support the proposal as described. I can’t think that I have ever recorded multiple URL for a citation. The same citation could be found at different sites, but I would not record that as I don’t enter duplicates.
I upload to WikiTree and using a note is a non-starter because notes are handle as separate items and not linked to a citation.
The URL currently must be as part of the vol/page to remain part of the citation. I assume at some point that WikiTree would handle the gedcom7 tag.
Currently I append the URL to the end of the vol/page field.

1 Like
7

I’ve moved to just using attributes as the actual sources (First Note, Subsequent Note, and Bibliography Note attributes) and a short descriptive note in the “Volume/Page” field so that I can tell what is what quickly in the Source view. It makes an ABSOLUTE MESS out of the canned reports though.

I’m not sure how to make the actual source window flexible enough to handle all citation formats. Because, lets be honest, for many hobby genealogists, especially in the US, most of us are now using online records. But that may not be true for many in other areas of the world that have more local access to archives. Other than straight up making a overpowered (e.g., add a date button, different section for each type of note, etc) Notes window.

I do wish that the attributes popup was more like the notes popup. Like, 1 little text box, with all of that unused space is frustrating. (the one little text box in the source window falls to this as well).

Screenshot 2025-06-29 085236
Screenshot 2025-06-29 085236636×416 26.4 KB

8

The Edit Attribute dialog layout is defined with a Glade file. You could tweak it.

1 Like
9

I don’t think attributes are meant to be used that way.

Create an event
Select a source. I like using the same name the site uses.
Put what you show in you screen shot in the vol/page field

I usually put relevant data at the start of the field and append the URL to the end (because some are very long)

10

They really probably are not, and I’ll probably have to write my own report to make use of them, but given how anemic/book-focused the sourcing is in Gramps, I haven’t thought of a better way; although I am always open to ideas and cool things others have done!

I cite using the EE model which has 3 types of sources as listed above, which aligns with Chicago and several other citation models. Even if I was using MLA or APA, they require 2, how to do that without attributes? I guess I could put it in separate notes, and give them a different note type, but that seemed messier than attributes.

I did start with putting the whole citation in the volume, but it was a pain to write and edit. I have to write it elsewhere and paste it in, and it doesn’t retain proper formatting, like italics.

And it makes a mess to try and read. While I can manage right now with how small my database is, when it grows knowing which citation I’m looking at at a glance will be a pain with this setup:
Screenshot 2025-06-29 171546

Much easier to stick it in an attribute and use the Page/Vol for this:
Screenshot 2025-06-29 171805

And while the first one certainly got me closer to what I would consider correct citations on canned reports, it still wasn’t correct enough that I wouldn’t have to hand edit. Might as well make it easier for me in program, since I’m editing reports either way.

Again, given how varied everyone sources things, I think a robust free form text input with some bells and whistles might be something to consider.

1 Like
11

I put some specfics into the vol/page field like the film number or other reference info which can be used to locate the citation if needed.
In a many of them I copy the transcribed citation into a note of the citation.
The URL is appeared to the end of vol/page field.
These all come out well in reports and conform to gedcom exports. Be aware that the attributes in the citation is not included in an export.

1 Like
12

I make it simple…

I use Zotero for all sources, then I copy an APA-Style Citation with link (permalink) to the citations vol/page field, if needed I also add page, row, section number etc. to the citation for each event/object using the source.

For the sources, I add a full Bibliography generated in Zotero in the same format…

The same can be done using any biblatex- or CSL-compatible software, such as JabRef or similar tools. If you don’t want to use an external application, you can also use an online service like https://zbib.org.

13

Hi

I was always taught to to consider the citation as a pointer very much
like GPS coordinates so my construct is

Repository:- The National Archives Kew, UK
Source:- 1891 Census England
Citation:- RG09, Piece 2219, Folio 277, Page 36, Household Schedule
Number(Optional if two households on the same page) 12.

Go to a the National Archives give them that information and you will
get a copy of the page.

Publishers Ancestry, Family Search are less flexible and more dependent
on Name and DOB.

phil

3 Likes
14

Just an addition to clarify to my earlier comment…

I do the same as @comeng, just with small adjustments, when I can’t find the exact archival citation — I use the version available on FamilySearch, the Norwegian Digitalarkivet, the National Archives Catalog, or similar online archives.

I categorize it as a “Digital Copy,” include as much citation metadata as possible (typically in APA or Chicago format — APA being more common in Norway), and usually append a persistent URL when available. I often create two repositories for the same source: one representing the original physical archive, and one for the digital surrogate — each with its own complete bibliographic entry in the same style. If I can’t locate the digitized version at the original archive, I cite the repository where I actually found the material, clearly distinguishing its source path.

My general preference is to cite public digital archives (like Digitalarkivet, the National Archives Catalog, etc.) over third-party platforms such as FamilySearch, Ancestry, or MyHeritage — prioritizing publicly maintained copies when possible.

The main difference in my approach is that I embed the archival reference and identifiers directly into the full citation string, while @comeng lists those keys separately in a comma-separated format. I still include those same identifiers — such as collection number, microfilm reel, or NAID — but structured within the citation for both readability and academic clarity.

I also download a copy as an image or PDF — or even just take a screenshot — to preserve the appearance of the record at the time it was accessed.

For example, using the reference shown in @comeng’s post, my three APA-style entries would look like this:

  • Citation used for the event/record (APA-style reference used inline in citation field): The National Archives. (1891). 1891 Census of England and Wales (RG09, Piece 2219, Folio 277, Page 36). The National Archives, Kew. (Retrieved from [insert permalink or URL here])
  • Source object (APA bibliography-style reference): The National Archives. (1891). 1891 Census of England and Wales. Kew, UK: The National Archives.
  • Repository object (APA-formatted institutional reference): The National Archives. (n.d.). National archival holdings and digital catalog. Kew, UK.

Additionally, if different identifiers or reference structures exist for the physical and digital versions held by the original archive, I create distinct references for each and label them clearly using the “Type” field — for example: “Hard copy / Original” and “Digital copy”.

When needed — especially in cases where multiple individuals appear on the same census page or parish register — I also add details such as house number, dwelling ID, family number, or even line/row number to isolate each reference more precisely. That allows me to cite five individuals on the same page with five separate citations, differentiated only by line number if needed — for instance, when several people with the same name appear in a single household or record.

But as I mentioned earlier, I store and manage all my sources in Zotero as well, since I use them across different types of software in addition to Gramps.

Note: I used Copilot to help translate and format this text, as well as to correct areas where there were clear mismatches between Norwegian and English sentence structure.

Fun fact: this actually started as a casual experiment :right_arrow: I asked Copilot to critique its own translation. But as I read the analysis, I spotted several oversights in the original version that I hadn’t noticed before. What began as a “just for fun” AI review turned into a more serious revision, with corrections and structural improvements across multiple parts of this comment.

2 Likes
15

I agree very much, but living in Scandinavia almost all sources used for genealogy is also available online. The Danish National Archive has published all danish church books, all censuses, probate protocols, military records etc., more than 50 different sources. With this huge amount of online sources URLs become essential. Recently the Danish National Archive has made a large restructuring of their online data, but as they use what is called perma-links all old URLs still work flawlessly.
Further, a lot of danish genealogists voluntary type in all censuses (almost 100% done) and church books (ca. 40 % done), so they are also searchable.

Writing this to show how important URLs are in modern genealogy.

Regards
Claus

5 Likes
16

The National Archives in the UK gives advice on citing web pages.

They suggest including “Retrieved from web site: url (accessed date)” in the citation. For this we would need an entry field for both the URL and date accessed (defaulting to the current date). Where should the web site name be stored? Strictly speaking it is a publisher, but people often use the repository for this.

1 Like
17

Currently, I use attributes for the URL in the source citation. I’m not entirely satisfied with it.

For the future, I personally prefer the suggestion of adding an Internet tab because:

  • The single attribute or field doesn’t include a description field, which is sometimes very useful.
  • Unlike Claus, I have citations with multiple URLs, and in this case, the single field would be a bottleneck.
  • Finally, it would be more consistent with displays that already have an Internet tab.

Another suggestion for the source citation: I think an additional field named “description” or “title” could be useful.

1 Like
18

A possible GUI compromise could be handled in the same way as Alternative names in the Edit Person dialog.

Where there is a highly visible and accessible primary/preferred record and a tab for managing multiples … or for extended attributes.

19

Can you please explain how or why, you have multiple URLs to a single citation?

If you have an archive with a church book (the source) you can refer to a volume and page.
If this church book has been scanned, and available online, you have a single URL that point to this volume and page and eventually to a position on the page.

If you find references to this information, e.g. on FamilySearch, Ancestry or MyHeritage it is a secondary source to the same citation, but it is another source.

20

I would also like to understand this but I have to raise the point which
has come up before in very very rare cases are FamilySearch, Ancestry or
MyHeritage etc “sources” they are “publishers” and the sooner we can get
a fitting structure for Citations with this differentiation clear
the better.
phil

1 Like