Filter for events matching dates

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
30 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Filter for events matching dates

Philip Weiss
FamilySearch has been adding a series of records of birth certificates from 1921-1941. I wanted to find birth events that would fall into that range so I could go look for the matching birth certificates.

I am trying to create an event filter to find birth events in Iowa between those dates. I can make a place filter and include that, and an event type filter and include that, but it doesn't seem like there's a date filter. Am I just missing it? If I am not, is there another way to achieve the same thing?

(Note, still on the Gramps 4.2.X line. I was waiting for a point release before upgradingto 5., and that has just happened. If this is in Gramps 5.X, I'll make a point to make the jump sooner rather than later.)

Thanks,
Phil.


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Filter for events matching dates

enno
Hi Philip,

> I am trying to create an event filter to find birth events in Iowa
> between those dates. I can make a place filter and include that, and
> an event type filter and include that, but it doesn't seem like
> there's a date filter. Am I just missing it? If I am not, is there
> another way to achieve the same thing?

I'm not that much into filters, but once you have the filter on event
place and type, you can of course sort the event view by date, and find
the ones you need.

Regards,

Enno




_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Filter for events matching dates

Doug-11
In reply to this post by Philip Weiss
On 26/12/2018 06:22, Philip Weiss wrote:
FamilySearch has been adding a series of records of birth certificates from 1921-1941. I wanted to find birth events that would fall into that range so I could go look for the matching birth certificates.

I am trying to create an event filter to find birth events in Iowa between those dates. I can make a place filter and include that, and an event type filter and include that, but it doesn't seem like there's a date filter. Am I just missing it? If I am not, is there another way to achieve the same thing?

(Note, still on the Gramps 4.2.X line. I was waiting for a point release before upgradingto 5., and that has just happened. If this is in Gramps 5.X, I'll make a point to make the jump sooner rather than later.)

Thanks,
Phil.


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org

I've tried this in 4.2.8 and it seems to work.

Let me know how it goes.


Filter A:

    Place filters=>
       Places matching parameters; Name:= "Iowa"; Place type:= "State"

All rules must apply
.....................

Filter B:

    Event filters=>
        Events of places matching the <place filter>; Place filter name:= "A"

All rules must apply
........................

Filter C:

    Person filters=>
        People with the personal <event>; Personal event:="Birth"; Birth date:="between 1921 and 1941"; Primary role:="0"

    Person filters=> People with events matching the <event filter>; Event filter name:= "B"

 All rules must apply
........................................
THEN <run Filter C> in Person View


HTH


Doug






_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Filter for events matching dates

Philip Weiss
What I missed was the filter "Events with <data>"

One of the data items is a date check.

Phil.

On Dec 26 2018, at 4:32 am, Doug <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 26/12/2018 06:22, Philip Weiss wrote:

FamilySearch has been adding a series of records of birth certificates from 1921-1941. I wanted to find birth events that would fall into that range so I could go look for the matching birth certificates.

I am trying to create an event filter to find birth events in Iowa between those dates. I can make a place filter and include that, and an event type filter and include that, but it doesn't seem like there's a date filter. Am I just missing it? If I am not, is there another way to achieve the same thing?

(Note, still on the Gramps 4.2.X line. I was waiting for a point release before upgradingto 5., and that has just happened. If this is in Gramps 5.X, I'll make a point to make the jump sooner rather than later.)

Thanks,
Phil.


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
Gramps-users@...https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-usershttps://gramps-project.org
I've tried this in 4.2.8 and it seems to work.

Let me know how it goes.



Filter A:

    Place filters=>
       Places matching parameters; Name:= "Iowa"; Place type:= "State"

All rules must apply
.....................

Filter B:

    Event filters=>
        Events of places matching the <place filter>; Place filter name:= "A"

All rules must apply
........................

Filter C:

    Person filters=>
        People with the personal <event>; Personal event:="Birth"; Birth date:="between 1921 and 1941"; Primary role:="0"

    Person filters=> People with events matching the <event filter>; Event filter name:= "B"

 All rules must apply
........................................
THEN <run Filter C> in Person View



HTH



Doug


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Repository information in citations

Michael Stockhausen
In reply to this post by Doug-11
I am still trying to figure out how to best do my citations.
On the website of the National Archives I found this general statement:
 

Researchers also should understand that the citation of an unpublished item, regardless of format, has three parts:

  1. description of the item;
  2. name of the aggregate of items to which it belongs (group, collection, or book title); and,
  3. the name and location of the repository that holds this material.
 
This translates rather well into our Gramps vocabulary
1. citation
2. source
3. repository
 
Taking the example of a Census Record:
 
1850 United State Census, Pitt Township, Wyandot County, Ohio; p. 233, family 86, dwelling 79, lines 967-977; June 1, 1850; National Archives Microfilm M-19, Roll 719.
 
- repository: National Archives, with the “Microfilm M-19, Roll 719” as the call number
- source: 1850 United State Census, Pitt Township, Wyandot County, Ohio
- citation: p. 233, family 86, dwelling 79, lines 967-977; June 1, 1850
 
 
When I create a complete individual report in Gramps, though, the repository part is missing.
Doesn’t anybody else feel the need to include this information in a report?
My workaround is to include the repository in the citation field, at least in a short version.
 
Michael
 
 
 


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Repository information in citations

Dave Scheipers
I use

Repository - Ancestry com (this is where I go)
Source - U.S. 1850 Census
Citation - Ohio, Wyandot Co, Pit Township Page:## Line:## (and any
other identifiers; Ward, district, etc)

I organize the citation largest to smallest. (look at the citation
tree to see how this affects the sort).

I do not use the Forms Gramplet and depending on how the document is
organized, and whenever possible, I give each individual their own
citation with their own Line:##.

Repository - Where I go to find this information
Source - What I looked at while at the repository
Citation - which page and at which line I found the information that I
am bring to my work.

This works for me. I know others have different organizing strategies.
The key, can someone else backtrack the source/citation and find the
same information which is the ultimate purpose of citations.

Dave

On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 7:44 AM Michael Stockhausen
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I am still trying to figure out how to best do my citations.
> On the website of the National Archives I found this general statement:
>
>
> Researchers also should understand that the citation of an unpublished item, regardless of format, has three parts:
>
> description of the item;
> name of the aggregate of items to which it belongs (group, collection, or book title); and,
> the name and location of the repository that holds this material.
>
>
> This translates rather well into our Gramps vocabulary
> 1. citation
> 2. source
> 3. repository
>
> Taking the example of a Census Record:
>
> “1850 United State Census, Pitt Township, Wyandot County, Ohio; p. 233, family 86, dwelling 79, lines 967-977; June 1, 1850; National Archives Microfilm M-19, Roll 719. “
>
> - repository: National Archives, with the “Microfilm M-19, Roll 719” as the call number
> - source: 1850 United State Census, Pitt Township, Wyandot County, Ohio
> - citation: p. 233, family 86, dwelling 79, lines 967-977; June 1, 1850
>
>
> When I create a complete individual report in Gramps, though, the repository part is missing.
> Doesn’t anybody else feel the need to include this information in a report?
> My workaround is to include the repository in the citation field, at least in a short version.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gramps-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
> https://gramps-project.org


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Repository information in citations

Dave Scheipers
Some additional information.

I put as the author for the source: National Archives and Records
Administration. Other type of sources would be where Ancestry got the
information like State archives and historical societies, etc. The
Author information become a part of the source/citation that gets
printed in reports. As you have found out, the repository info is
often excluded from reports and most often just for our own use.

HTH Dave

On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 8:39 AM Dave Scheipers <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I use
>
> Repository - Ancestry com (this is where I go)
> Source - U.S. 1850 Census
> Citation - Ohio, Wyandot Co, Pit Township Page:## Line:## (and any
> other identifiers; Ward, district, etc)
>
> I organize the citation largest to smallest. (look at the citation
> tree to see how this affects the sort).
>
> I do not use the Forms Gramplet and depending on how the document is
> organized, and whenever possible, I give each individual their own
> citation with their own Line:##.
>
> Repository - Where I go to find this information
> Source - What I looked at while at the repository
> Citation - which page and at which line I found the information that I
> am bring to my work.
>
> This works for me. I know others have different organizing strategies.
> The key, can someone else backtrack the source/citation and find the
> same information which is the ultimate purpose of citations.
>
> Dave
>
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 7:44 AM Michael Stockhausen
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > I am still trying to figure out how to best do my citations.
> > On the website of the National Archives I found this general statement:
> >
> >
> > Researchers also should understand that the citation of an unpublished item, regardless of format, has three parts:
> >
> > description of the item;
> > name of the aggregate of items to which it belongs (group, collection, or book title); and,
> > the name and location of the repository that holds this material.
> >
> >
> > This translates rather well into our Gramps vocabulary
> > 1. citation
> > 2. source
> > 3. repository
> >
> > Taking the example of a Census Record:
> >
> > “1850 United State Census, Pitt Township, Wyandot County, Ohio; p. 233, family 86, dwelling 79, lines 967-977; June 1, 1850; National Archives Microfilm M-19, Roll 719. “
> >
> > - repository: National Archives, with the “Microfilm M-19, Roll 719” as the call number
> > - source: 1850 United State Census, Pitt Township, Wyandot County, Ohio
> > - citation: p. 233, family 86, dwelling 79, lines 967-977; June 1, 1850
> >
> >
> > When I create a complete individual report in Gramps, though, the repository part is missing.
> > Doesn’t anybody else feel the need to include this information in a report?
> > My workaround is to include the repository in the citation field, at least in a short version.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gramps-users mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
> > https://gramps-project.org


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Repository information in citations

GRAMPS - User mailing list
In reply to this post by Dave Scheipers
Michael's post was more about getting Repository information included
with Source information in reports.

His system of completing the Citation/Source/Repository fields seems as
good as any. The problem lies in reports eg Detailed Descendent List.
This only gives Source/Citations, with no clue where to look for them.

The problem lies in the fact that the Sources are printed just as they
are found in the tree. So different depositories/sources are all over
the place.

One answer would be to have a Source/repository look up list printed as
an appendix to the report either in alphabetical or source-ID order.

George Baynes

>> When I create a complete individual report in Gramps, though, the repository part is missing.
>> Doesn’t anybody else feel the need to include this information in a report?
>> My workaround is to include the repository in the citation field, at least in a short version.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Repository information in citations

Michael Stockhausen
>>One answer would be to have a Source/repository look up list printed as an
>>appendix to the report either in alphabetical or source-ID order.

A possible solution, but still a workaround

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
From: george via Gramps-users
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2019 3:37 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Repository information in citations

Michael's post was more about getting Repository information included
with Source information in reports.

His system of completing the Citation/Source/Repository fields seems as
good as any. The problem lies in reports eg Detailed Descendent List.
This only gives Source/Citations, with no clue where to look for them.

The problem lies in the fact that the Sources are printed just as they
are found in the tree. So different depositories/sources are all over
the place.


George Baynes

>> When I create a complete individual report in Gramps, though, the
>> repository part is missing.
>> Doesn’t anybody else feel the need to include this information in a
>> report?
>> My workaround is to include the repository in the citation field, at
>> least in a short version.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org



_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Repository information in citations

Michael Stockhausen
In reply to this post by Dave Scheipers
I guess this only works until your document has a real author that you would
like to mention in the author field.


In these cases I would even wish to see both familysearch (or Ancestry) AND
the National Archive in my report.
I put all of this into the citation field, which makes it kind of
overloaded.

I think we have had a discussion before on diferent level citations
- I cite book A which in return cited original document B
or
- I cite familysearch that has its information from xyz





-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
From: Dave Scheipers
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2019 3:41 PM
To: Michael Stockhausen
Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Repository information in citations

Here is what appears in the CIR and other reports.

9. Secretary of the Commonwealth. Massachusetts Archives,
"Massachusetts: 1865 State Census", 1 May 1865, (MA:1865)
    a: Worcester Co, Worcester Ward:7 Image:21 Left Line:12 - 1 May 1865

10. National Archives and Records Administration, "U.S. 1870 Federal
Census", 1 Jun 1870, (US:1870)
    a: Massachusetts, Worcester Co, Worcester Ward:5 Image:8 Line:35 -
25 Jul 1870

#9 is a state census with FamilySearch.org as my repository. While
also available on ancestry, I only take records from FS for consistent
image numbering and often better quality scans.

#10 has Ancestry as the repository for the same reasons. Consistency
and quality. With this information can you find the image with Pratt,
Daniel R at line 35? (Whoever indexed the page read it as David B)

Dave

On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 9:26 AM Michael Stockhausen
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Thanks, Dave, so you also use a field that is not really intended for this
> information
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> From: Dave Scheipers
> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2019 3:11 PM
> To: Michael Stockhausen
> Cc: Gramps-Users
> Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Repository information in citations
>
> Some additional information.
>
> I put as the author for the source: National Archives and Records
> Administration. Other type of sources would be where Ancestry got the
> information like State archives and historical societies, etc. The
> Author information become a part of the source/citation that gets
> printed in reports. As you have found out, the repository info is
> often excluded from reports and most often just for our own use.
>
> HTH Dave
>
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 8:39 AM Dave Scheipers <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > I use
> >
> > Repository - Ancestry com (this is where I go)
> > Source - U.S. 1850 Census
> > Citation - Ohio, Wyandot Co, Pit Township Page:## Line:## (and any
> > other identifiers; Ward, district, etc)
> >
> > I organize the citation largest to smallest. (look at the citation
> > tree to see how this affects the sort).
> >
> > I do not use the Forms Gramplet and depending on how the document is
> > organized, and whenever possible, I give each individual their own
> > citation with their own Line:##.
> >
> > Repository - Where I go to find this information
> > Source - What I looked at while at the repository
> > Citation - which page and at which line I found the information that I
> > am bring to my work.
> >
> > This works for me. I know others have different organizing strategies.
> > The key, can someone else backtrack the source/citation and find the
> > same information which is the ultimate purpose of citations.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 7:44 AM Michael Stockhausen
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I am still trying to figure out how to best do my citations.
> > > On the website of the National Archives I found this general
> > > statement:
> > >
> > >
> > > Researchers also should understand that the citation of an unpublished
> > > item, regardless of format, has three parts:
> > >
> > > description of the item;
> > > name of the aggregate of items to which it belongs (group, collection,
> > > or book title); and,
> > > the name and location of the repository that holds this material.
> > >
> > >
> > > This translates rather well into our Gramps vocabulary
> > > 1. citation
> > > 2. source
> > > 3. repository
> > >
> > > Taking the example of a Census Record:
> > >
> > > “1850 United State Census, Pitt Township, Wyandot County, Ohio; p.
> > > 233,
> > > family 86, dwelling 79, lines 967-977; June 1, 1850; National Archives
> > > Microfilm M-19, Roll 719. “
> > >
> > > - repository: National Archives, with the “Microfilm M-19, Roll 719”
> > > as
> > > the call number
> > > - source: 1850 United State Census, Pitt Township, Wyandot County,
> > > Ohio
> > > - citation: p. 233, family 86, dwelling 79, lines 967-977; June 1,
> > > 1850
> > >
> > >
> > > When I create a complete individual report in Gramps, though, the
> > > repository part is missing.
> > > Doesn’t anybody else feel the need to include this information in a
> > > report?
> > > My workaround is to include the repository in the citation field, at
> > > least in a short version.
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Gramps-users mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
> > > https://gramps-project.org
>



_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Repository information in citations

Dave Scheipers
In reply to this post by GRAMPS - User mailing list
The conventional norm is that repositories are not part of the
source/citation to document the fact presented in a report. To include
repository information would require a rewrite of all reports.

But to what end. Do we include every place that someone can find the
U.S. 1850 Federal Census? Ancestry, FamilySearch, FS History centers,
National Archive repositories? This is why the repository, in my
opinion, is only relevant to the researcher in their own endeavors.

Think of a book as the source. It can reside in every library both
public and personal. The relevant information is the title and author
of the book which is enough information for someone else to find the
same information.

Dave

On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 9:38 AM george via Gramps-users
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Michael's post was more about getting Repository information included
> with Source information in reports.
>
> His system of completing the Citation/Source/Repository fields seems as
> good as any. The problem lies in reports eg Detailed Descendent List.
> This only gives Source/Citations, with no clue where to look for them.
>
> The problem lies in the fact that the Sources are printed just as they
> are found in the tree. So different depositories/sources are all over
> the place.
>
> One answer would be to have a Source/repository look up list printed as
> an appendix to the report either in alphabetical or source-ID order.
>
> George Baynes
>
> >> When I create a complete individual report in Gramps, though, the repository part is missing.
> >> Doesn’t anybody else feel the need to include this information in a report?
> >> My workaround is to include the repository in the citation field, at least in a short version.
> >>
> >> Michael
> >>
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gramps-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
> https://gramps-project.org


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Repository information in citations

enno
In reply to this post by GRAMPS - User mailing list
Op 10-02-19 om 15:37 schreef george via Gramps-users:
> His system of completing the Citation/Source/Repository fields seems
> as good as any. The problem lies in reports eg Detailed Descendent
> List. This only gives Source/Citations, with no clue where to look for
> them.

If this is the case, the best solution is to file a bug report/change
request to have the call number and repository included in the report.
That should not be too difficult, IMO, although I've never changed
reports myself.

Cheers,

Enno




_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Repository information in citations

Dave Scheipers
In reply to this post by Michael Stockhausen
Here is the first citation from the same report from above.

1. Reverend Edwin B Rice M.A., "Conway, Massachusetts, and the Rice
Family", New York 1909, (Fam:Rice:1909)
    a: Page:32 No:186

In this case, it has Ancestry as its repository. But that information
is irrelevant because you may have a copy of the book in your local
library.

On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 9:57 AM Michael Stockhausen
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I guess this only works until your document has a real author that you would
> like to mention in the author field.
>
>
> In these cases I would even wish to see both familysearch (or Ancestry) AND
> the National Archive in my report.
> I put all of this into the citation field, which makes it kind of
> overloaded.
>
> I think we have had a discussion before on diferent level citations
> - I cite book A which in return cited original document B
> or
> - I cite familysearch that has its information from xyz
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> From: Dave Scheipers
> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2019 3:41 PM
> To: Michael Stockhausen
> Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Repository information in citations
>
> Here is what appears in the CIR and other reports.
>
> 9. Secretary of the Commonwealth. Massachusetts Archives,
> "Massachusetts: 1865 State Census", 1 May 1865, (MA:1865)
>     a: Worcester Co, Worcester Ward:7 Image:21 Left Line:12 - 1 May 1865
>
> 10. National Archives and Records Administration, "U.S. 1870 Federal
> Census", 1 Jun 1870, (US:1870)
>     a: Massachusetts, Worcester Co, Worcester Ward:5 Image:8 Line:35 -
> 25 Jul 1870
>
> #9 is a state census with FamilySearch.org as my repository. While
> also available on ancestry, I only take records from FS for consistent
> image numbering and often better quality scans.
>
> #10 has Ancestry as the repository for the same reasons. Consistency
> and quality. With this information can you find the image with Pratt,
> Daniel R at line 35? (Whoever indexed the page read it as David B)
>
> Dave
>
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 9:26 AM Michael Stockhausen
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Dave, so you also use a field that is not really intended for this
> > information
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > From: Dave Scheipers
> > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2019 3:11 PM
> > To: Michael Stockhausen
> > Cc: Gramps-Users
> > Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Repository information in citations
> >
> > Some additional information.
> >
> > I put as the author for the source: National Archives and Records
> > Administration. Other type of sources would be where Ancestry got the
> > information like State archives and historical societies, etc. The
> > Author information become a part of the source/citation that gets
> > printed in reports. As you have found out, the repository info is
> > often excluded from reports and most often just for our own use.
> >
> > HTH Dave
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 8:39 AM Dave Scheipers <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I use
> > >
> > > Repository - Ancestry com (this is where I go)
> > > Source - U.S. 1850 Census
> > > Citation - Ohio, Wyandot Co, Pit Township Page:## Line:## (and any
> > > other identifiers; Ward, district, etc)
> > >
> > > I organize the citation largest to smallest. (look at the citation
> > > tree to see how this affects the sort).
> > >
> > > I do not use the Forms Gramplet and depending on how the document is
> > > organized, and whenever possible, I give each individual their own
> > > citation with their own Line:##.
> > >
> > > Repository - Where I go to find this information
> > > Source - What I looked at while at the repository
> > > Citation - which page and at which line I found the information that I
> > > am bring to my work.
> > >
> > > This works for me. I know others have different organizing strategies.
> > > The key, can someone else backtrack the source/citation and find the
> > > same information which is the ultimate purpose of citations.
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 7:44 AM Michael Stockhausen
> > > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am still trying to figure out how to best do my citations.
> > > > On the website of the National Archives I found this general
> > > > statement:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Researchers also should understand that the citation of an unpublished
> > > > item, regardless of format, has three parts:
> > > >
> > > > description of the item;
> > > > name of the aggregate of items to which it belongs (group, collection,
> > > > or book title); and,
> > > > the name and location of the repository that holds this material.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This translates rather well into our Gramps vocabulary
> > > > 1. citation
> > > > 2. source
> > > > 3. repository
> > > >
> > > > Taking the example of a Census Record:
> > > >
> > > > “1850 United State Census, Pitt Township, Wyandot County, Ohio; p.
> > > > 233,
> > > > family 86, dwelling 79, lines 967-977; June 1, 1850; National Archives
> > > > Microfilm M-19, Roll 719. “
> > > >
> > > > - repository: National Archives, with the “Microfilm M-19, Roll 719”
> > > > as
> > > > the call number
> > > > - source: 1850 United State Census, Pitt Township, Wyandot County,
> > > > Ohio
> > > > - citation: p. 233, family 86, dwelling 79, lines 967-977; June 1,
> > > > 1850
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > When I create a complete individual report in Gramps, though, the
> > > > repository part is missing.
> > > > Doesn’t anybody else feel the need to include this information in a
> > > > report?
> > > > My workaround is to include the repository in the citation field, at
> > > > least in a short version.
> > > >
> > > > Michael
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Gramps-users mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
> > > > https://gramps-project.org
> >
>


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Repository information in citations

enno
In reply to this post by Dave Scheipers

Hi Dave,

Repository - Ancestry com (this is where I go)

When we had a discussion about evidence style citations on the developers list, someone argued that Ancestry is not the repository, because it's not where the real documents are. In his opinion, Ancestry is the publisher instead, and I can understand his reasoning.

Another problem with citing Ancestry as the repository is that it can't be accessed without a fee, where the original may be more accessible. Also, when websites disappear, the sources don't, so mentioning the original one might be a better idea.

Sometimes it's not that simple though, because FamilySearch has filmed documents all over the world, and films are physical things that are really stored somewhere. FamilySearch solves that by mentioning where the film was made, like here:

"Netherlands, Noord-Holland, Civil Registration, 1811-1950," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QPM4-7YQK : 5 April 2018), Henricus Borgsteede, 31 Mar 1879; citing Birth, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Nederland, Noord-Hollands Archief, Haarlem (Noord-Hollands Archives, Haarlem); FHL microfilm 253,479.
In this particular case, the repository is the Noord-Hollands Archives in Haarlem, and for me that part is essential, because I can drive there, or maybe see a color version of the same document on their site.

Regards,

Enno




_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Repository information in citations

enno
In reply to this post by Dave Scheipers
Op 10-02-19 om 16:05 schreef Dave Scheipers:
> Here is the first citation from the same report from above.
>
> 1. Reverend Edwin B Rice M.A., "Conway, Massachusetts, and the Rice
> Family", New York 1909, (Fam:Rice:1909)
>      a: Page:32 No:186
>
> In this case, it has Ancestry as its repository. But that information
> is irrelevant because you may have a copy of the book in your local
> library.

In this case, it looks like a document with quite a small circulation,
and I see no official publisher name. It may exist in the FHL, but I
doubt that I can find it here.

Regards,

Enno




_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Repository information in citations

Michael Stockhausen
In reply to this post by Dave Scheipers


>But to what end. Do we include every place that someone can find the
>U.S. 1850 Federal Census? Ancestry, FamilySearch, FS History centers,
>National Archive repositories? This is why the repository, in my
>opinion, is only relevant to the researcher in their own endeavors.

No, if the original is kept in the National Archive and this is the document
I viewed, I only mention this. If I view Ancestry and they cite the National
Archive, I mention these two.
Familysearch writes: "To communicate the quality of a source, a citation
needs to specify the source of the source"


>Think of a book as the source. It can reside in every library both
>public and personal. The relevant information is the title and author
>of the book which is enough information for someone else to find the
>same information.

There is a major difference between published works and unpublshied archival
material
" According to the Chicago Manual of Style : Full identification of most
unpublished material usually requires giving the title and the date of the
item, the series title (if applicable), name of the collection, and the name
of the depository. "




_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Repository information in citations

Ron Johnson
In reply to this post by Michael Stockhausen
On 2/10/19 6:43 AM, Michael Stockhausen wrote:
[snip]
 
- repository: National Archives, with the “Microfilm M-19, Roll 719” as the call number
- source: 1850 United State Census, Pitt Township, Wyandot County, Ohio
- citation: p. 233, family 86, dwelling 79, lines 967-977; June 1, 1850

I see you're in the "few citations per source" clan.  Therefore you are the sworn enemy of us right-thinking genealogists in the "many citations per source" clan.

Death to "few citations per source"!
Death to "few citations per source"!
Death to "few citations per source"!

When I create a complete individual report in Gramps, though, the repository part is missing.
Doesn’t anybody else feel the need to include this information in a report?

1. Only when the source is self-published, limited distribution, family Bible, etc.  Because honestly, do you really and truly need to be told that the original US census documents are in the National Archives?  I honestly doubt that you do.

2. Each Source has a "Pub. info." field.  That's a Good Enough repository for 99% of all sources.

3. While Gramps mandates that each Citation has a parent Source, Gramps does not mandate that each Source have a parent Repository.

My workaround is to include the repository in the citation field, at least in a short version.

Why in the Citation instead of the Source?


--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Repository information in citations

Dave Scheipers
In reply to this post by Michael Stockhausen
But that is just it. You may have viewed/obtained the document from
the national archives. I can get the exact same document from
ancestry. someone else may use familysearch. The repository only has
meaning to ourselves.

Knowing that, we need to provide in the Source/Citation records enough
information about what we found so others can duplicate what we found,
independently, if they are so inclined.

On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 11:30 AM Michael Stockhausen
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>
> >But to what end. Do we include every place that someone can find the
> >U.S. 1850 Federal Census? Ancestry, FamilySearch, FS History centers,
> >National Archive repositories? This is why the repository, in my
> >opinion, is only relevant to the researcher in their own endeavors.
>
> No, if the original is kept in the National Archive and this is the document
> I viewed, I only mention this. If I view Ancestry and they cite the National
> Archive, I mention these two.
> Familysearch writes: "To communicate the quality of a source, a citation
> needs to specify the source of the source"
>
>
> >Think of a book as the source. It can reside in every library both
> >public and personal. The relevant information is the title and author
> >of the book which is enough information for someone else to find the
> >same information.
>
> There is a major difference between published works and unpublshied archival
> material
> " According to the Chicago Manual of Style : Full identification of most
> unpublished material usually requires giving the title and the date of the
> item, the series title (if applicable), name of the collection, and the name
> of the depository. "
>
>


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Repository information in citations

Michael Stockhausen
In reply to this post by Ron Johnson
>>I see you're in the "few citations per source" clan.  Therefore you are the sworn enemy of us right-thinking genealogists in the "many citations per source" clan.
>>Death to "few citations per source"!
 
Not at all. 95% of my sources are civil or church records. And here I have one parish = one source with sometimes hundreds of citations.
 
>>1. Only when the source is self-published, limited distribution, family Bible, etc.  Because honestly, do you really and truly need to be told that the original US census documents are in the National Archives?  I honestly >>doubt that you do.
 
I am personally not interested in US census. I just took the example, because I thought this might be well known by many.
My examples are e..g.
- Inheritance contract of the Münzer family, held at the Archive of Germans from Central Poland in Mönchengladbach
- Emigration record for Michael Münzer in the Hauptstaatsarchiv in Stuttgart
-
Kolonisation in Südpreußen, 1801-1806 (GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 96 A Geheimes Cabinett, Nr. 69 A-I).  GStA PK = Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbeitz
Yes, I think the repository information is relevant.

> 2. Each Source has a "Pub. info." field.  That's a Good Enough repository for 99% of all sources.
These documents have not been published. Sure, I can always (mis-)use a different field, but what if I ever do have publication information?

>3. While Gramps mandates that each Citation has a parent Source, Gramps does not mandate that each Source have a parent Repository.
Sure, in many cases, e.g. published books, no repository is needed.

-


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Repository information in citations

Michael Stockhausen
In reply to this post by Dave Scheipers
Are you always sure that Ancestry provides the exact same document?
Are you even sure that if Ancestry says it from Parish X that this is true?
I do not know about Ancestry, but on Familysearch I have discovered several
mistakes (not only on the database, also on microfilms)

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
From: Dave Scheipers
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2019 5:57 PM
To: Michael Stockhausen
Cc: george ; Gramps users
Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Repository information in citations

But that is just it. You may have viewed/obtained the document from
the national archives. I can get the exact same document from
ancestry. someone else may use familysearch. The repository only has
meaning to ourselves.

Knowing that, we need to provide in the Source/Citation records enough
information about what we found so others can duplicate what we found,
independently, if they are so inclined.

On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 11:30 AM Michael Stockhausen
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>
> >But to what end. Do we include every place that someone can find the
> >U.S. 1850 Federal Census? Ancestry, FamilySearch, FS History centers,
> >National Archive repositories? This is why the repository, in my
> >opinion, is only relevant to the researcher in their own endeavors.
>
> No, if the original is kept in the National Archive and this is the
> document
> I viewed, I only mention this. If I view Ancestry and they cite the
> National
> Archive, I mention these two.
> Familysearch writes: "To communicate the quality of a source, a citation
> needs to specify the source of the source"
>
>
> >Think of a book as the source. It can reside in every library both
> >public and personal. The relevant information is the title and author
> >of the book which is enough information for someone else to find the
> >same information.
>
> There is a major difference between published works and unpublshied
> archival
> material
> " According to the Chicago Manual of Style : Full identification of most
> unpublished material usually requires giving the title and the date of the
> item, the series title (if applicable), name of the collection, and the
> name
> of the depository. "
>
>



_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
12