On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:05 AM, Benny Malengier <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:2013/6/27 Jesse Meyer <email@example.com>On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Benny Malengier <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:Jesse,If all goes well, in 4.1, source title field will be gone and be source name field. It will be generated automatically based on the bibliographic data of the source, but in case of duplicates, user can edit it for viewing in Gramps purposes only.
I'm looking forward to that. Especially if a way can be made to list & sort on that field.As to your other suggestions to do something like that for other objects. Not sure. Yes there are duplicates, but will alias make your research easier?I think it would reduce the chance of mistakes. For example, right now in my not-too-big family tree, I have 5 Elizabeths, no known surnames, all except one without a birthdate. That's not the worst cluster of "Elizabeths" I have - I have another 6 that all share the same surname! (It was a family name.) When trying to build up relationships with parish records or the like, it's a tad confusing.Don't be afraid to put derived birth events. So with a date like:Before 1800Or:Calculated before 1810Gramps can still calculate with such dates, and the Calculated indicates you derived this is some way.
Also, as said, and ID value of I0010_BJulia_dangling is not a problem for gramps. You just need to devise a system that works for you, eg, if you work with branches, BJulia to indicate it. Tags are another way to indicate branches.That's actually not a bad idea. Instead of using "I1573", I could use "I1573_Elizabeth_wife_of_John_Roberts" or something of the like. A little hacky, but it's a work around.