Question Handling of FAM:CENS

From subform Help:

Sir Peter wrote:

Nevertheless a feature would be helpful that allows to generally copy events (including sources, etc.) from one INDI to several others in one step. That workflow could even suggest the already known family members as targets for these copies.  …  Does that make sense as an effective and efficient workflow?

Yes, perhaps the editors for FAM events could have a button to "display on members" which would pop up a list of the members known with a checkbox for each.  I'd prefer to keep one copy in the DB and display on the selected members (as currently happens for the parents).  I guess that would require a new table to relate event and FAM to the INDIs checked. If there were ever a need to modify the event for a single INDI, one could remove the tick and manually copy.  Or there could be two check boxes, one for display and one for copy.

Hello Wes,

you can post a feature request here:
github.com/fisharebest/webtrees/issues
A new thread in the forum is not very helpful.

The title of this sub-forum ("Request for New Feature") suggests this IS a good place to put it.

Well, the (quite long) list of things to do is the github issue list.

This forum here is to discuss them with the community. When not registered at the issue tracker, they will easily be forgotten.

Hello Bert,
the forum is there for questions and problems to be discussed. However, if the same topic is opened again in the "Request for New Feature" section so that it can be considered from this point of view, then at least a reference back to the initial discussion or a summary of the pro and con arguments should be included.

> Yes, perhaps the editors for FAM events could have a button to "display on members" which would pop up a list of the members known with a checkbox for each.

How would we represent this using GEDCOM?

fisharebest wrote:

> Yes, perhaps the editors for FAM events could have a button to "display on members" which would pop up a list of the members known with a checkbox for each.

How would we represent this using GEDCOM?

That might be the best argument against. It would be easy to do with a separate table, but then it would not persist through a GEDCOM export/import.
It could be a custom tag, as was done in the past for media (_PRIM) and hidden from display (except for "raw GEDCOM").

My idea was NOT about displaying, but about COPYING an event from one individual to another or to several others. By COPYING I meant copying the GEDCOM data.

This feature could be offered to the user when a CENS event is created.

There‘s already some code that copies an event into the clipping cart which can then be pasted into another individual.

Sir Peter wrote:

My idea was NOT about displaying, but about COPYING an event from one individual to another or to several others. By COPYING I meant copying the GEDCOM data.

This feature could be offered to the user when a CENS event is created.

I'd personally like to have both options offered at the CENS creation. Hinted at that with having two checkboxes for each family member. Copying would be pretty simple to add. selective display would be a bit more difficult.

If the “family” is already set up, ie with adult and children, adding Census or Residence en mass from one entry point would just take the known CHIL, HUSB and WIFE links from the FAM record, present a page with their names and check boxes to assign the data entered for a census or residence and update each checked individual with the data.

No FAM.CENS or FAM.RESI would be created, just INDI.CENS and INDI.RESI tags.

norwegian_sardines wrote:

If the “family” is already set up, ie with adult and children, adding Census or Residence en mass from one entry point would just take the known CHIL, HUSB and WIFE links from the FAM record, present a page with their names and check boxes to assign the data entered for a census or residence and update each checked individual with the data.

No FAM.CENS or FAM.RESI would be created, just INDI.CENS and INDI.RESI tags.

I'd prefer to not lose the ability to have a FAM.CENS. As a compromise, what if there were also a checkbox for that? I see value in having a record on the FAM of a single document listing all the family members present at a point in time. (And most of the details could still be in a single shared NOTE.)

Hello Wes,
I don't understand why you insist on a combination of FAM.CENS.

Because the situation in a family can change again and again from one Census to the next, I see the danger of a big mess here. And I already see the messages here in the forum: "Why are the entries with person XY, although he no longer belongs to it."
If you have entered the entry for a Census for the first person in a family, then it is easy to add these parts to the other family members by copying them into the GedCom raw data.

You can certainly imagine Greg creating a fancy function like "Change family members". But this should be future music, because there are still more urgent problems that should be solved, like displaying GedCom errors, although GedCom errors should not be displayed because of the settings

As I’ve said, “If I could get deprecate FAM.CENS and FAM.RESI”, I would!

I rather we work toward a better reporting system!

Luenissla wrote:

Because the situation in a family can change again and again from one Census to the next, I see the danger of a big mess here. And I already see the messages here in the forum: "Why are the entries with person XY, although he no longer belongs to it."

If the checkboxes Ken and/or I have suggested were implemented, the answer to such a message would be, "Because you checked the box to copy (or display) it on that person when you added that event to the family."

Luenissla wrote:

If you have entered the entry for a Census for the first person in a family, then it is easy to add these parts to the other family members by copying them into the GedCom raw data.

And what Ken and/or I suggested would be even easier.

norwegian_sardines wrote:

I rather we work toward a better reporting system!

Agree that would be more beneficial. But doing so does not require removing from the family the ability to document event that involve the whole family (and are defined in the GEDCOM specs).

WGroleau wrote:

document event that involve the whole family

I’m never sure what “the whole family” means! You’re one of the few who thinks he does!