Forums
Hello to all,
I'm so new to this, my head is spinning. But, today I was making up my first Source List for a new branch of the family and then I was creating First Reference Notes (which you all refer to as "citations", right?) and I got to thinking-
- Can the URL you provide for your source ever differ between the Source List and the citation?
I'm asking because I've read a lot of the forum posts today and see where it's recommended to always use the LONG URL, but then I see that if it's a common web site, like FamilySearch, go ahead and use the shorter one and even saw someplace where it was recommended to not even include the "www." part. (And of course I cannot cite where I saw all of this because, yes, dear folks, I am truly an amatuer. And yes, I do own the book, in both formats!)
Here's my issue with using the long URL in both places: If the URL takes you directly to the image or page you are using, then does that really belong in the Source List, where the goal is to succinctly list all of your sources but leave out anything referencing the details of what you used there? Because when I put my long URL that leads right to the database image, I cannot then re-use that source listing for anything else I get from FamilySearch, right? And it looks awful in there. Makes the whole entry very lopsided. I would like to make a generic Source List entry for familysearch.org and provide the short URL.
BUT- I want to use that long URL in my citation. I do. Because that's how you point to what you actually used and that's the only way people are going to find it again. So putting the URL of (familysearch.org) in there doesn't seem helpful at all to me.
So can I use a short, generic, main web site URL in the Source List and the long, unsightly URL that actually might get you to the exact image in my citation? Or will you all hunt me down with pitchforks?
Here's my example (and please do critique so I know where my mistakes are!):
Source List entry:
"New York, New York Passenger and Crew Lists, 1909, 1925-1957.” Digital images. FamilySearch.com. familysearch.org :2015.
Citation:
"New York, New York Passenger and Crew Lists, 1909, 1925-1957;” FamilySearch.com (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1951-22053-32502-29?cc=1923888: accessed 18 May 2015), digital image, “List of United States Citizens,” p. 9 and 15, lines 1 - 4, Martin family; citing NARA microfilm publication T715.
Edit- I mean, if I use the
Edit- I mean, if I use the LONG URL in the Source List, the one that takes you to my record for the Martin family, than I cannot use that Source List entry for anything I find in that collection, not on the entire FamilySearch site. I misworded that.
Hello, Teresa,
Hello, Teresa,
First, to clarify: While a contributor to the forum may have expressed a preference for "always us[ing] the long URL," EE does not dictate that. Whether to use a short URL or a long one depends upon the situation. In most cases, at websites of data providers, a long URL means you are citing a specific record. It also means you have a much greater chance of making a typo in that URL, now or later. For this reason, some researchers prefer to cite the root URL of the database and then cite a path (aka, waypoints) to the document. (This is addressed at EE 2.37.)
Whether you cite a short or long URL in your Source List will also depend upon whether you cite to the database level or whether you cite the individual document. The database URL, as a rule, will be far shorter than the URL that leads to a specific document. This is the issue you're getting at in your paragraph that begins "Here's my issue."
Now, I'll have to add four howevers:
1.
You state that a long URL is "the only way people are going to find it again[;] so putting the URL of (familysearch.org) in there doesn't seem helpful at all to me." Actually, it's not the only way. Citing the path would accomplish that also. As you probably noticed, the provider's suggested citation does both; it cites both the long URL (which it deems a "stable URL") and the path. One approach or the other is necessary.
2.
The provider's suggestion also omits something important: there's no citation of the actual record. You've noticed that and you've included part of it ("List of United States Citizens," p. 9 and 15, lines 1-4, Martin Family) but the most critical identification is missing. Page 9 of what list of U.S. citizens? It's the list on the passenger manifest of the SS. Queen of Bermuda, arriving 2 January 1838. The ship and the specific arrival date are also critical for citations to a ship roll.
3.
Both your and the provider's citation begins with
"New York, New York Passenger and Crew Lists, 1909, 1925-1957," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1951-22053-32502-29?cc=1923888 : ...
However, that long URL does not apply to the whole database that is cited. It does not apply to the "index and [all 5+ million of those] images." It applies to just one item of the database and just one image. If the citation leads with the database, then it should cite the root page for that database or the root page to FamilySearch.
4.
The way to solve all your issues would be for your reference note to begin with a citation of the original record. That would be layer 1. Layer 2 would then cite the database where you consulted that record's image. Layer 3 would then provide the source of your source.
If your research involves just this one ship record from this database, then you would logically cite that ship record in your Source List. If your research involves a number of records from this database, that is when you would place your emphasis on the database itself. In the latter case, you might indeed be excused for citing the database in your Source List and the individual records in your Reference Notes—although you would then find it difficult to use a prefabricated template in software. A source list entry that cites the database generically, coupled with a reference note that cites the specific record, would look like the pair below. (Note, for the reference note, I've put each layer of the citation in a distinct color for clearer data separation in this instructive example.)
Source List Entry:
“New York, New York Passenger and Crew Lists, 1909, 1925-1957.” Database with images. FamilySearch. https://www.FamilySearch.org : 2015.
First Reference Note: (Following EE 3d ed., 11.7, "Passenger Manifests: Online Images”)
Manifest, SS Queen of Bermuda, arriving 2 January 1938, p. 9, lines 1-4, Martin Family; imaged as "New York, New York Passenger and Crew Lists, 1909, 1925-1957," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1951-22053-32502-29?cc=1923888 : 24 May 2015); citing National Archives microfilm publication T715, roll 6096, vol 13124-13125, Jan 2, 1938.
Thank you very much for such
Thank you very much for such a clear and complete answer. Yes, I can use both the short and the long URL but now I need to go check how Family Tree Maker does sources so that my beautiful, new citations I'm learning to create are recorded correctly for posterity. And then to clean ALL of them up!
You're welcome, Teresa. Some
You're welcome, Teresa. Some people might commiserate with you on that clean-up chore. Certainly, we've all been there and faced that tedium. But there's a positive side to the task. As we go back and look at those sources again, thinking deeply enough about them to create sound citations, we're likely to see those sources in new perspective, realize that some of those we've used aren't as reliable as they should be, and even see new clues in the records that we missed the first time around.