Citing FamilySearch image only available by browsing film

ABCDEF,  I was indeed accurate in saying that I accessed the record using the path I stated last night.. I've just retraced that path. This is it:

1. In the FS catalog search box, query for "North Carolina"
2. Click "Vital records (48)"
3. Click "NC Deaths, 1906-1930." You are now at https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/1609799
4. Under "References" in the top left corner, click on "Death certificates,1906-1994 and indexes 1906-1967; still births,1914-1953; fetal death indexes,1950- / North Carolina. Department of Public Health. Vital Records Section"
5. That puts you at https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/639047. There, scroll down below "References" and you have two hot links:
North Carolina, Deaths, 1906-1930 are available online, click here.
An index for North Carolina Deaths, 1931-1994 is available online, click here.
6. Clicking the second option takes us to a search screen, where we enter "Max Dennis, 1993."
7. The "Results" page offer a link to view the record, which takes us to FS's transcription of the record and another link to view the original. 

You'll note that step 5 is where you have the option of choosing which of the two databases you want.

As for beginning a citation with the record vis a vis the provider, that flexibility is at the core of the "layered" citation issue. Some prefer to use one approach. Some prefer to use another. When using numerous records from a database, if our citation features the original record, then most software would create a master source for each of them. Conversely, if our citation features the database that provides the image,, then one master source suffices for them all. It's a matter of choice.

If you feel the word "Catalog" needs to be included at any point (or any other word for clarity), you should feel free to add it--just not within quote marks.

You also ask: "Are you saying that you believe it's clear enough to use ""Death certificates no. 42500-45499 v. 42B-45A 1993" as a waypoint even though it is not "clickable"?" and then go on to say that the camera icon beside it is clickable. Whether the hotlink is to the words or the icon beside it is all the same. It's your waypoint.

Dear Editor;

I think I see the "path" paradigm you're using and would like to ask about the construction of the citation clause containing a search term. I believe I've seen an example in EE, but never a real discussion of the construction of clauses with search terms.

I have a "path" that takes me to a page, which divides a set of imaged microfilm records into hot linked groups (e.g. A-G, H-P, Q-Z). When I click on one of the noted hot-links, it takes me to a search page for the group that allows browsing of the images in the group (and displays the first record). The search page does not really have a title. One can move back and forth through the images or enter an image to view. Having found the correct image number, I could view it directly on a subsequent visit by entering the image number directly.

Does one use the "path" paradigm down to having executed the last hyperlink, then switch from the path notation (">") to the comma notation (",") to cite the balance as follows? Is it that simple?

e.g.

... > A-G (group), card search term: 1235, image of card for John Doe; ...

Dear Editor;

I located some guidance in QuickLesson 25. I'm always trying to hone my citation skills. Not quite sure if I've understood the article fully. Here is a specific example, based on some recent research. Your comments would be appreciated.

First Full Reference

Veterans Affairs (Canada), First World War Veterans Death Cards, un-indexed, alphabetical by last name, “Murison-Thomas-B”, died 5 March 1958; accessed as “Veterans Death Cards: First World War,” browsable images, Library and Archives Canada (http://www.bac-lac.gc.ca: downloaded 14 April 2019) > English > Military Heritage > Veterans Death Cards: First World War > Morrison, B (group) > image 1235.; Library and Archives Canada (LAC); Originals contained in 99 cabinet drawers of approximately 1,300 cards each. Each drawer digitized by LAC. First card in drawer is title of digitised card group. 

One other question ... Is it necessary to mention the death date in layer 1, since the cards obviously record deaths and the name is the key locator?

History-Hunter, you've done well. The card was easy to locate from your citation--though it would have been one step easier if the URL had been that of the cited database (http://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/mass-digitized-archives/veterans-death-cards-ww1) as opposed to the home page.

Regarding when to switch from the greater-than symbol to the comma, you've also deduced that. We use the > for each menu item that drills us down to the image. Once we hit the image, we add an appositive comma and add the description of the record.

Regarding whether we should use the death date: definitely. For example, if we scroll down to the "Smith, William A" group and click on that name, we have cards for 8 or 9 different William A. Smiths. The number of just plain William Smiths would unlikely be greater and there are many, many names for which there will be multiple cards.

Dear Editor;

Thank you. Citing is getting easier, but I still have a ways to go. Please see below, as I wanted to make sure that my last post implements al the suggestions made in the foregoing discussion. (It's easier to reference in future.)

I've replaced a portion of the path as you noted.

I think there is something else that you've addressed previously, but it is worthwhile highlighting using this example.

If one sees that a webpage URL is for an ActiveServerPage (i.e. it has an .ASPX file extension), you may be able to shorten the URL. Try truncating URL slightly, as in the following example, and see if it still works.

Below, there are two the options, both of which work. The first is from copied directly from the browser address bar and the second is the same URL after a "test truncation". Notice that the second is shorter.

1) http://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/mass-digitized-archives/veterans-death-cards-ww1/Pages/veterans-death-cards.aspx

2) http://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/mass-digitized-archives/veterans-death-cards-ww1

Below is the resulting revised reference using the shortened link (above), as you suggested. Note that I added a missing "space" prior to the ":", which follows the URL, and removed an extraneous "." after "1235." I still wonder whether "downloaded" is correct, rather than "accessed". I did save a copy of the card image 1235 (for transcription purposes) and so said "downloaded".

(I could have used his regimental ID number, instead of the death date, to ensure that the correct Thomas Murison was identified in layer 1. However; I've found that, in this collection, the ID numbers can be difficult to read. The date was far less prone to misinterpretation and so was used instead. Its use also reminds me why I was citing the record in the first place.)

First Full Reference

Veterans Affairs (Canada), First World War Veterans Death Cards, un-indexed, alphabetical by last name, “Murison-Thomas-B”, died 5 March 1958; accessed as “Veterans Death Cards: First World War,” browsable images, Library and Archives Canada (http://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/mass-digitized-archives/veterans-death-cards-ww1 : downloaded 14 April 2019) > Morrison, B (group) > image 1235; Library and Archives Canada (LAC); Originals contained in 99 cabinet drawers of approximately 1,300 cards each. Each drawer digitized by LAC. First card in drawer is title of digitised card group. 

I trust that this now is fully stylistically correct? (I ask, since I'll likely use it as a reference for future citations.)

History-Hunter, thanks for the advice to all about truncating .aspx URLs. Re "downloaded" vs "accessed," we should use the word that reflects what we did. If we say downloaded, then we know in the future that we did download the image into our own files. If we say "accessed," even though we downloaded, then we've not captured one bit of information that would help us in the future.

The only nit I see to pick in your new citation (and it is a nit) comes at the end of the fifth line. You close out the citation with a semicolon, then begin your added discussion with a capitalized "Originals contained ..."  The capitalization would be appropriate for the start of a new sentence. EE would suggest either  putting a period after "(LAC)" and starting a new sentence, or else lower-casing "Originals."

Dear Editor;

Thank you. 

I'll use a period after "(LAC"). I like keeping the extra information as a separate sentence. That added information is, in my mind, a  separate thought. Doing this will help me develop a consistent structure to many of my citations. That is; two reference clauses (one for the original record and one for the online source), a source-of-the-source clause and possibly a sentence for clarifications about the source(s).

Good thoughts.

Dear Editor,

Re: Multiple Waypoint path options on FamilySearch

My question is: if my goal is for me or my reader to be able to locate the image I used, do I need to show the path I originally took to get to the image (as in the long citation below)  or shorten the waypoints in a citation by going directly to the Film Number as in the shorter citation below.

Long option:

Latah County, Idaho, Deed Book 12: page 351; accessed through "Deeds, 1888-1907; index, 1888-1906," browsable images, FamilySearch (https:/familysearch.org/search/catalog : accessed 7 September 2020), Latah County > Land and property > Deeds, 1888-1907; index, 1888-1906 > 8578270 > image 258 of 835, Carry and Wm N Gibb to George Clewly, recorded 22 August 1892.

Shorter option:

Latah County, Idaho, Deed Book 12: page 351; accessed through "Deeds, 1888-1907; index, 1888-1906," browsable images, FamilySearch (https:/familysearch.org : accessed 7 September 2020), 8578270 > image 258 of 835, Carry and Wm N Gibb to George Clewly, recorded 22 August 1892.

Thanks,

Curtis

Curtis, if you use the second option, then you need to say what "8578270" represents.

EE would approach the problem a different way, which also shortens the citation:

Latah County, Idaho, Deed Book 12: page 351, Carry and Wm N Gibb to George Clewly, 1 August 1892; imaged at FamilySearch (https:/familysearch.org/search/catalog/676333 : accessed 7 September 2020) > image 258 of 835; imaged from Family History Library digital film 8578270.

Explanations:

1. The names of the parties to the deed are part of the original deed and should be included in the layer that identifies the deed. Their identity and the date the clerk recorded the document in 1792 is not a function of FamilySearch, so their details do not fit in the FamilySearch layer.
2. The date of the document is the date that is usually cited, rather than the recording date. If that recording date was significantly later, then you might want to add the recording date.
3. In your citations, you are trying to cite two different things, both the deed book:page (which has its own image number) and the index book:page. If you wish to cite the index book, that's a separate citation.
4. Rather than cite to the generic catalog page at Family Search and then have to add all the waypoints on the path, it's simpler to include the collection number /676333 in the URL. Then all you have to add after the parenthetical publishing data (place : date) is the image number.
5. The third layer (the source of the image) is where you would cite the digital film number.

Thank you - sorry it has taken so long to get back to this and respond.

I understand the need to keep the names of the parties in the layer that identifies the deeds. 

I was trying to follow the examples in EE 10.6 p 500 where it discusses the importance of including the name of the collection in the citation and in this case the name of the collection is  "Deeds. 1999-1907; index, 1888-1906".  I agree with your approach that it is simpler and shorter to  just utilize the collection number.  Having said that, I have a question about the collection number vs Film Number vs DGS number and which should be cited.

I was unsure where the 676333 came from, so I went to FS and looked up a copy of the deed I am siting. The only place I see the 676333 noted is in the URL address when I am on the over page of the collection. I usually get to this same overview page by searching on the DGS/film number.  In my situation, I have over 400 images of deeds, not all of them are from FS, but I would estimate 75% are.  It would be a daunting task to pull up each one and copy the URL and note the collection number for each.

Within the context of "site what you are looking at" and the concern about URL stability, I focused on noting in the metadata for each image the Film and/or DGS number and then the image number within the Film/DGS number.  My thought was that even if the URL(s) changed, it was unlikely FS would change the film and/or DGS numbers.  It is also my understanding that the DGS is the number of the digital file created from the microfilm reel number noted. 

Given that I do not have the catalog number for my images, I am thinking a citation incorporating your improvements would be:

Latah County, Idaho, Deed Book 12: page 351, Carry and Wm N Gibb to George Clewly, 1 August 1892; imaged at FamilySearch (https:/familysearch.org/search : accessed 7 September 2020) > DGS 8578270 > image 258 of 835; imaged from Family History Library film 1535276.

Thank you

Curtis

Curtis,

That works also, with a bit of tweaking. With regard to the specific issues you raise:

Citing Collection Title

FamilySearch has different organizational schemes for the materials it puts online. Some are named collections. Some are not. It can be confusing. In the case at hand, you are not using a named collection. The “title” you originally used is a library catalog description from the Family History Library catalog. It is simply a cataloging label for 13 rolls of microfilmed deeds from one county courthouse in Idaho. It’s a subgroup  (deeds) of a subgroup (county court records) of a subgroup (Latah County resources) of a subgroup (Idaho resources), etc.   (EE 2.27 “FHL Film of Unpublished Records,” has more on this point.)

Go to the Family Search tab for “Search > Records.” There, you will see a screen labeled “Find a Collection.”  If you type in the ‘collection’ name as you give in your first citation—Deeds. 1999-1907; index, 1888-1906—you get no response. That’s because there is no such collection title.  Looking at that set of words in isolation, ask yourself: does this sound descriptive enough that everyone will know, from those words alone, what I've used? No. Immediately you have an important question: what locale?  A named collection will be specific enough that one can understand what is covered by the title.

Under that screen, you’ll see a hot link “Browse All Published Collections.” Click that. Now you have a list of all Family Search’s named collections. Notice the specificity of the titles. For example:

Alabama, Jefferson County Circuit Court Papers, 1870-1916.

Notice also that the named collections are tremendously larger. Under Idaho, for example, the titled collections at the county level cover the whole county—as in “Idaho, Bonneville County Records, 1867–2012.”  The named collections are not broken down into subsets of subsets of records within that county courthouse.

676333

Yes, this comes from the URL of the catalog page that you used. Given your expressed desire for the first full reference to be as short as possible, EE suggested that URL.

Revised Citation

Yes, that works, with three tweaks:

Latah County, Idaho, Deed Book 12: 351 [or Deed Book 12, page 351 or Deed Bok 12, p. 351], Carry and Wm N Gibb to George Clewly, 1 August 1892; imaged at FamilySearch (https:/familysearch.org/search/catalog : accessed 7 September 2020) > digital film 8578270 > image 258 of 835; imaged from Family History Library film 1535276.

1.  In all citation conventions, when we cite a volume number and a page, if we use the colon to separate them, we do not then include the words  volume or page. We use the name of the "series" and then say 12: 351.  If we feel that our reader will not understand what those numbers represent, then we do not use the colon. The convention is “Deed Book 12, page 351 (or Deed Book 12, p. 351). Yes, this is nitpicking, but it’s also been a standard practice for more a century, in every citation style guide; so we might as well learn and use what's "standard."

2. If your URL stops with the word “search,” then it takes us to a page where we search for names of individuals, with an option to "restrict" that search for a specific individual to film xxxxxxxxxxx . That page does not give us a screen for searching by film number only. If we type only "8578270" we get no hits. To use just the film number alone, our URL needs to include "catalog."

3. Your acronym “DGS” will not be understood by most of your readers. It’s clearer to simply say “digital film ___.”  (EE 2.57 “Acronyms & Initialisms” covers the basics on this point.)

Does this clarify?

Yes - and an very special thanks for the "lesson" on the organization schemes of FamilySearch.  I though the use of quotations in their titles meant they were collections and should be treated as such in the citations.  I will need to review some other records to make confirm if they are in fact collections.

I reviewed EE2:27 and it brings up another consideration, the use of the item number.  I usually recorded it in my research notes to help me locate where to start browsing, but felt it was not necessary in my citations if I was providing the exact image number, but given the revised format maybe I should use it in the last layer if some one were looking at the film rather than the digital film. 

I also noticed EE uses the acronym FHL.  I think I will use that in the last layer for citations in RootsMagic, knowing that if I publish something I will need to write out the full name in the first use per EE 2.57,

I like the idea of using the catalog page in the citation, it is just that I already have so many images from FamilySearch already downloaded and cited in Roots Magic without it, the time commitment to revise all could be better spent doing more researching/documenting.  I'm also not sure if I want different formats for FamilySearch images by making the change now.

I think the revised citation with the tweaks you recommend is a good compromise for my situation. 

Thank you again for all your help and explanations.  It is always easier for me if I know the "why behind the what" rather than just filling in the template.

Curtis

Curtis,

Re item number: If we cite the exact image number, we do not have to cite the item number. We may if we wish.

Re acronyms and initialisms: Yes. as per EE 2.57, the first time we cite a facility that is well-known by an acronym or initialism, we spell out in full the facility's name and place the acronym or initialism in parentheses. Thereafter, we can use just the short version.

Re your final sentence: Understanding the "why behind the what" is what makes a person good at what they do.

EE Editor,

Another question about the Bibliography for images of FHL film.  (Seemed so much straight forward citing collections!)  Since I am looking at the digital image, I believe the repository would be considered FamilySearch, the repository of the film, not the county clerks office where the books were filmed, but the example in EE2.26, p 54 also includes the local jurisdiction or town where the original records are kept in addition to the FHL film number.  So I am not sure if I need to include the repository of the items on film or just the repository of the film I viewed.  Also do I note the Catalog record, the microfilm number or the digital film number since that is what I looked at. Information from various screens of FS regarding my source:

Bibliography noting the location of original documents:

Idaho. Latah County. Deed Records. County Courthouse, Moscow. Digital film 8578270. FamilySearch. https:/familysearch.org : 2020. 

or Bibliography noting what I viewed at the repository.

Idaho.Latah County. Deeds, 1888-1907. Digital film 8578270. FamilySearch. https:/familysearch.org : 2020. 

Thanks,

Curtis

EE Editor,

I think I have cleared up my confusion between FS collections and images.  If I am citing images of FHL microfilms as in my original question, I would use EE, sec. 9.32, p457, but replace the [microfilm # and Family History Library, SLC, Utah] in the second layer with the [digital film # and FamilySearch website] and then add the additional layer noting the FHL film number.

What was confusing is the examples in EE sec 10.6, p. 500.  The explanation for FHL films that are digitized is based on the assumption that the digital images are in a collection, which, as you explained may or may not be.

Yes, Curtis, EE 10.6 treats an imaged record which is part of a named collection at the FamilySearch website, whereas 9.32 illustrates FamilySearch images of standalone microfilm that is not part of a named collection.

The basic identification of the underlying record is the same. What differs is the means by which the online databases organize and deliver the images. Citations are always governed by the nature of what we're using.