Revisiting WVCulture/vrr images and their link to FHL films

By niteowl1851 on Wed, 01/01/2020 - 22:09

Forums

So a couple years ago, a bit of this was covered in the following topic: https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/online-databases-citing-when-there-doesnt-seem-be-enough-info

 

Now that I’m working on a few entries (new found biological relations are heavily from West Virginia) I have a few questions.

 

So, let’s look at this example.

 

www.wvculture.org/vrr > Marriage > groom: Harris, bride: Frederick

= 1 result: Benjamin F Harris and Mary E Frederick, 1888, Ritchie County

The image is a 2 page image; the top of the pages is titled “Register of Marriages”.

The entry is the 3rd from the top and is numbered #99.

Image: http://www.wvculture.org/vrr/va_view.aspx?Id=11540370&Type=Marriage

 

My initial reference note for this was:

"Vital Research Records Search Selection," database and images, West Virginia Division of Arts, Culture and History (http://www.wvculture.org/vrr/ : accessed 01 Jan 2020), database entry for Benjamin F Harris and Mary E Frederick, 04 Nov 1888, and register image for “Register of Marriages” [Ritchie County], unknown volume, pp. 67-68.

 

Sadly, I couldn’t leave well enough alone.

 

First, even though the image said “Register of Marriages” across the top, I know from other research that the actual volume may be labeled otherwise on the spine, etc. So I’ve changed the last line and now have this:

"Vital Research Records Search Selection," database and images, West Virginia Division of Arts, Culture and History (http://www.wvculture.org/vrr/ : accessed 01 Jan 2020), database entry for Benjamin F Harris and Mary E Frederick, 04 Nov 1888, and register image for Marriage Records [Ritchie County], unidentified volume, pp. 67-68.

 

Now comes the GSU/FHL twist. I know from reading about the collection that the images were digitized from GSU microfilms produced primarily in the late 1960’s. But as has been discussed, the images do not reference what volumes they actually came from. A PDF about the project actually says:

“Unfortunately, identification of the ledger in which a record was found was not included in the transcription, so those needing a specific citation of the county ledger volume in which a record appears will have to refer to the microfilm itself, or contact the county of record or the Archives. We have been unable to determine any way to improve these situations.”

 

So, knowing this, I went to familysearch and searched for Mary Frederick, marriage in West Virginia in 1888. Then I viewed the result which came from a database titled “West Virginia Marriages, 1780-1970”. The record details do provide a GS Film Number of 839540. The link for the image does return to wvculture, but actually is a different link than that provided directly by wvculture. This link is: http://www.wvculture.org/vrr/va_view2.aspx?FilmNumber=839540&ImageNumber=75

 

So first I searched the familysearch catalog on film 839540. However the note is a little generic. It says “Marriages 1843-1900 Marriages, v. 4-5 1909-1915.” This particular film is searchable and viewable on familysearch itself though. Searching the film contents did return the same record above with the same external link to wvculture. Clicking the camera link for the whole film does open a set of images on familysearch itself. From the link above, I know that it is image number 75, so I went to that image and confirmed it is the same register page and entry. Going back to the beginning of the film roll, I see (on image 4) that the outside of the volume is labeled “Marriage Register 1853-1900”.

 

That leads me to tweak my reference note to read:

"Vital Research Records Search Selection," database and images, West Virginia Division of Arts, Culture and History (http://www.wvculture.org/vrr/ : accessed 01 Jan 2020), database entry for Benjamin F Harris and Mary E Frederick, 04 Nov 1888, and register image for “Marriage Register 1853-1900, Ritchie County,” pp. 67-68; digitized from GSU microfilm 839540.

 

Now to the questions -

 

First: If I decide that the extra searching for the film number and title is unnecessary, and since I am citing what I see, is my proposed reference note correct?

 

"Vital Research Records Search Selection," database and images, West Virginia Division of Arts, Culture and History (http://www.wvculture.org/vrr/ : accessed 01 Jan 2020), database entry for Benjamin F Harris and Mary E Frederick, 04 Nov 1888, and register image for Marriage Records [Ritchie County], unidentified volume, pp. 67-68.

 

 

Second: In cases where I do perform the extra legwork, is that citation correct? Or should I somehow also reference that I did a search on familysearch to identify the film number?

 

"Vital Research Records Search Selection," database and images, West Virginia Division of Arts, Culture and History (http://www.wvculture.org/vrr/ : accessed 01 Jan 2020), database entry for Benjamin F Harris and Mary E Frederick, 04 Nov 1888, and register image for “Marriage Register 1853-1900, Ritchie County,” pp. 67-68; digitized from GSU microfilm 839540.

 

It’s too bad the image links returned by the default searches on wvculture don’t allow you to advance forwards or backwards so you can look at the first images which are normally of the cover or spine…

Submitted byEEon Thu, 01/02/2020 - 10:26

Niteowl1851, you definitely have an inquiring mind.

Going back to the basic rule for citation—we cite what we use—EE's recommendation would be this:

  1. Cite the "Vital Research Records Search Selection," at the WV website.
  2. Close out the formal citation, then start a new sentence or paragraph to add as mucg discussion as you feel necessary to identify the original.

There are another couple of questions we might consider:

  1. Why cite the database entry, as well as the image? When you cite something in a book, do you cite the index page as well as the page on which the data appears? EE recommends doing so with indexes and databases when there is an error in the index or database entry that needs to be flagged and discussed. But if that situation does not exists, what is gained by citing both?
  2. Is there a reason why you are choosing not to include the exact URL for the image?

You also asked specifically about the format of your initial citation. EE would make one tweak. Your description of what you used ends this way:

… register image for Marriage Records [Ritchie County], unidentified volume, pp. 67-68.

The tweak would be in those words “Marriage Records,” which you have capitalized to signify that it is a formal title. The wording at the head of the page actually is “Register of Marriages.” EE (after citing to the exact image number) might explain the situation this way:

… image headed “Register of Marriages,” pp. 67-68, entry 99, Harris-Frederick; the database identifies the county as Ritchie but does not identify the name or number of the register and the structure of the site does not allow thumbing back to the start of the register to identity it from its cover.

Submitted byniteowl1851on Thu, 01/02/2020 - 15:10

Thanks for your thoughts EE.  Regarding your questions for me -

 

1. Why cite database entry as well as image?

To be honest, I was just following the example from the previous topic (that I linked at the very top of my post). In your response to the OP in that topic, you left the "database entry" in place in that case. Was there a particular reason in that case or just finessing things as time goes on?

 

2. Why not include the exact url for the image?

I hate the look of long urls. Whether I'm using ancestry or familysearch, I almost never use the long/exact urls either. Of course, there is every possibility the long urls can change too. And with the relevant information contained in the citation (names, date, county), it is easy enough for people to search for it.  And also, if I keep to just the main site url, I can include it in the "master" part of my templates. I'm not saying there aren't cases where I would use a long url (if is not easily searchable for example), but...

 

re: capitalization of "Marriage Records", I thought it was the use of quotes that indicated a formal title? In EE 2.62 (capitalization of untitled items) it mentions creating a label and using either Initial caps or first letter of first word. So I thought by having ... Marriage Records [Ritchie County] ... was in fact indicating that there is not a known formal title.

Submitted byniteowl1851on Fri, 01/03/2020 - 10:07

I have thought a bit about entry vs. image and also the fact that the title of the volume is unknown just by looking at the image. Here is yet another case where my preferred use of my software interferes as well. By adding an additional descriptive sentence at the end of the note, that same note would get attached to the short/subsequent note. So, what I'm playing with is this:

 

Reference Note:

"Vital Research Records Search Selection," database and images, West Virginia Division of Arts, Culture and History (http://www.wvculture.org/vrr/ : accessed 01 Jan 2020), register image of unidentified volume of Ritchie County marriage records, pp. 67-68, entry 99, Harris-Frederick, 04 Nov. 1888.

 

Additional personal comment in my source details comment in my software:

Further research at FamilySearch indicates the image was likely digitized from GSU microfilm 839540 of original records at the Ritchie County courthouse.

Submitted byEEon Fri, 01/03/2020 - 10:26

Niteowl, Issue 1: you're right, the earlier discussion used both. There, the questioner's draft citation first said "images" then switched to "entry." My response focused on separating the two. In retrospect, it would have been better if I had also posed the same question to "Anonymous" that I posed to you, but my response was nearly 1,000 words already and that does tend to overwhelm many people, so I just didn't go into that point.

Issue 2: your preference is a valid choice. Some researchers prefer one approach, some prefer the other. EE was interested in knowing why you made that choice. With some providers (principally, Ancestry and FamilySearch) we can trim those long URLs and eliminate half the length or more. Not so with the WV site.

Issue 3: Both capitalization and quotation marks can indicate a formal title. (This harks back to grammar school where we learned that, in English, we capitalize a word if it is part of a formal title.) Quotation marks also indicate that we have quoted the title exactly and that the titled item is just a part of a standalone publication whose title is italicized (a title that uses capitalization for everything except articles and conjunctions).

The issue in this case is clarity. The page you’re citing does have a header: Register of Marriages. Rather than change it to something generic and capitalize the generic words, our identification of the source is clearer if we use the words that are there, identify them as the words that appear on the page, and then say that the title of the register itself is not imaged or identified.

Submitted byniteowl1851on Fri, 01/03/2020 - 10:51

Thanks for the clarifications.  As I mentioned above, I'm also manipulating my input because of my software program...I've had to really consider how to enter things so that if gedcom export is needed in future, my sources will transfer mostly intact instead of in broken out-of-order fragments. Not fun.

 

With that said, I think this will be my final go. I do now include the header "Register of Marriages" while still reflecting it is an unidentified volume.

"Vital Research Records Search Selection," database and images, West Virginia Division of Arts, Culture and History (http://www.wvculture.org/vrr/ : accessed 01 Jan. 2020), image with header "Register of Marriages" from unidentified volume of Ritchie County marriage records, pp. 67-68, entry 99, Harris-Frederick, 04 Nov. 1888.