FamilySearch film numbers

Cryptoref, EE still suggests recording the cited film number at the time we use the record. Aside from the fact that the situation at FHL is temporary, there also exist two other considerations:  (a) some items have been filmed more than once, with some differences between the filming; and (b) items on one roll of film may carry descriptive labels that are almost identical to items on another film; capturing the film number ensures that we get to the right item. It only takes a few seconds to add "FHL microfilm xxxxxxx." As research continues, that will give us another data point by which to identify and analyze our source in the event that questions later arise.

However, your case at hand (the FHL database “Massachusetts Births, 1841–1915”) is a bit more complicated. Image 1 of this set of images tells us that the microfilm number is 1420835. The number 004285086 is the number of the digital film made from 1420835.  When we see an FHL number above 2 million that’s digital film.  

This nitpicking makes a difference in how we cite it. Remember the basic pattern for citing a published source—be it a book or a website:

Author/Creator, Title of Book or Website (publication place : date), specific page or item.

(In the case of websites that carry the same name as the Creator, we don’t have to duplicate the name in the creator field.)

If we’re using a chapter in a book or a database at a website, we put that chapter title or database title in quotation marks at the start of the citation, as in

“Title of Chapter or Database,” Title of Book or Website (publication place : date), specific page or item.

If we are citing a publication that has multiple volumes, then the volume number is cited just before the specific item:

“Title of Chapter or Database,” Title (publication place : date), volume number, specific page or item.

“Digital film 004285086” represents the volume number within the database “Massachusetts Births, 1841–1915.” In following FHL’s organization of this database, we don’t go straight from “Massachusetts Births, 1841–1915,” to image 72 of 865. We have to first choose “digital film 004285086 from FHL’s path.

All this would create a Layer 2 that look like this:

…; imaged in “Massachusetts Births 1841–1915,” FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-XCWY-TY), digital film 004285086 > image 72 of 865; ....

EE would also tweak Layers 1 and 3, based on what we actually see when we eyeball that collection and that image:

LAYER 1

Massachusetts, “Births, 1852, volume 63,” p. 65 (West Stockbridge), entry 22, Frank Bible (December 1852); …

Alteration 1: I’m guessing that your identification of the creator as “Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth(SoC) (Sheffield),” comes from the catalog entry, but we don’t see that on anything that is imaged. If our citation pulls in data from an outside source, then the identification of that outside source needs to be included in the citation. If you want to include this, you might start a new sentence saying, perhaps: The FHL catalog entry for set of records identifies the creator of this set of records as ....; see [then create a citation for that catalog page].

Alteration 2: In examining the images, I did not see “births 1841-1915.” Image 4 of the film images the label on the volume as “Births, 1852, volume 63.”

Alteration 3: Because this volume includes different towns, with p. 65 presenting West Stockbridge registratons, EE would include that in parentheses as a descriptor for p. 65.

LAYER 3

…; imaged in “Massachusetts Births 1841-1915,” FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-XCWY-TY), digital film 004285086 > image 72 of 865; imaged from FHL microfilm 1420835, citing Division of Vital Statistics, State House, Boston, Massachusetts.

Your question now becomes: Do we feel it is necessary to include the microfilm number, as well as the digital film number?

cryptoref, I did err. My apologies. After I went from your link to the start of the roll to get the data there, then I "went back to image 65."  But I should have gone to page 65, which was image 72. (Yes, even editors need an editor when they do their own writing!)  In any case, the critical point is that the town needs to be identified when a register covers multiple towns.

Another approach - I have elected not to include the "Title of the Chapter or Database" in most of my citations for images from Family Search.  I do a lot of land record research in FamilySearch and many of the digitized images are not indexed or included in a database so I ended up just recording/citing the DGS numbers and image numbers to locate them again if needed.

Even for those items that were part of a "database with images," I found I could by bypass the collection and go right to the film number and image.  Because the names and contents of the collections will change, (for a number of reasons), I have decided to not include them in my citations.  For example my "old" footnote would have been:

Nez Perce County, Idaho, Index to Marriage Licenses, Vol.2, entry for Hermann, Jacob P and Mary Walker Gibb, 1920; accessed through “Idaho, County Marriages 1864-1959," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-99DX-H84X : accessed 4 April 2020) > 7548871 > image 370 of 555, index direct to groom.  

If someone searches for the collection "Idaho, County Marriages 1864-1954", it does not exist, but there is a collection "Idaho, County Marriages 1864-1962".  Someone following my search has to decide if this is a different collection or just one that has been expanded. I have also experienced where images have been removed from one collection and added to another.

To eliminate this potential confusion/problem, I have changed my approach citing images from FamilySearch.  I now create citations based on EE 9.32, Local & State Records on Microfilm but replacing the FHL film number with the DGS number and then adding additional information to explain the DGS are images from a FHL film.  Other blogs have indicated the need to identify repository where the records were filmed because many of the state and local records are now being moved to state archives.  All of this info is on the Title Block images within the DGS file.  So now my footnote is:

Nez Perce County, Idaho, Index to Marriage Licenses, Vol. 2: unnumbered pages arranged alphabetically by first letter of surname and then in chronological order, index direct, entry for Hermann, Jacob P and Mary Walker Gibb, 3 June 1920; digital images, FamilySearch (https:/familysearch.org/search/catalog : accessed 4 April 2020) > digital film 7548871 >image 370 of 555; imaged from Family History Library film 1516680, item 4, stating documents microfilmed by the Genealogical Society at Nez Perce County Courthouse on 26 August 1987; noting license no. 89084.

I know this is now a little long, but in this case the volume is unnumbered, (a whole line would be removed it it was Vol 2; page 300), and  the information of where the DGS images came from is added.  In my mind it almost takes on the format of:  DGS image, citing FHL film, citing documents at Repository on a given date.

I think the value in this is that I do not have to worry if the FamilySearch database changes or link rot over time and I don't think FamilySearch or FHL will be changing their DGS numbers or film numbers

I have also considered using the FHL abbreviation and moving the "annotation layer" from the end of the citation to immediately following the "item of interest layer".