Online database marriage records

By Tami on Wed, 09/22/2021 - 09:20

Forums

I am a bit confused...I have created two different citations for a marriage record that was found on Family Search and I am not sure which one is correct.

Allen County, Indiana, Marriage Records, vol. 86:201, Alfred Richard Lueders-Martha Katherine Belschner, 4 January 1936; "Indiana Marriages, 1811-2019", Family Search (www.familysearch.com : accessed 19 May 2020), image 106 of 311; citing Indiana Commission on Public Records, Indianapolis, Indiana, imaged from FHL microfilm 004201537

This one seems to give the information from the original record, where I found the image and where Family Search retrieved their information from; however, I am confused where the FHL microfilm number should appear.

Then the second citation, I believe, states the location of where I found the image of the record, what I discovered on the record and where Family Search retrieved that information. Again the microfilm number seems not to be located in the correct spot.

"Indiana Marriages, 1811-2007", database with digital images, FamilySearch (www.familysearch.org : downloaded 19 May 2020), image copy 106 of 311, marriage of  Alfred R. Lueders and Martha K. Belschner, 4 January 1936; citing Allen, Indiana, Marriage Registration, Indiana Commission on Public Records, Indianapolis, Indiana, 1935-1936, vol. 86, p. 201; imaged from FHL microfilm 004204537.

I think the first citation is correct because it cites the record and then how the information was gleaned, but I am not confident. Can anyone please walk me through what my thought process should be on this?

 

Submitted byEEon Wed, 09/22/2021 - 19:26

Tami, can you give us an exact URL for either the database or the image. From your citation, there is no way to go from the home page to the exact image. I tried using the film number but FS identifies that number as "Pennsylvania, Berks County, Hamburg, obituary and marriage collection, 1825-1994."

Submitted byEEon Thu, 09/23/2021 - 08:22

Tami, at that webpage, you are not using the marriage records created by Allen County, Indiana, marriage orricials.  You are using a FamilySearch database entry—something created by FamilySearch from data entered by FamilySearch volunteers. You have no idea whether the names, dates, and places are read correctly. You have no idea whether there are other details on the original record that were not copied into the database, because a database entry is always restricted to the fields decided upon by the database creators. Random records within the collection could have other comments. Since you were using a database entry accessed by typing a name into a query box, rather than using the original register, you were not able to check entries before and after to see if there are other relevant entries on same day that would provide additional clues for research. In fact, from the database entry, you don't even know the name of the register in which someone would look for that marriage. The database entry gives us a page number but not a book name or number.

In fact, from this database, you do not know the actual marriage date. The database title is "Indiana Marriages," but the database fields provide only for a marriage license date. The marriage could have occurred days, weeks, or months after that—or marriage plans might have been canceled after the license was obtained.

Evidence Explained would use the citation that FamilySearch provides on that page, which is already crafted in Evidence Style. EE would also make two alterations:

  1. EE would identify the locale (in the citing layer) as Allen County, Indiana—rather than Allen, Indiana—because most people identify American locales as City, State (Fort Wayne, Indiana; Boston, Massachusetts; Atlanta, Georgia; etc.) or City, County, State (Fort Wayne, Allen County, Indiana; etc.)
  2. EE would, as you did, add the explanatory words "imaged from" before the phrase "FHL microfilm 004204537."

As for the microfilm ID, yes, it is placed correctly.

Finally, note that the title of the database on the page to which you link is "Indiana Marriages, 1811-2019," while you're citing "Indiana Marriages, 1811-2007." FamilySearch also has a database, "Indiana Marriages, 1780–1992," but I don't find one with the dates "1811-2007."

 

Submitted byEEon Thu, 09/23/2021 - 09:03

Tami, from your discussion it also appears that you did consult the original image. If so, that is what you should cite instead of FamilySearch’s database entry. There are generally two ways we can do this.

1.

Begin our citation (Layer 1) with a cite to the original register. FamilySearch “database with images” would then be cited in Layer 2 where we identify the source that delivered the images. Then the microfilm ID would come at the end, in Layer 3.

However, we have a problem here because the filmed images do not show the cover of the register and the title thereon. The only ID we have is secondhand: FamilySearch tells us that it’s from “1935-1936 Volume 86” but that’s FamilySearch’s ID, patterned to create an orderly database. If we go into the courthouse and look for that marriage record, we might not find a marriage book with that wording on the cover.

The bottom line here is that FamilySearch’s ID of the record book is copied into the “citing …” layer. We do not put it in the layer in which we identify the original record.  That means we don’t have enough information to cite the marriage book as the lead element.

Also, when using the original, we’re not given a film number; all we are given is the ID of an office that, we presume, physically holds this volume—although it could be the state agency that authorized the filming. From what we’re told, we don’t know. That is one reason why, when we copy a citation (or record identification) from our provider, we preface it with the words “citing …” to indicate: “This is what my provider says about its source, but I don’t know for myself that the record is there and.or can’t be sure what the provider is intending to say.”

 

2.

Begin our citation with the database, then use the path (waypoints along that parth) to carry us down to the image:

“Indiana Marriages, 1811—2019,” FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-676C-N?owc=waypoints : accessed 23 September 2021) > Allen > 1935-1936 Volume 86 > image 106, being page 201, Alfred Richard Lueders to Martha Katherine Belschner, license dated 2 January 1836 and return citing marriage on 4 January 1936; citing Indiana Commission on Public Records, Indianapolis.

This waypoint citation is what EE would recommend in the kind of situation you are dealing with here.

QuickLesson 19 goes into more detail on the thought process behind choosing to emphasize the record vs. choosing to emphasize the database.

Finally, there is one further on that original image that needs to be noted. EE would add it at the end of the citation:

“Indiana Marriages, 1811—2019,” FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-676C-N?owc=waypoints : accessed 23 September 2021) > Allen > 1935-1936 Volume 86 > image 106, being page 201, Alfred Richard Lueders to Martha Katherine Belschner, license dated 2 January 1836 and return citing marriage on 4 January 1936; citing Indiana Commission on Public Records, Indianapolis. Note that each page of this register carried the notation "Unofficial Record."

 

 

Submitted byTamion Thu, 09/23/2021 - 12:47

Thank you for the response. I think I am understanding and see that part of my confusion is not understanding Family Search records. I didn't understand that the Allen>1935-1936> volume 86 was linked to the database and not the original record. Also, I believed that the first page (which is where I found the FHL microfilm number 004204537) was just an abstract indexing the information from the original document and that both citations provided by Family Search would be the same.

If the title of the book had been provided in the front of the digital images, would I then have three layers in this citation? 

Also, in Quick Lesson 19 it states, "When we view an original document online and the digitized image has been reproduced from film, rather than from the original document, we have at least three layers..." How does one know the difference between an image being reproduced from film rather than from the original?

 

 

Tami, yes, if the title of the book had been filmed and if, from examining the film, you found the other pieces of information necessary to create a full citation to the book itself, then your Layer 1 might cite the original and your Layer 2 might cite the website that provided the images. Then, any additional source-of-the-source data given by the website provider would go in Layer 3 (the last layer being the "citing ....." layer).

As for whether the digital images are made from old microfilm or directly from the original, we can usually discern that in one of two ways:

  1. Typically, when FS makes modern digital images from its microfilm (which could have been made as much as 70 years ago), the first few frames of that set of images will identify the film and depict "targets" created by the filmers to identify what they were filming and where the records were at the the time.  As a matter of habit, anytime we use online images that are part of a set of images, we should scroll to the start of that set to see what data is there--just as we would in using a published book. We would not just photocopy, say, p. 321 of a book and go blithely on our way. We would also flip to the front of the book and get the author/title data from the title page, and the publication data from the title page and its reverse; and we'd look for a foreword of something similar that explains important issues, etc.
  2. We can (should) look up the digital film number in FS's catalog and read the cataloging data that FS provides.  We find that cataloging data through this path:  FamilySearch.org > Search > Catalog > Fiche/Film number > [then fill in the blank with the specific film number]

Submitted byTamion Thu, 09/23/2021 - 12:54

Also, can you direct me to the spot on how to learn to shorten the url with "=waypoints"? I have no idea how you knew where to add the "=waypoints" in the above url. 

Yes, as a rule. Thanks for adding, GeneaBell.   I'm also curious about one thing, which you may be able to explain. Sometimes, when we cut the URL immediately before the question mark--and then we go away to a different browser to test the shortened version—the shortened URL will work, but then FS will add back several of the characters we cut. That happens in the example above. FS's internal system adds back ?i=105 for image 106.

Tami, waypoints are always placed immediately after the parenthetical publication data (URL : date).  The waypoints then tell us how to navigate from that URL, through various menus, until we arrive at the image.

Have you discovered yet QuickLesson 25: ARKs, PALs, Paths & Waypoints (Citing Online Providers of Digital Images)?

Submitted byV P Stroeheron Tue, 12/07/2021 - 19:56

Hello!

I'm confused as well, I think. I do understand the layers, but I still feel a bit at sea particularly when I try to cite something from Ancestry.com - the terminology befuddles. For the following citation, I consulted the image, which, if I understand correctly, is supplied by the Georgia Archives. I'm privileging the original record over the provider of the image. Am I any ways close?

Footnote reference: 

Oglethorpe County, Georgia, marriages, vol. 1 (1794–1832) : 17, Lem'l Herring and Mary Hendon; imaged as  "Georgia, U.S., Marriage Records From Select Counties, 1828-1978," Ancestry.com (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/4766/ : accessed 7 December 2021); path > Oglethorpe > Marriages (White), Vol 1, 1794–1832 > image 16; citing "County Marriage Records, 1828–1978," Georgia Archives, Morrow.

Short reference:

Oglethorpe Co., Geo., marriages, vol. 1 (1794–1832 : 17, Lem'l Herring and Mary Hendon; img. 16.

Source entry reference:

Georgia. Oglethorpe County. Marriage Records. County Clerk's Office. "Georgia, U.S., Marriage Records from Select Counties, 1828–1979." Database with images. Ancestry.com. https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/4766/ : 2021.

Submitted byEEon Wed, 12/08/2021 - 09:47

VP Stroeher, you've done well. EE would tinker only on the finer points. For the Full Reference Note, EE would suggest this:

Oglethorpe County, Georgia, Marriages, vol. 1 (1794–1832) : 17, Lem'l Herring and Mary Hendon,  5 January 1808, minister's return by Wm. Hendon; imaged as  "Georgia, U.S., Marriage Records From Select Counties, 1828-1978," Ancestry.com (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/4766/ : accessed 7 December 2021), path: Oglethorpe > Marriages (White), Vol 1, 1794–1832 > image 16; citing "County Marriage Records, 1828–1978, Georgia Archives, Morrow."

Explanations:

Date. EE 9.4 discusses when to add the marriage date or year in a citation. With a date for a marriage record, we also need to state whether that date represents a license, a bond, a permission, or the minister or j.p.'s return because these events typically occur on different dates, sometimes the actual marriage date is significantly later than the bond or license, and sometimes the eventual marriage did not actually occur. In this case, since the minister who submitted the return carries the same surname as the bride, EE would include that. You might, of course, prefer to discuss all of this in your text, in which case you need not repeat it in the footnote.

Path statement. Two issues here:

  • I’ve removed the semicolon you placed before the word “path” and replaced it with a comma. The path statement appears in the field where, if this was a book, we would cite the page number. A comma is the standard punctuation between the close-parenthesis and the page number. A semicolon in a citation indicates a break between layers.  When we cite “Database or Chapter Title,” Book or Website Title (publication place : date), page or image ID, all of that is part of the same layer.
  • The word path is not essential, but if it’s used, a colon should be placed after it, not a waypoint marker “>”.  Each of the items named in the string of waypoint markers should be a waypoint, using the exact wording that the database uses. At the site you are citing, there is no waypoint called “path” that the user of your citation should look for. The first waypoint is “Oglethorpe.” 

The word “path,” if we include it in our citation, is an explanation for those who may not understand this type of citation.  The colon that is placed after the word is a punctuation mark that says “everything that follows is an explanation providing more-specific detail. (As an example, see the use of a colon after the word “Explanations” above.)

Source of the source layer.  Here, you are quoting, as you should, what Ancestry provides for the identity of its source: County Marriage Records, 1828–1978, Georgia Archives, Morrow. You’ve placed quotation marks around the ID of the records, but not around the ID of the archive. To avoid an ambiguity that might mislead others, EE would put the whole phrase in quotation marks.

The ambiguity is this:  When we see a set of records cited with quotation marks around it, many assume that represents the official name of the collection. However, the Georgia Archives does not have any such collection as “County Marriage Records, 1828–1978.” That set of words is a generic description of a vast group of materials that Ancestry has assembled from many different counties whose marriage records are on microfilm at the Georgia Archives.  If we put quotation marks around the whole phrase that Ancestry used:

“County Marriage Records, 1828–1978, Georgia Archives, Morrow”

then it is clear that we are quoting Ancestry exactly. We do not trigger the thought that there is, at the Georgia Archives, a collection called “County Marriage Records, 1828–1978.”

For the shortened, subsequent citations, EE would use:

Oglethorpe Co., Ga., Marriages, vol. 1 (1794–1832) : 17.

For the Source List Entry, you suggest:

Georgia. Oglethorpe County. Marriage Records. County Clerk's Office. "Georgia, U.S., Marriage Records from Select Counties, 1828–1979." Database with images. Ancestry.com. https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/4766/ : 2021.

This citation combines two different sets of materials and it implies that you used records at the local level, at the same time that your reference note says the records are from the state archives.  For clarity, EE’s Source List entry would separate the two. If you wish your source list to specifically itemize records under the county, then Option 1 would serve this purpose. Option 2 credits the Ancestry database you actually used.  For thoroughness, you may wish to use both.

Option 1:

Georgia. Oglethorpe County. Marriage Records, Book 1 (1794–1832). County Clerk's Office, Lexington.

Option 2:

"Georgia, U.S., Marriage Records from Select Counties, 1828–1979." Database with images. Ancestry.com. https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/4766/ : 2021.

If you should use several different marriage books from Oglethorpe County, then your Source List Entry, rather than naming specific books, might use a generic reference to the time frame such as this:

Georgia. Oglethorpe County. Marriage Records, 1794–1900. County Clerk's Office, Lexington.

 

Submitted byV P Stroeheron Thu, 12/09/2021 - 16:34
Thank you so very much for this detailed analysis and explanation. It's all beginning to make some sense, and especially so since I got a chance to look over QuickLesson 26. I've done a lot of my "career" research in an archive with the actual manuscripts and documents, so documenting the digital world has proved a bit of a challenge (the old dog/new trick problem). It's a weakness in my genealogical training that I'm working to overcome, and I appreciate your taking the time to walk me through the thought process. I was working from the assumption that I would discuss the date(s) in a text, but I think that I would be better off creating a citation that has everything I *might* need and then whittle it down as necessary. Such an approach especially makes sense since I'm writing my citations for an "organize my documents all in one place" spreadsheet, for which I included columns for citations. Your point about my conflation in the source entry reference is well-taken, and I now see how it would be confusing. I do like the suggestion to include both the local source and the actual source. It gives credit to both the creator of the original and the actual source consulted. Again, my most heartfelt thanks for your comments!

Submitted byMJRiceon Sun, 01/02/2022 - 14:01

Whew! My head is spinning, and it's not because these citations are challenging. It's because I wasn't clear on where Family Search got records for its Indiana marriages collection.

I believe this situation has been compounded because some items were not loaded exactly as filmed when microfilm/microforms were converted to digital images. Thus, covers of books may not appear at the front of imaged records from the book.

In Tami's original question, she provided this link to a marriage license application, license and return. 

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XXVD-C79

However, while clicking the link to view the original document from that linked page does take you to the documents referenced, that set of images does NOT include the book cover image. So, I couldn't tell from that if there actually was a volume 86 in Allen County, Indiana's marriage license archive or not.

But, expanding contents at the downward arrow below the small document image gives both the digital and original film #s.

 

Expanded information shows film #s



Cathy Pinner in the Legacy Family Tree user group was kind enough to show me that by entering the film number shown here in the Family Search Catalog, we could learn about where Family Search actually got the records. 

When I did this with the film # for Tami's marriage record, it brought up a landing page for Allen County, Indiana marriage records from 1824-1957.
https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/results?count=20&query=%2Bfilm_number%3A002130287

Clicking that link opened the catalog page for that collection, with links to subsets of records, including the one that houses the record in question. Also on that catalog page, I was able to confirm that the records are indeed housed at the Allen County Indiana Court House.

And finally, this link opened the set of records in the digital file that holds Vol. 86. And, there was the image of the cover of that volume! 
 

Marriage records, vols. 85-87, 1935-1936

Family History Library

United States & Canada 2nd Floor Film

2130287

 4204537

Submitted byMJRiceon Sun, 01/02/2022 - 14:11

Oops. It looks like the text editor didn't take the end of my prior comment when I submitted it.

Really, this leaves me with just one final question, how to properly cite the marriage records in this collection, using the images of the archived documents at the county level as the 1st layer of the citation, and include the images of the book covers and the imaged records?

Allen County Indiana Marriage Records - Vol 86

 

Submitted byEEon Tue, 01/04/2022 - 08:47

Melanie, you've done a great job of thinking through the essentials. In another forum, you stated that you have a copy of Evidence Explained. Turn to the QuickStart Guide at the front of the book. The gray pages. On the page headed, "The Basics: Manuscripts & Online Images," the example for Vigo County, Indiana, Marriage Licenses is exactly the issue your "final question" deals with.

  • How to cite the original county-level volume (Layer 1).
  • How to cite the website that provides the image in (Layer 2).

If, following this pattern, you are still uncertain about something, post your draft of the citation and we can work through it point-by-point to clarify what may be unclear to you.

And, yes, EE is a big proponent of the old adage: “Give a man a fish and you’ve fed him a meal. Teach a man to fish and you’ve fed him for a lifetime.”  If I just give you a ready-made citation for this particular volume, then you’re left with your underlying issues so that you won’t be prepared to tackle the next one for yourself.

Elizabeth

Submitted byMJRiceon Tue, 01/04/2022 - 18:08

Thank you, Elizabeth!

Here's a go, using one of my ancestor couple's record from that same database.
Am I correct thinking that I don't really need to include the image of the book cover, as long as I've verified it exists in the court house? (I have included that image in my citation, and I've saved the image in my records, so I know I verified this.)

It's important to me to get these right, because I will be extracting more than 50 marriage records from this database. My hoosier roots are deep! haha 

Layer 1

  1. Fulton County, Indiana, Fulton County Clerk of the Circuit Court, “Marriage Records 1836-1951 and index 1835-1920,” vol. 1 (1835-1850):171, James Vanliew-Malinda Clemens, license and return, 1847;

Layer 2

2. digital images 778, 782 and 876 of 958, imaged from FHL microfilm 1871259, FamilySearch, Indiana Marriages, 1811-2019, online database with images,  (www.familysearch.org/search/collection/1410397:accessed 2 Jan, 2022).

Searching for FHL 1871259 in the FamilySearch catalog brings you to the screen shot I've included below, that identifies where the records came from. Clicking that link takes you one level deeper, where you can select the link with that film, and find the records I've cited.

I've also included an index image in the citation because my ancestor was mis-indexed. This was a transcription error in the documents that were microfilmed.

Thank you so much for your help, Elizabeth! 
 

Catalog film # search results



 

Submitted byEEon Wed, 01/05/2022 - 10:07

Thanks for thinking through this, Melanie. When I can see exactly how you are thinking, then I know exactly what to address.

Layer 1

You’ve well-grasped the basic pattern. However, there is a problem with the title of the volume. You cite:

     1. Fulton County, Indiana, Fulton County Clerk of the Circuit Court, “Marriage Records 1836-1951 and index 1835-1920,” vol. 1 (1835-1850):171, James Vanliew-Malinda Clemens, license and return, 1847;

When I go to the URL you cite in Layer 2, it takes me to the landing page for the database. To get to this volume, I choose “Fulton County.”  Then I have a list of links to volumes, but there is not one called “Marriage Records 1836-1951 and index 1835-1920.”  Instead, I get this:

​

Using the 1847 date for the record that you cite, I chose the link “1835-1850 Volume 01.”  That gave me the image below, as the first image in the set.

 

As you noted earlier, the image set does not display the cover. We do not know the exact title that is on the volume if someone were to use our citation to find the volume in the courthouse. We can almost certainly say that the title on the cover would not be “Volume 01” because the use of the 0 in front of a single-digit number was not a usage until computer databases came along and we don't see this on courthouse record books.  Likely, the volume is labeled something such as Marriage Book 1, 1835–1850 or Marriages, 1, 1835–1850.  But we don’t know for certain. Therefore, we have to cite the volume using our own description, with no quotation marks around our words in the title field.

Meanwhile, because you helpfully supplied FHL’s cataloging data for the cited microfilm, we can see that you drew the words “Marriage Records 1836-1951 and index 1835-1920” from FHL cataloging.  But remember this:  

  • “FHL cataloging data is generic data created by the cataloger to describe the entire content of a roll of film.  To identify the specific volume you have used, you should copy the exact title that is on that specific register. If the register has no title, then you should do one of the following …” (See EE 2.27 and 7.22 for the full discussions.) 

  • When we identify an original record in Layer 1, we use the original language, as created by the creator of the volume. We do not use the database names or cataloging words created by the website that we cite in Layer 2.  (EE calls this the Vecro Principle: what goes together should stick together. See https://www.evidenceexplained.com/quicktips/source-citations-velcro-principle)

Addressing these issues, leaves us with this Layer 1:

      1. Fulton County, Indiana, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Marriage Book 1, 1835–1850: 171, James Vanliew-Malinda Clemens license and return, 1847;

Layer 2

The key thing to remember, when citing a website, is this:

  • A website is cited the same way we cite a book:  Author-Creator, Title in Italics (Place of publication : date), specific item. 

  • A database at a website is cited the same way we cite a chapter in a book: Author-Creator of Database or Article (if applicable), “Title of Database/Chapter in Quotation Marks,” Author-Creator of Site/Book, Title of Site/Book in Italics (Place of publication : date), specific item.

This basic principle, which underlies all citations, is discussed in the QuickStart Guide tipped into the front of EE; see the page “The Basics: Publications: Print & Online.”

Second Issue with Layer 2:

The URL you provide takes us to the landing page for the database. From there, we have to take additional steps to get to the image we want. Those steps need to be included in the citation. They are what we call "waypoints" on our "path" from the home URL to the actual image we need. Those waypoints are the links we chose from the menu in the first image above.

Results:

Applying that basic principle to your problem, we would arrive at this for Layer 2:

    1. … ; imaged, FamilySearch (www.familysearch.org/search/collection/1410397 : accessed 2 January 2022) > Fulton County > 1835-1850 Volume 01 > images 778, 782, and 876 of 958;

Note that the images numbers at a website go in the same "specific item" field where we would cite page numbers in a book.

Putting the layers together would give us this for the whole citation:

      1. Fulton County, Indiana, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Marriage Book 1, 1835–1850: 171, James Vanliew-Malinda Clemens license and return, 1847; imaged, FamilySearch (www.familysearch.org/search/collection/1410397 : accessed 2 January 2022), Fulton County > 1835-1850 Volume 01 > images 778, 782, and 876 of 958; imaged from FHL microfilm 1871259.

Submitted byMJRiceon Fri, 01/07/2022 - 05:44

Thank you so much, Elizabeth!

I can now see how in layer 1 I conflated information for the original record with FamilySearch's cataloging for the entire group of images. 

I'm still a bit fuzzy on the second layer, however. Wouldn't I need to include the title of the database and the clarification it is a database with images? Or is that evident since I'm also providing the specific image numbers?

Indiana Marriages, 1811-2019, online database with images

Submitted byEEon Sat, 01/08/2022 - 12:37

Melanie, you ask: “Wouldn’t I need to include the title of the database and the clarification it is a database with images?”

In your draft citation, you cited the database and the website this way;

; … FamilySearch, Indiana Marriages, 1811-2019, online database with images,  (www.familysearch.org/search/collection/1410397:accessed 2 Jan, 2022).

Let’s analyze this:

Order of elements:

When we cite a database at a website, the database name comes before that of the website at which it appears. Going back to the QuickStart Guide, the basic formula for citing a book with chapters—the same formula we use for a website with databases—is this:

Author/creator If Any, “Name of Chapter or Database in Quotation Marks,” Author/creator If Any, Title of Book or Website in Italics (Place of publication : date).

Therefore, your draft tells us that Indiana Marriages, 1811–2019 is the name of the website.

Citing database title vs. path

As noted in last my response above (1/5/2022), your draft citation carries the reader from the landing page for the collection (the URL) to “images 778 …”  However, at that landing page, there is no way to access “images 778 …”  because there is a path that intervenes between the collection's landing page and the image number for that particular volume in Fulton County.   EE’s last example above uses the path citation.  When we cite the exact path, we don’t have to cite the collection also. We may, if we wish, but it’s not needed to relocate the record or to understand what we are using.

Punctuation

The draft citation has a comma between the italicized title and the parentheses in which the publication data appears. As a basic rule:

Parentheses connect. Commas separate. If we use the two consecutively, they cancel out each other.

When parentheses appear around words in a sentence, it means: Here are more details that describe this wor or phrase I’ve just presented. The parenthesis is designed to connect that bundle of information to the entity it modifies. In the case of citations, the parenthetical publication data tells us where to find the title just mentioned and the needed date. The parenthesis connects the publication data to the title.

If you place a comma between the title and the parenthesis, you are separating one from the other. That comma splice separates the information that was meant to stay together.

Also, within the publication data, a colon is always used to separate the place of publication/URL from the date. With a book citation, wherein the place of publication is always a physical place, the longstanding tradition is to put the colon immediately after the place name, with no space in between, just as we do with every other punctuation mark.  However, citations to URLs require leaving a space between the URL and the colon, so that the colon will not be read as part of the URL and thereby make the URL unworkable.

Submitted byMJRiceon Sat, 01/08/2022 - 17:47

Elizabeth, 

Thank you so much for walking me through this! I now better understand the difference between using the waypoints and the collection title. 

You said, "Parentheses connect. Commas separate. If we use the two consecutively, they cancel out each other." I think I'm going to tape this to the bottom of my monitor, while I build these citations! :) 

Thank you for your patience and for sharing your wisdom.

 

Submitted byEEon Sun, 01/09/2022 - 09:20

You're welcome, Melanie.  As an aside, re your difficulties of working with the source templates in your software: Most of today's relational databases for history researchers do purport to offer Evidence-Style citations; but each software designer has implemented his or her own interpretation. Many variances are seen from one to the other. For this reason, many users skip the built-in templates—which arbitrarily force certain pieces of information into certain fields of the template even though the sources themselves vary widely—and create their citations freeform.