Forums
I am working with citations to FamilySearch vital records in several counties in Michigan. For birth and marriage records, FS has the databases "Michigan, County Births, 1867-1917" and "Michigan, County Marriages, 1820-1940". Both of these databases also have images. I am leading with the original document, not the database.
For the birth record, I have created the following footnote:
Macomb County, Michigan, Birth Record, vol. A, 1867-1874, p. 10, entry no. 150, Lola I. Chubb, 1868; database and images, "Michigan, County Births, 1867-1917", FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/1923472 : downloaded 9 July 2023) path: Browse > Macomb > Births 1867-1874 vol A > image 58.
The FS suggested citation for this is:
"Michigan, County Births, 1867-1917," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-81YQ-9QR?cc=1923472&wc=4VWM-MK1%3A218907301%2C218916501 : 11 September 2019), Macomb > Births 1867-1874 vol A > image 58 of 406; various county courts, Michigan.
For the marriage record, here is my footnote:
Macomb County, Michigan, Marriage Record, vol. F, 1867-1887, p. 63, entry no. 336, James Gray - Martha Climelia Collins, 1872; database and images, "Michigan, County Marriages, 1820-1940;", FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/1810350 : downloaded 24 January 2023) path: Browse > Macomb > Marriage indexes, 1867-1887, v. F > image 118.
The FS suggested citation for this is:
"Michigan, County Marriages, 1820-1940," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:939V-KL53-S?cc=1810350&wc=Q868-NR1%3A150746901%2C150792001 : 11 May 2018), Macomb > Marriage indexes, 1867-1887, v. F > image 118 of 379; various archives, Michigan.
In both of these, I have left off the source of the source information that FS has given which is "various county courts, Michigan" for the birth record and "various archives, Michigan" for the marriage record. My reasoning is that these are really generic references and don't really do anything to help locate the original. In the recent post "Layered citation for passport applications", you stated that the citation layer is not always necessary. Would these qualify as being unnecessary? To me it seems likely that both of these records are found at the Macomb County Courthouse in Mt. Clemens, Michigan. I know that the recommendation for citing source of source is the quote it exactly using quotation marks, but that seems a little senseless in this instance. What would you do?
Mike, EE would recommend…
Mike, EE would recommend including that citing layer. You are an experienced researcher and so, as you say, to you "it seems likely that both of these records are found at the Macomb County Courthouse." However, some other users of your work will not be as experienced as you and will not know where to start looking. Also, as you note, the source-of-our-source data that FS gives for the marriage record database is "various archives" while the counterpart for the birth records say "various county courts." The difference implies that the marriage records may not all be from the county courthouses. It only takes a moment to type those three or four words in the "Citing ..." Layer. Is is not better to be "safe, rather than sorry," as the old cliché goes?
Thank you, I see your point…
Thank you, I see your point. It is interesting that the film target images for both births and marriages identify courthouse (Macomb County) and city (Mt. Clemens, Michigan) as the location of the records. If the FS citations did not state anything for the citing layer, would you create one using the courthouse information?
Yes, indeed, we can and…
Yes, indeed, we can and should use the target information if FamilySearch gives nothing else. But, again, we would put that information in the Location Layer ("citing ....") rather than in the Record Layer—unless, say, the images themselves show the cover or spine of the register with the name of the county and the county office stamped thereon.
Mike, there's one other…
Mike, there's one other point you did not mention that we should discuss. Your draft citation to the birth record begins the second layer this way:
database and images, "Michigan, County Births, 1867-1917", FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org ...
The FamilySearch citation that you provide begins this way:
"Michigan, County Births, 1867-1917," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org ...
Is there a reason why you moved "database and images" to a different position? Descriptors follow what they describe. If you place that phrase after your citation to the original, then you are saying that all the words you used to cite the original constitute a database with images. To the contrary, it is "Michigan, County Births, 1867-1917" which is a database with images at FamilySearch.
I'm suspecting you placed the descriptor first because you felt a need for some bridge word(s) between the two things you cite. Yes, a verbal bridge makes the citation clearer. EE handles it this way:
Macomb County, Michigan, Birth Record, vol. A, 1867-1874, p. 10, entry no. 150, Lola I. Chubb, 1868; imaged, "Michigan, County Births, 1867-1917," database, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org ....
Thanks again. You are…
Thanks again. You are exactly right. I felt like I needed a bridge word, but thought I needed the descriptor to say "database and images" or "database with images". It seemed too redundant to say:
; imaged, "Michigan, County Births, 1867-1917", database and images, FamilySearch ...
So, I incorrectly moved the descriptor before the database title. Your suggestion is clearer, but if leaving the bridge word out and placing the descriptor after the database title is an acceptable solution, that is an easier switch for me to make in my database software template. Also, I like the idea of the descriptor identifying this is a database and images.
I have another citation that I would like your assessment on. This is for county level death records in the Michigan. These records are not in a database. I've crafted the citation based on other posts regarding FS records that have been digitized but not yet indexed (for example, https://www.evidenceexplained.com/node/1988).
Macomb County, Michigan, Death Record, vol. A, 1867-1889, p. 16, entry no. 313, Neil Gray, 1868; images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-L9KJ-Q2SW : downloaded 4 February 2023); citing FHL digital film # 007621965.
My main question is in regards to citing the FHL digital film. The URL takes me directly to the image which is on digital film # 007621965. I'm now questioning why we say citing the digital film that the URL takes us to. It seems redundant, or am I misinterpreting something.
Also, I've used the plural descriptor "images" before the website title. Or, perhaps it should be singular "image"? Should this be considered a bridge word instead and use "imaged"? Maybe this is all too nitpicky.
Mike, in answer to your new…
Mike, in answer to your new question: you've done a great job, format-wise and content-wise. EE would add one thing more. After the Image Group Number (aka "digital film" number; FamilySearch confusingly calls it both), EE would add the exact image number—i.e.,
...image group number 7621965 > image 65 of 359.
Yes, this is redundant given that you've cited an exact URL to take us to the image. However, (a) accidents happen in the typing or cut-'n-pasting of those long URLs; and (b) exact URLs, even arks, too often end up being changed when a website is redesigned. Adding that Location Layer ("citing ...") provides something to fall back on when link rot develops or somebody makes a typo.