When to use "entry for" in the citation?

My impression is that "entry for" is generally used in citations that refer to databases.  An example from the Ancestry.com QuickSheet:

"Washington Deaths, 1891-1907, database, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 22 January 2009), entry for Adam Engler, 2 June 1899, Spokane; citing "Various county death registers, microfilm, Washington State Archives, Olympia."

Yet the same QuickSheet has a full reference note for a city directory image that uses "entry for":

R. L. Polk & Co.'s 1916 Trow General Directory of New York City (New York City, NY: R. L. Polk & Co., 1916), 1687, entry for "Turoff, Mary"; digital image, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 2 June 2010).

1) What are the guidelines for using "entry for"?

2) What does the use of "entry for" add to the citation that would be lost if it wasn't used?

3) Directories seem to me to be similar to town registers, i.e., line after line of names; yet, citations to the actual town records give the name of the specific person in interest without putting "entry for" in front of the name, for example:

Kansas City, Kansas, Record of Births, Book A: 121, Arthur Millsap, 1902; City Clerk's Office, Kansas City. [EE 9.32]

3) Would one ever use "entry for" in citations to town registers or other vital records?

Dennis

 

 

 

Submitted byEEon Thu, 11/15/2012 - 15:00

Dennis,

Yes, if you're citing a database, you should indicate whether you are referencing a database entry or image, because that difference affects the reliability of the information we take from that source. The word "entry" is frequently included for clarity in citations to other sources. If you have the electronic edition of EE, then running a search for the word "entry" would illustrate a variety of those situations. 

As for your final question: "Would one ever use 'entry for' in citations to town registers or other vital records," EE would never-ever say that we would or would not *ever* include a certain word when citing a particular type of source. Whether to use "this" word or "that" to describe a source or the information proferred by that source is a matter each of us has to decide for ourselves with each source we use. The good news is that the more experienced we become with a wide range of sources, the easier those decisions become. 

Submitted bynewonashon Thu, 11/15/2012 - 15:38

Thank you for taking the time to answer my numerous inquiries.

I'm still a little confused here.  My thought was that if the citation includes "database" rather than "digital images" or "database and images," by implication there would be no images to look at.  On that assumption, i.e., that the citation was referring only to a database (thus, a lot of entries), I was wondering what the addition of the words "for entry" accomplished.

If my thinking is wrong, are you saying that one would exclude "entry for" in the citation if one only looked at the online image and not any associated online database?

Submitted byEEon Sun, 11/18/2012 - 15:56

Dennis wrote: "Are you saying that one would exclude 'entry for' in the citation if one only looked at the online image and not any associated online database?"

Dennis, EE's view is that once we start thinking in rigid terms of "excluding" words from a citation, then we're setting ourselves up for trouble. The most fundamental rules are these: (A) cite what you use; and (b) in each case, choose the most accurate words to identify what you have used.

If a provider gives us a record set with both images and database/index entries, then--when we cite the "title"--we indicate that it offers both a database and images. In the part of the citation in which we identify the specific item of interest, then we will specify exactly which type of record we are referencing.That way, neither we or a user of our work will, at a later date, make a wrong supposition.

There are also situations in which, for our specific item, we may wish or need to cite both the image and the database entry. We have the flexibility to do that.

Submitted byRLTRUDELon Mon, 11/19/2012 - 10:37

Would it not be a better practice to use "entry for" all the time to let know to your followers that on that specific search you were looking for "Joe Smith"even though their might be other "Smiths" that are related? In further searches it might bring you back to the same document (ex.- Censuses)

Richard