I understand that only the population schedules of the 1910-1940 U.S. census have survived, eliminating the need to specify the schedule as in prior censuses. But the 1950 census does have other schedules. Should we not specify that we are citing the "population schedule?"
I read with interest your response to the ’FamilySearch website layer’ inquiry (https://www.evidenceexplained.com/index.php/node/2289).
My issue is ‘cite what you use’. While researching marriages in Arkansas, I used the ‘Arkansas, county marriages : COLLECTION RECORD, 1837-1957’ at https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/1417439
Hello again, EE,
Thank you for pointing me to several sections in EE4, Chapter 11, that provide explanations and examples re: the questions I asked in https://www.evidenceexplained.com/index.php/node/2294 . (I’m posting this as a separate thread because I read that the Forum’s software sometimes misses follow-up responses.) I’m embarrassed that I didn’t recognize the appropriateness of the sections you specified on my own and very much appreciate your suggesting them.
In writing and documenting a compiled genealogy, I find many cases in which my source for a particular fact uses the person's initials rather than spelling out his given name(s). I'm undecided whether to expand the initials and document the full name or to use only the initials at that point. Frequently my source for a different fact that occurs later in the essay will provide the full name.
I've created this citation for the death register entry for Daniel Ashley who died 13 April 1867 at Hartland, Windsor County, Vermont available here: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-L99C-B91D-7?i=102&cc=1987653&personaUrl=%2Fark%3A%2F61903%2F1%3A1%3AQPQX-CLSQ
Hi, EE...
I'm confused... In reading some responses to another thread here, I saw that there were no access dates included in a citation to online images at a website. However, when I go to the new Evidence Explained (specifically 11.39 State-level Certificates), access dates are included in the citation. Is there a hard-and-fast rule, or is this personal preference?
FamilySearch books online has what appears to be an originally unpublished work. Since FamilySearch has digitized and "published" it online, I can treat it like a published book when citing it, right?
Would the below citation be correct in this instance? BTW, 1925 is the year the original was produced, but I can't tell when FamilySearch "published" it online.
The FamilySearch full-text search feature has been incredibly helpful, revealing many records I might have otherwise missed. I came across a deed that isn't found by searching and would require browsing over 750 pages to find. I have some questions about citing the website layer, using 9.40 and template 10 as references.
Based on those guidelines, my citation layers look something like this:
The "Wills and testaments" collection of the ScotlandsPeople site is a bit unusual. The viewable material is typically the content of a "probate-like" package. That package can contain many submissions; each with its own submission date. The search results do show the overall "confirmation" date, which is effectively the date when the legal process ended and one can use the year portion in a search. However; the confirmation date, or even just the year, is not typically visible anywhere in the package materials.
