Good evening,
I have two death certificates for my grandfather. The first one I ordered in 2018. The second, is the original death certificate issued to my grandmother after the death of my grandfather. I just inherited the document last week.
I am trying to figure out how to cite the elements in a table for a series of men to indicate their ages and approximate birth years as taken from their listing in the 1850 and 1860 U.S. census records (as a substitute for lack of birth records for that time). In addition to the man's name, I want to list his location in each census, and his age in each census. The table includes about 15+ men. How do I provide a citation to each of the two census years for each man within the table? If I do a full citation for each, the citations will take as much if not more space than the table.
I'm discovering that in most British directories a person can be found multiple times within different sections of the same directory, which leads to citing multiple pages and column numbers. I don't know about you but I find the page and column numbers separated by only commas hard to read in the citation I created. Is there a better way that I can group each page/column number together so that it reads easier? Somehow I don't think using a semicolon is the right thing to do. I pulled out CMOS before asking here, but that didn't get me anywhere.
Dear Editor,
I have searched the terms Wiki within the forum, but did not find anything particularly relevant to my question here today.
I have also read EE 12.53 and due to my software capabilities that I already know you will not offer comment on, I am still not sure if the EE citation guideline in 12.53 should be the one I should use.
I am wanting to reference a FamilySearch wiki, that was written by Stuart Basten and is located at this URL: https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Birth-Baptism_Intervals_for_Family_Historians
I’m a little perplexed with this directory that I have come across. Essentially it’s a volume that encompasses several areas, each with their own directory. One of the areas is London. The persons I am looking for are found in the commercial directory section of the London directory.
I am back now with another query - this time I am trying to cite a personal item that I hold for my brother.
Background: My brother passed away in 1997 in Royal Perth Hospital (Western Australia) in December 1997. When he was admitted, any personal items that he had, were taken and put in an envelope that were then described on the front on the front of the envelope. His watch was described but nothing else.
Dear Editor,
I am struggling how I should cite different examples of Family Bible records that I have. I have read 3.26 (p. 139-140) and 3.27 (p. 141).
The first one is a digital image of one page, that I received from another researcher. He received these by email from the descendant who holds the original bible.
This is what I have come up with:
I'm confused about when to put "image copy" in a citation and when to use "digital archives." I've read and reread the book's examples and it's just confusing. Some examples show "digital archives" in the first reference note and then switch to "image copy" in the source list entry. Help!
Hope you don't mind me asking a basic newbie question. I want to make sure I understand 7.6. I am looking at a register of baptisms on Ancestry where only every other page is numbered. I need to record 2 entries from this page spread - one on the left page and one on the right. I'm assuming that according to 7.6 that this is an example of a folio. Specifically, am I correct in assuming that I would cite an entry on the right side of the page as folio 31r and on the left side of the page as folio 30v?
More for fun and giggles, but when citing a talk from this years NGS conference, what's the location? I'm citing Judy's talk on the Breaker Boys and Spinner girls and technically we never were in Salt Lake :)
So Salt Lake, virtual, online, or ...
David
PS I'm sure it's Salt Lake as that's what all the documents say, but it does bring up an interesting point as it was a very different conference.
