Ancestry citations

By Anonymous on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 13:32

Forums

Dear EE,

My question(s) are really not new. However, I need some clarification, for myself. I am on the final (hopefully) edit of a descedancy lineage. Sigh! I began from the beginning this morning and lo and behold I am sooo confused, again, about citations with layers, especially digital images within databases at Ancestry and source of source issues. I wrote these citations months ago. Now I am second guessing what I have done.

Ancestry is adding imaged documents at such a fast pace, from so many types of sources, from all over the world, it really gets confusing for me. So here are three citations troubling me. Two cite images from registers and the third is an database citation:

1.

Archives of Ontario (Canada), “Ontario, Canada, Marriages, 1801-1928,” database and images, Ancestry 

(http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 25 January 2016), entry for Joseph Powell and Mary Ann Cutt, 11 December 1848 marriage; citing Ottawa District Marriage Registers, vol. 19: 73; MS248, Reel 3; Archives of Ontario, Toronto.

 

This is an image of a page from the civil marriage register. I am second guessing myself. Should it be instead:

 

Ottawa (Canada), Ottawa District Marriage Registers, vol. 19: 73, entry for Joseph Powell and Mary Ann Cutt, 11 December 1848; MS248, Reel 3; Archives of Ontario, Toronto; accessed through  "Ontario Canada Marriages, 1801-1928, database and images, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 25 January 2016).

 

2.

 

Church of England (Moreton-in-Marsh Parish, Gloucestershire County), “Register of Baptisms in the Parish of Moreton-in-Marsh in the County of Gloucester, 1813-1832,” p. 7, Joseph Powell, 15 May 1814 baptism, digital images, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 25 January 2016); citing P221/1/3; Gloucestershire Anglican Parish Registers; Gloucestershire Archives, Gloucester.

 

This is also an image from the register. Should I do the same treatment as above or is this correct?

 

3.

 

 Ida Reed, transcriber, “Wesleyan Methodist Baptismal Registers, 1828-1910,” database, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com: accessed 15 March 2012), entry for James Pearce Powell, 11 May 1851 birth; citing Wesleyan Methodist Church in Canada Baptismal registers, vol. 1, p. 555; United Church of Canada Archives, Toronto, Canada.

 

Ida Reed published this transcription. It is really an index. So Even though it is in a database should I add publication details if I can locate them. And, is this considered a manuscript? 

 

 

Your feedback is always appreciated so much. T A Mills

Submitted byEEon Mon, 06/27/2016 - 21:59

Teresa, in your first and second examples, either approach works. Sometimes, we want our source list to emphasize the database that contains images of original records. Sometimes we want our source list to emphasize the church or agency that created the original record. The one alteration EE would recommend for your No. 1 is that your "entry for Joseph Powell and Mary Ann Cutt, 11 December 1848 marriage" be worded as "image for Joseph Powell and Mary Ann Cutt, 11 December 1848 marriage."  It would be appropriate to cite the item as an "entry" if we were citing Ancestry's own index/transcript/abstract/database entry/whatever.

With regard to your final qustion about whether the Ida Reed work is considered a manuscript, for some reason this website would not deliver the document when I tried various key words just now. Can you provide a direct link?

Submitted byMillsTAon Tue, 06/28/2016 - 10:30

Editor, here is the link:    http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~wjmartin/wm-index.htm This is a web link. I am using this citation as a place holder currently. I am ordering the microfilm of these records and will cite them accordingly.  

The trouble I am having with the other two citations has to do with identifying the correct source of source. As you can see below, this is the material ancestry posts with the marriage record of Joseph Powell and Mary Ann Cutt. I am assuming the correct citation information for the record is under source citation. It is specific to the record. Why doesn't Ancestry add their source information to the source citation? And how should I use the original data in my citation, if at all? The same questions apply to the second record as well.

I am using this database for two marriage records only. Should my source list focus on the database?

Source Citation

Archives of Ontario; Toronto, Ontario, Canada; District Marriage Registers, 1801-1858; Series: MS248; Reel: 3

Source Information

Ancestry.com and Genealogical Research Library (Brampton, Ontario, Canada). Ontario, Canada, Marriages, 1801-1928, 1933-1934 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010.

Original data:

Ontario, Canada, Select Marriages. Archives of Ontario, Toronto

 

Submitted byEEon Tue, 06/28/2016 - 17:38

Teresa,

You asked whether Item 3 on your initial list was a manuscript. No. Remember a "manuscript" is an unpublished resource. Someone might image it and publish the image, but the original is still a manuscript. At the link you provide, which is a RootsWeb publication, the Ida Reed item is not an image of an original record. It's a compiled index done in HTML or other digital format, that can be simply cited following the basic pattern for citing an article at a website. But the website is RootsWeb. Yes, Ancestry now owns RootsWeb but the website is still RootsWeb. EE would be inclined to cite this as

Ida Reed, Untitled Index to "Wesleyan Methodist Baptismal Register," RootsWeb (http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~wjmartin/wm-index.htm : accessed 28 June 2016), entry for _________.

I also have a niggling feeling that I must be missing something here. The pages I've examined, branching from the link you gave me, doesn't have any of the other source data that you're showing above. Can you give us a link to the page where you gleaned the other citation data?

 

Submitted byMillsTAon Tue, 06/28/2016 - 18:49

Editor,
Yes I know of Ida Reeds index publication from doing much research attempting to locate early Upper Canada BMD records. There are not many and those that exist before the 1830's are few and far between. The Wesleyan Methodist Baptismal Register is one and it begins about 1830. I finally found the originals are held at the archives I have added to my citation. The publication material came from the roots web site map of W.J. Martin. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~wjmartin/sitemap.htm
On the site map page Is a link to another informational page about the Ida Reed transcriptions. It is funny, as I was looking over our correspondence concerning this issue, and then returning to the roots web site, I realized, yes, the site should be rootsweb, not Ancestry. Thanks for that.

Submitted byEEon Tue, 06/28/2016 - 19:27

Interesting--and very good that you are making the effort to learn about the source. It's also good to add relevant background information after a citation, when the source does not give us adequate information to evaluate it. But, of course, in that case, we cite exactly what we've used and we would not add "citing ...." after our identification of a source unless that source actually did give source-of-the-source information. For those occasions when we add additional information about a source "from our own knowledge," the clearest way to present our added information is to start a new sentence and just write what we think is important, in normal prose.

Submitted byMillsTAon Tue, 06/28/2016 - 19:40

Editor, could you give me your thoughts about the citation material on page three of our correspondence?

Submitted byEEon Wed, 06/29/2016 - 08:19

T.A., in Message 3, at the link you give, I don't see those details you use to create the citations in Message 3. When I use the link you give in Message 5, I do find another link to a background discussion of that set of records, but it does not have all those details in the citation you crafted in Message 3. That page does have 2 links of its own

  • "Continue to the records," which sends us back to the first link you gave.
  •  A link to a United Church site.

I don't see in either place the details you give in Message 3 which appears to be Ancestry's mangled manner of identifying its sources. But without a link that leads us to the Ancestry page where this database appears, I can't address Ancestry's "citation" in any way other than the adjective used in the last sentence.

Submitted byMillsTAon Wed, 06/29/2016 - 09:20

I am very very sorry. I was not clear at all. I took you on a wild goose chase. Below is the citation which I wrote and below that is the source material which appears below the ancestry image of the record. Have I used the correct source of the source? Is it the information listed under "Source Citation" or the information under "Original data"? I find the way this is done very confusing. Why doesn't Ancestry add their database title to the Source Citation? Have I completely muddled this?

Archives of Ontario (Canada), “Ontario, Canada, Marriages, 1801-1928,” database and images, Ancestry
(http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 25 January 2016), image for Joseph Powell and Mary Ann Cutt, 11 December 1848 marriage; citing Ottawa District Marriage Registers, vol. 19: 73; MS248, Reel 3. Archives of Ontario, Toronto

Source Citation
Archives of Ontario; Toronto, Ontario, Canada; District Marriage Registers, 1801-1858; Series: MS248; Reel: 3
Source Information
Ancestry.com and Genealogical Research Library (Brampton, Ontario, Canada). Ontario, Canada, Marriages, 1801-1928, 1933-1934 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010.
Original data:
Ontario, Canada, Select Marriages. Archives of Ontario, Toronto

I am using this database for two marriage records only. Should my source list focus on the database?

T. A.,

You well understand the essential parts of the citation. One nit that I suspect was accidental: The title of the website needs italics. Beyond that, when I call up the actual marriage record, using the U.S. version of Ancestry, not the Canadian version, I'm getting some  different data. I'm attaching a screen capture. Based upon what this screen capture shows, EE's citation would be this:

Archives of Ontario (Toronto, Canada), “Ontario, Canada, Marriages, 1801–1928, 1933–1934,” database and images, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 25 January 2016), image for Joseph Powell and Mary Ann Cutt, 11 December 1848 marriage, (Register name: not visible) p. 73; citing "District Marriage Registers, 1801–1858; Series: MS248, Reel: 3," Archives of Ontario, Toronto.

At the webpage that provides Ancestry's extract for this marriage, I don't see a volume or page number cited--or a statement that it is from the Ottawa District. The page number, of course, is visible in the image. I looked for an interactive mechanism by which I might go back to the first page of that imaged microfilm, but I did not see one. From where did you get the register number?

Submitted byMillsTAon Wed, 06/29/2016 - 09:26

Editor,
By the way thank you for helping me correct the Ida Reed transcription citation. Teresa

Submitted byMillsTAon Thu, 06/30/2016 - 17:03

Editor,
below the image is a label volume 19, Ottawa District.

Submitted byEEon Thu, 06/30/2016 - 21:58

Aha! I used a different browser and it showed up. The first browser wasn't showing the tab below the image.

Archives of Ontario (Toronto, Canada), “Ontario, Canada, Marriages, 1801–1928, 1933–1934,” database and images, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 25 January 2016), image for Joseph Powell and Mary Ann Cutt, 11 December 1848 marriage, (Register name: not visible) p. 73; citing "Volume 19, Ottawa District, 1816–1853" and "District Marriage Registers, 1801–1858; Series: MS248, Reel: 3," Archives of Ontario, Toronto.

Punctuation of the source-of-the-source data is a bit of a problem, given that the first part of the citation appears on the image and the second part appears on the page with Ancestry's own extract. It might be handled in a couple of different ways, but this is probably the clearest.

Submitted byMillsTAon Fri, 07/01/2016 - 10:46

Editor,

Since the register volume is identified, should it not be with the page number as I re-wrote it below? Just wondering. 

Archives of Ontario (Toronto, Canada), “Ontario, Canada, Marriages, 1801–1928, 1933–1934,” database and images, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 25 January 2016), image for Joseph Powell and Mary Ann Cutt, 11 December 1848 marriage, (vol. 19, Ottawa District, 1816-1853), p. 73; citing  "District Marriage Registers, 1801–1858; Series: MS248, Reel: 3," Archives of Ontario, Toronto.

 

Below is a citation for the image of the above Joseph's baptism record from England. It is a church record. I dug deep to get the info and wonder if this is an acceptable citation. I think I may have done this incorrectly, since I did not include Ancestry's database ID. Should I have added the databas ID after "digital images?" (I need to check where that question mark should be! ha ha!)

Church of England (Moreton-in-Marsh Parish, Gloucestershire County), “Register of Baptisms in the Parish of Moreton-in-Marsh in the County of Gloucester, 1813-1832,” p. 7, Joseph Powell, 15 May 1814 baptism, digital images, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 25 January 2016); citing P221/1/3; Gloucestershire Anglican Parish Registers; Gloucestershire Archives, Gloucester.

That should do it for now. Thanks again.

Teresa Mills

Submitted byEEon Sat, 07/02/2016 - 08:08

Teresa,

To answer your question with another question: Where do we see that volume number? Remember that a citation to a digital image online has layers. Here we're working with three of them:

  • Citation to the original;
  • Citation to the website that publishes the original;
  • Source of the source information.

The image of the original shows the page number. Therefore that page number goes in the citation to the original. If we could scroll back through the images to the first few images of the set and see an image of the cover or a title page, then it would be appropriate to include that identity in our citation of the original. We've seen the image of the cover or title page and we can verify the identity of the book.

In this case, the identification of the volume is a tag provided by the filmer. While we would like to think that it is accurate, researchers do find many many cases in which a filmer's identification tag is not accurate.

In these cases, we could handle the situation in at least two ways.

  1. Include the filmer's tag as part of the source-of-the-source data.
  2. In the parenthetical statement about no visible image of the cover with an exact title, we might say

... (Register name: not visible; filmer's tag: "Volume 19, Ottawa District, 1816–1853") ....

Re your second issue, what is the Ancestry database in which we find that register?

 

Submitted byMillsTAon Tue, 07/05/2016 - 12:11

Editor,

The name of the database: "Gloucestershire, England, Church of England Baptisms, 1813-1913." So I should add that to the second layer.

 

Church of England (Moreton-in-Marsh Parish, Gloucestershire County), “Register of Baptisms in the Parish of Moreton-in-Marsh in the County of Gloucester, 1813-1832,” p. 7, Joseph Powell, 15 May 1814 baptism, digital images, "Gloucestershire, England, Church of England Baptisms, 1813-1913," Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 25 January 2016); citing P221/1/3; Gloucestershire Anglican Parish Registers; Gloucestershire Archives.

 

I think this is correct. What say you?

Teresa Mills

 

 

Submitted byMillsTAon Tue, 07/05/2016 - 12:19

Re your second issue, what is the Ancestry database in which we find that register?

The question you posed above, I assumed was about the Moreton in Marsh record. So, my respone  reflects that citation. I think you helped me resolve the Ottawa record, except the last question about the placement of quotation marks inclusive of the series and reel information.

Submitted byyhoitinkon Sat, 07/02/2016 - 14:14

The first page of the film can be found by going back to the start page of the database at http://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=7921 and then browse the images for Ottawa. They have separators marking the years, and if you browse through them you see the register starts with 1816. The cover page is marked "Register of Marriages in the District of Ottawa."

Hope this helps!

Submitted byMillsTAon Sun, 07/03/2016 - 16:54

Editor and Yvette,
I did as Yvette suggested. The name of the register is there. I may have seen that page and used the filmers tag instead of the title of the register. So, I will add the title of the register in the citation dealing with the original before the page number. Then in the source of the source information I will add the filmer's tag.

Archives of Ontario (Toronto, Canada), “Ontario, Canada, Marriages, 1801-1928, 1933-1934” database and images, Ancestry
(http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 25 January 2016), image for Joseph Powell and Mary Ann Cutt, 11 December 1848 marriage, "Register of Marriages in the District of Ottawa," p 73; citing filmer's tag, vol. 19, Ottawa District, 1816-1853 and "District Marriage Registers, 1801-1858; Series: MS248, Reel 3," Archives of Ontario, Toronto.

I think this citation is correct and I am really getting a great lesson too! Citations are truly an art form. There is always something else to learn. One last question on this citation. Why is the series and reel ID's included in quotes with the Archives record group title? I have always separated them with semi-colons.

I will follow with an answer to your last question to me. I must go celebrate Independance Day!

Submitted byRabbitDadon Mon, 07/04/2016 - 02:07

I asked myself the same question regarding placement of the series and reel ID's in quotes with the Archives record group title. Since I live in Belgium and our "National Day" is not celebrated until 21 July, I will wait patiently for our US celebrants to enjoy their holiday and then, hopefully, provide us an answer.

RabbitDad+1(as of yesterday)

Ah, I work while you play. OK.

Here is a citation I've used recently which, after reading these posts and others at here:

https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/citing-multiple-records-online-image-database, post#6

I may have wrong. Upon reflection, I don't have a source of source layer:

      Middlesex County, Massachusetts, Probate Papers 4998-5089, Peter Cook, Case No. 5029, 1807; database with images, “Massachusetts, Wills and Probate Records, 1635-1991,” Ancestry.com (http://ancestry.com : accessed 3 July 2015). A numeric counter is visible on each image assigning a unique number to each sheet of the papers. The images are numbered consecutively from 000324 to 000349. The sheet cited is image number 000326.

Maybe it should be this:

     Middlesex County, Massachusetts, "Massachusetts, Wills and Probate Records, 1635-1991," database and images, Ancestry (http://ancestry.com : accessed 4 July 2016), image for Peter Cook, Case No. 5029, 1807, image no. 000326; citing "Probate records 1648-1924," Probate Court, Middlesex County. A numeric counter is visible on each image assigning a unique number to each sheet of the papers. The images are numbered consecutively from 0000324 to 0000349.

This is the Source Citation and Source Information from Ancestry:

Source Citation

Probate records 1648--1924 (Middlesex County, Massachusetts); Author: Massachusetts. Probate Court (Middlesex County); Probate Place: Middlesex, Massachusetts

Source Information

Ancestry.com. Massachusetts, Wills and Probate Records, 1635-1991 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2015.

Original data: Massachusetts County, District and Probate Courts.

It seems my citation is missing something. Someone searching for Peter Cook receives 2 results. Which of the two does the citation point them towards - probably the first one (with the date) when in reality it's the second record that contains the image I'm citing. Additionally, hovering over the records reveals a detail - the volume series and date range of the series, which is probably important but where might it go. It's not part of the image layer so, logically, it seems it would go in the source of source layer and the citation looks like this:

Middlesex County, Massachusetts, "Massachusetts, Wills and Probate Records, 1635-1991," database and images, Ancestry (http://ancestry.com : accessed 4 July 2016), image for Peter Cook, Case No. 5029, 1807, Administration Papers, image no. 000326; citing Probate Records, V. 203-205 (1805-1811), Probate Court, Middlesex County. A numeric counter is visible on each image thus assigning a unique number to each sheet of the papers. The images are numbered consecutively from 000324 to 000349.

If you search the database using the terms:

First name: Peter; Last Name: Cook; Probate Year: 1807; Probate Location: Middlesex County; Massachusetts, USA; Case Number: 5029

you get 2 results:

View RecordPeter Cook21 Nov 1807Middlesex  View RecordPeter Cook MiddlesexCover PageAdministration Papers

When you hover over the two results you see this:

Peter Cook

 Probate Date:21 Nov 1807Probate Place:Middlesex, Massachusetts, USAInferred Death Year:Abt 1807Inferred Death Place:Massachusetts, USAItem Description:Probate Records, V. 203-205, 1805-1811

 

RabbitDad, you're definitely thinking through the issues. Most people who see any one of your three citations would be impressed. But, of course, you're expecting me to put the chin hairs under a microscope, so I won't disappoint you:

  1. In this version, the source-of-the source data would be a useful addition in a third layer
  2. This version helpfully includes the source-of-the-source data, but not all of it. (Incidentally, the hover feature didn't work for me, but your link opened up to an image with a sidebar and a top bar that contained the data  you said you accessed by hovering.)
  3. This one includes everything essential and the "v. 204-205 (1805-1811)" data is well placed in the source-of-the-source data.

But: Did Middlesex County, Masachusetts, actually create that Ancestry database called "Massachusetts, Wills and Probate Records, 1635–1991"?  Middlesex County officials created that statewide compilation?

Regarding the structure of 1 and 2—i.e., should we "feature" the document or the database?—either is appropriate. The choice would typically depend upon whether you are citing that database numerous times in your project. If so, in most software, data entry would be easier by focusing on the database in your source list entry, rather than individual files.

As for the second set of details we get by hovering—inferred death year, inferred death place—that would not be part of a source citation.

Finally, to really quibble, when "v" is used in a citation as an abbreviation for "volume," we use a lower-case "v".  An uppercase V, used in a situation  of this type, might be interpreted to mean the volume was vol. V out of an alphabetical series, or vol. V in a series numbered with roman numerals.

Submitted byRabbitDadon Tue, 07/05/2016 - 00:14

EE - "All work and no play makes . . . "

"Did Middlesex County, Massachusetts, actually create that Ancestry database . . . " NO

v vs. V - "v" from now on.

The following is the part that gets me into trouble - thinking about the citation. Presuming I will be using other records from this Ancestry database then I might use this citation:

     "Massachusetts, Wills and Probate Records, 1635-1991," database and images, Ancestry (http://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=9069 : accessed 5 July 2016), Administration Papers, Case No. 5029, Peter Cook, 1807, image no. 000326; citing Middlesex Co., MA., Probate Records, v. 203-05, 1805-1811, Probate Court, Middlesex Co. A numeric counter is visible on each image thus assigning a unique number to each sheet of the papers. The images are numbered consecutively from 000324 to 000349.

Assuming it is correct, my questions are:

  • Is my "numeric counter" comment appropriately placed at the end?
  • I've removed the parens from the date range to answer the "WHEN" question of the 5 Ws. Yes/No?

And, the alternative citation to emphasize the original collection is:

     Middlesex Co., MA., Probate Records, v. 203-05, 1805-1811, Case No. 5029, Peter Cook, 1807, Probate Court, Middlesex Co.; database and images, "Massachusetts, Wills and Probate Records, 1635-1991," Ancestry (http://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=9069 : accessed 5 July 2016), image no. 000326. A numeric counter is visible on each image thus assigning a unique number to each sheet of the papers. The images are numbered consecutively from 000324 to 000349.

This version does not look right. The "WHERE IN" question in the second layer doesn't seem adequately answered by "image no. 0003226". If I move the "WHERE IN" information from the 1st layer to the 2nd layer have I answered the "WHERE IN" question for the 1st layer?

     Middlesex Co., MA., Probate Records, v. 203-05, 1805-1811, Probate Court, Middlesex Co.; database and images, "Massachusetts, Wills and Probate Records, 1635-1991," Ancestry (http://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=9069 : accessed 5 July 2016), Administration Papers, Case No. 5029, Peter Cook, 1807, image no. 000326. A numeric counter is visible on each image thus assigning a unique number to each sheet of the papers. The images are numbered consecutively from 000324 to 000349.

My head hurts - I think it's low blood sugar. I need breakfast therefore I'll leave this for you to contemplate.

     

 

Submitted byEEon Tue, 07/05/2016 - 08:36

RabbitDad: You nailed it, with maybe an adjustable screw added.

As for your questions:

Is my "numeric counter" comment appropriately placed at the end? 

Yes.

I've removed the parens from the date range to answer the "WHEN" question of the 5 Ws. Yes/No?

Actually, it's more a "whatever" than a "yes" or "no." If clarity were enhanced by putting the date descriptor in parentheses, then that would be good. If putting it as "just another item in the series" of descriptors, using a comma, leaves us with a statement that's easily understood, that's fine, too.

Your "where in" statement in each layer is right where it should be. (You've been studying Tom Jones, I gather.) In the citation to the database, the "where," at the database URL, is the image number. In the citation to the original, you need the specific details for the case.

The one "adjustable" part is the volume and date-range identifier. From what I saw in my cursory examination of the source last evening, from the images themselves  you can't identify the volume or the date range for the series. You're relying upon the data supplied by the provider--and providers are known to err on points like that. No one would fault you for putting those details where you've put them, but the safest place to put that detail is in a "source-of-the-source" layer.

 

Submitted byRabbitDadon Tue, 07/05/2016 - 15:03

EE,

You caught me at the concert venue but sitting in the wrong row and seat. It appears that the volume and date range you could not find was for the wrong record - sigh. Here's what I had proposed as a citation for which you could not find the volume and date range:

 "Massachusetts, Wills and Probate Records, 1635-1991," database and images, Ancestry (http://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=9069 : accessed 5 July 2016), Administration Papers, Case No. 5029, Peter Cook, 1807, image no. 000326; citing Middlesex Co., MA., Probate Records, v. 203-05, 1805-1811, Probate Court, Middlesex Co. A numeric counter is visible on each image thus assigning a unique number to each sheet of the papers. The images are numbered consecutively from 000324 to 000349

Probate Records, v. 203-05, 1805-1811 should be replaced with Probate Papers 4998-5089:

 "Massachusetts, Wills and Probate Records, 1635-1991," database and images, Ancestry (http://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=9069 : accessed 5 July 2016), Administration Papers, Case No. 5029, Peter Cook, 1807, image no. 000326; citing Middlesex Co., MA., Probate Papers 4998-5089, Probate Court, Middlesex Co.; FHL microfilm 386,062, roll no. FT 1620. A numeric counter is visible on each image thus assigning a unique number to each sheet of the papers. The images are numbered consecutively from 000324 to 000349.

I think I'm finished.

Submitted byRabbitDadon Wed, 07/06/2016 - 01:41

EE,

Thank you for your assistance and constructive comments. An additional comment I would like to make now in response to post #25 is that I'm an equal opportunity employer of citation writing reference material.

Yes, I have Tom Jones' Mastering Genealogical Proof on my bookshelf. But, I also have the 2nd and 3rd editions of Evidence Explained (EE).

Up until recently I considered myself a good citation writer. However, I've come to the realization I was good only because I could go to EE to find the citation format to use. 

In my opinion, an appreciation as to how, why and in what circumstances one constructs a citation makes one a better citation writer as opposed to simply finding a format in EE that may fit. I know that same advice can be found in EE. It's not until you have to write a citation that you can't find the answer in EE that you realize the need to learn and understand the craft you're undertaking. EE is best as a reference and not a crutch to lean on.

Enough said - onward to the next citation.

 

Submitted byEEon Wed, 07/06/2016 - 17:17

RabbitDad, obviously your "opinion" sets well in this forum.  EE would take it one step further: learning to construct a sound citation makes one a better reseacher--not "searcher," but researcher.  

Submitted byRobyn_62on Wed, 10/26/2016 - 22:20

Hello EE, 

I thought I would add here, as I would be grateful for your opinion on what I am doing for my English Parish register citations. I am not sure if they are correct and am wondering if they are perhaps even a little 'overkill'. 

I am citing images from 'original parish register entries', obtained through Ancestry.

So here I go:

St Peter & St Paul Church (Blockley, Gloucestershire, England), "Register No 1 [Baptisms & Burials 1538-1812, Marriages 1538-1753]," unpaginated, unnumbered entries, "Burials 1795", Jane Penson burial, 6 August 1795; digital image, "Gloucestershire, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1813," [Blockley 1538-1812], Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com.au : accessed 27 October 2016); citing P52 IN 1/1; Anglican Parish Registers, Gloucestershire Archives, Gloucestershire, England.

The book is titled "Register No 1" with a typed sheet on the inside cover Baptisms & Burials 1538-1812, Marriages 1538-1753. Thus the reason for me adding it within [ ].

The pages of the register have been penned by someone (presumeably the Archives) but this particular page does not have a number, although the one next to it on the same image is numbered 234. Should I include this ?

The image comes from Ancestry's database for Gloucestershire, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1813," but specifically the records of Blockley  Parish 1538-1812. If looking through the card index, it is easier to find by knowing the parish years details. Anyway, I would appreciate you thoughts on my citation...

Many thanks

Robyn

Submitted byEEon Thu, 10/27/2016 - 10:09

Robyn, can you upload the record--and post a link that we can use to examine the database? It would also help if you would identify the EE model(s) you are following.

I could, on the basis of what you present above, say: It looks like you've covered the essentials. The problem with that is that so many records and databases have quirks. Without seeing the record—and without analyzing the database in which it appears—a seems to suffice generalization is all I can offer.

Submitted byRobyn_62on Thu, 10/27/2016 - 15:15

Dear Editor,

I am generally basing the citation on EE model 7.18.

The link to the Ancetsry database image records:

http://search.ancestry.com.au/search/db.aspx?dbid=4732

The link to the actual page document is:

http://interactive.ancestry.com.au/4732/41511_636897_0980-00235/1626356

Have included the actual page I am looking at.

Many thanks,

Robyn

Submitted byEEon Fri, 10/28/2016 - 10:49

Robyn,

What a beautiful record!   You've done a great job of adapting a microfilmed set of church records to the format for online images. Just a couple of tweaks could improve it. Your citation is this:

St Peter & St Paul Church (Blockley, Gloucestershire, England), "Register No 1 [Baptisms & Burials 1538-1812, Marriages 1538-1753]," unpaginated, unnumbered entries, "Burials 1795", Jane Penson burial, 6 August 1795; digital image, "Gloucestershire, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1813," [Blockley 1538-1812], Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com.au : accessed 27 October 2016); citing P52 IN 1/1; Anglican Parish Registers, Gloucestershire Archives, Gloucestershire, England.

(1)

When we look at (a) the database and its discussions; (b) the imaged page; and (c) the start of the book that contains this page, we're left with a puzzlement that goes unexplained.

  • The database details identify the location only as "Blockley Parish" in "Gloucestershire, England" and tells us that it's "Church of England" and "Anglican" records.
  • The typed note at the front of the register tells us that it's a "Blockley Parish" register.

So, where does the name "St Peter & St Paul Church" come from? Personal knowledge? You might want to add a sentence at the end of the citation to explain.

(2)

It would help your readers (and you at later times) if your citation to Ancestry's database included the image number for that particular page.

(3)

You end your citation, appropriately, by telling us the source that Ancestry cites. However, Ancestry's citation has one inaccuracy. It gives the city as "Gloucestershire" rather than "Gloucester." You could silently correct that or you could put quotation marks around all the source-of-the-source data that Ancesetry provides—as shown here.

St Peter & St Paul Church (Blockley, Gloucestershire, England), "Register No 1 [Baptisms & Burials 1538-1812, Marriages 1538-1753]," unpaginated, unnumbered entries, "Burials 1795", Jane Penson burial, 6 August 1795; digital image, "Gloucestershire, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1813," [Blockley 1538-1812], Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com.au : accessed 27 October 2016), image 235; citing "Reference Number P52 IN 1/1," Anglican Parish Registers, Gloucestershire Archives, Gloucester, England.

or

St Peter & St Paul Church (Blockley, Gloucestershire, England), "Register No 1 [Baptisms & Burials 1538-1812, Marriages 1538-1753]," unpaginated, unnumbered entries, "Burials 1795", Jane Penson burial, 6 August 1795; digital image, "Gloucestershire, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1813," [Blockley 1538-1812], Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com.au : accessed 27 October 2016), image 235; citing "Reference Number P52 IN 1/1 ... Anglican Parish Registers, Gloucestershire Archives, Gloucestershire, England."

Submitted byRobyn_62on Fri, 10/28/2016 - 15:55

Dear Editor,

Thanks so much for your input once again. In regards to the church name, the Gloucestershire archives list the church name on their website guide http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/archives/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=56911&p=0. I agree though, Ancestry does not indicate the church name, so a post citation sentence explaining how the name of the church is known is a good idea. Also including the ancestry image number in the record set...I am slowly learning, and I appreciate the tweeks suggested. And yes, what a lovely set of records to have access to !

Regards, Robyn