Forums
I would like some help in crafting a citation for the following record:
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C13459274
I did visit the TNA in Kew last year, and looked at the "original" record at the archive. I have included a partial copy.
This is what I have come up with so far.
Enlistment record for Alexander Herd, 14 October 1793; Royal Horse Artillery: Description Books; Ordnance Office, Military Branch, and War Office: Royal Artillery Records of Service and Papers, 1793-1813; RG WO 69/2; The National Archives, London.
or should I include the full Record Group number, folio details, line number in layer 1, i.e.
Enlistment record for Alexander Herd, 14 October 1793, folio 110, line 2, RG WO 69/2/1666; Royal Horse Artillery: Description Books; Ordnance Office, Military Branch, and War Office: Royal Artillery Records of Service and Papers, 1793-1813; RG WO 69/2; The National Archives, London.
Or should it be something totally different?
When you order up a record to view, you do request the full catalogue reference RG WO 69/2/1666.
Here is another link about these particular records.
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/browse/r/h/C13457609
Many thanks in advance.
Regards, Robyn
Robyn, British style…
Robyn, British style cataloging, as you know, begins with the largest element and works down to the small. U.S. style starts with the smallest and works up to the largest. When we do research across several nations, consistency would call for choosing one pattern and using it throughout our citations. That said, many researchers do prefer to cite each nation's records using the pattern that prevails in that nation.
Given that you have chosen to start with the smallest and work up to the largest, EE's citation would likely be this
Doc. WO 69/2/1666, folio 110, line 2, enlistment record for Alexander Herd, 14 October 1793; Royal Horse Artillery: Description Books, being Subseries 2 of Series 69: Ordnance Office, Military Branch, and War Office: Royal Artillery Records of Service and Papers, 1793-1813, in Record Group WO: War Office;The National Archives, London.
This preserves the full document number specified in the catalog entry (thank you for the link to that) and explains what the numbers represent. The second layer also borrows from the catalog entry to explain the subseries, series, and record group.
Hello EE, Thank you for…
Hello EE,
Thank you for once again taking the time to give your (valued) opinion on this record.
As a lot of my research is in England and Scotland, I have taken on board your comment about the British style cataloging.
This particular record was from a book (WO 69/2), so I am now pondering if I should actually start my citation with the creator of the record (& subsequent divisions). I am unsure why the catalogue reference is: WO 69/2/1666. My thoughts are maybe Alexander Herd's entry is actually the 1666th entry in the book? (of course I did not count them :-) as I was only interested in this entry. AND as this was one of my initially looked at original records, I was in "research heaven" and did not bother to photograph the front of the book, nor the inside cover. I did however, do a photo of the other side of the page.
So I guess I unsure if I should call it Doc. WO 69/2/1666?
Thanks again for you input, I think I still have some thinking to do about the way I will cite this record.
I have a 2nd question about the "Pay and Muster" records for the same guy, I photographed 12+ years of his service in the Royal Horse Artillery, either 6 or 12 months in each volume, for each year - but will post a query in the forum in due course about these.
Many thanks again & best wishes for the Holiday season.
Robyn
Sorry, I didn't see this…
Sorry, I didn't see this when it came in, Robin. Yes, it appears to me, too, that "1666" represents the entry number. At the catalog description page to which you link in your first post, look at the pattern for just the first page of catalog numbers (69/2/1 through 69/2/30). The pattern of that third number, compared to the page/line numbers given in the description, makes it clear they're counting entries.
If you don't feel comfortable calling this a "Doc. No." given that the document is a whole book, "Record No." would work also.