Layer or no layer

By wayneson on Sun, 01/08/2023 - 16:43

Forums

Dear EE,

Wading through Ancestry's substantial information for this record there was no statement that the image was obtained from some source other than the book itself. Since I'm working at a website, I feel my citation should have at least two layers. So, my current draft looks like this:

Footnote...
"U.S., School Yearbooks, 1900-2016," database with images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/371611395:1265 : accessed 20 December 2022), imaged in “Wellsboro High School (Pennsylvania), The Nessmuk,” vol. 3 (N.p.: n.p., 1932), 26, “Seniors” photos of Wayne Knowlton and sister, Rita Knowlton, image 30
 

Source List...
"U.S., School Yearbooks, 1900-2016." Database with images. Ancestry. https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/1265/. 2022.

Would this be a case where "Ancestry appears to have imaged____" can be used? Would this kind of sentence be added in the fashion of a 2nd layer?

Submitted byEEon Sun, 01/08/2023 - 17:40

Okay, I'm officially puzzled, Wayneson.  A thorough citation would be the one we worked through on 21 December (https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/citing-online-high-school-yearbook):

Wellsboro High School (Wellsboro, Pennsylvania), The 1932 Nessmuk, vol. 3 (N.p.: n.p., 1932), 26; "U.S., School Yearbooks, 1900-2016," database with images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/1265/images/43134_b199570-00029 : accessed 20 December 2012), image 30, page image containing “Seniors” photo of Wayne Knowlton and sister, Rita Knowlton.

Why do you think this doesn't work?  You are viewing a book. Layer 1 cites that book. You are viewing it as online images provided by Ancestry. Layer 2 cites Ancestry and the database in which it appears.

In the footnote citation that you propose today, when you identify the database, the website, and its publication data, that takes you down to the "specific item" field. There, when you say "imaged in "Wellsboro High School (Pennsylvania) The Nessmuk, ...." you are saying that Ancestry's database is imaged in that 1932 yearbook.  That's backward. It's the yearbook that's imaged in the database at the Ancestry website.

A second issue with today's proposed revision is the manner in which you identify the yearbook. You place the high school's name (the author) and the yearbook title all in one set of quotation marks. But

  • the long existing standard for citing the titles of published books and other standalone works calls for placing the book title in italics  (i.e., The Nessmuk) not in quotation marks. Quote marks are the standard manner of indicating titles of smaller works included within bigger works (articles within journals, chapters within books, databases within websites). 
  • "Wellsboro High School (Pennsylvania), The Nessmuk" is not the title of anything.  (See EE 2.68 for "Publication Titles.")

I'm embarrassed to think I've gone so far astray. I had posted an additional comment to the original thread ((https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/citing-online-high-school-yearbook) and, not receiving a response, managed to continue on this "new" tact - which goes something like this:

  • I must cite what I use: I am "using" a website (book), Ancestry.com. I do not physically hold the yearbook.
  • My lead element should be the database title (chapter). I used " marks to correlate with a chapter title (database title).
  • In the specific item field, I meant to reveal that it was the yearbook that the database imaged - along with the items of interest. You've shown me that the wording is misleading.

I hope this guides you as to my evidently wrong mindset... I changed my first crafting because I thought I'd not properly made what I was "looking" at the lead item. I clearly have not pinned down some basics.

Wayneson, my apologies for not responding to that post of the 6th that you made on the other thread. This website's architecture does not notify me when comments are placed on earlier threads. I'm only notified of new threads. When I have time to spare, I go back and check each of the past threads for at least a couple of weeks; but I haven't had that spare time in the last couple of days.

Re Bullet Point 1: You aren't holding the website either. <g> In the virtual world, we are *looking* rather than "holding." In this case, we're looking at both the original book and the database structure at the website. So we have the option of choosing which should be our lead element.

Re Bullet Point 2: If we use a database many times, it may be easier for us to cite the database as the lead element and then use that citation's Specific Item field to enter the details of the item that we found at the database. However, there's another factor to consider: the volume and complexity of the details that we're trying to stuff into that Specific Item field. Putting a whole book citation into that one field—Author, Title of Book (Publication Place: Publisher, Publication Year), and page number or other specific item within the book—makes for a lot of details to stuff into that one field. The citation is a lot cleaner if we first cite the book, then add a layer to cite the website and its database that offers images.

 

Considering the behavior of the Forum, I cannot fault you... no apology is necessary.

I think the doorway to my recovery is in your words: In this case, we're looking at both the original book and the database structure at the website. So we have the option of choosing which should be our lead element.

I think I have worked out a method of using Ancestry's architecture to honor the EE instruction. But the method won't work until I master EE citation. I need a little time to process your recent guidance. Thanks!

You're welcome, wayneson. BTW, in case you haven't seen them, you might be interested in the Hoitink, Grawock, and McGhie comments on this thread at https://www.facebook.com/evidenceexplained/.

 

Okay, begging your continuing patience, as I practice, practice, practice...

I have been messing with this record (and a few others) thinking that I was converting them to citations that provided a "master source." I would not use this edition of "The Nessmuk" again but would likely use other years' editions from the database.

As you caution me, my punctuation and wording in the specific item field of this revision are badly done and this approach is not destined to be as "clean" as my first draft. However, as I fiddle with it, I am now wondering if the following might be error-free and not too "stuffed" at the tail end:

U.S., School Yearbooks, 1900-2016," database with images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/371611395:1265 : accessed 20 December 2022) image 30; Wellsboro High School (Pennsylvania), The Nessmuk, (N.p.: n.p., 1932), vol. 3, p.26, “Seniors” photos of Wayne Knowlton and sister, Rita Knowlton.

Would this be an acceptable way to use "option 2" as I "look" at this Ancestry online record?

OKay, now I will self-critique and suggest I'm still off base.

Revising to the database focus throws me into a single-layer citation:

"U.S., School Yearbooks, 1900-2016," database with images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/371611395:1265 : accessed 20 December 2022), image 30, Wellsboro High School (Pennsylvania), The Nessmuk, (N.p.: n.p., 1932), vol. 3, p.26, “Seniors” photos of Wayne Knowlton and sister, Rita Knowlton.

An example of the overly-stuffed specific item field.

Wayneson, your need is a valid one: i.e., using the Ancestry database itself as a master source for your own research-database that would allow you to easily cite many different schoolbooks within the framework of that master source.  Above, you suggest

"U.S., School Yearbooks, 1900-2016," database with images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/371611395:1265 : accessed 20 December 2022) image 30; Wellsboro High School (Pennsylvania), The Nessmuk, (N.p.: n.p., 1932), vol. 3, p.26, “Seniors” photos of Wayne Knowlton and sister, Rita Knowlton.

The one issue here is whether a reader of your citation would understand that this is all one source, rather than two different sources. We could eliminate that potential problem with bridge words between the two layers:

"U.S., School Yearbooks, 1900-2016," database with images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/371611395:1265 : accessed 20 December 2022), image 30; imaging Wellsboro High School (Pennsylvania), The Nessmuk, vol. 3 (N.p.: n.p., 1932), p.26, “Seniors” photos of Wayne Knowlton and sister, Rita Knowlton.

Or, perhaps more clearly:

"U.S., School Yearbooks, 1900-2016," database with images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/371611395:1265 : accessed 20 December 2022), image 30; imaging p. 26 of Wellsboro High School (Pennsylvania), The Nessmuk, vol. 3 (N.p.: n.p., 1932), “Seniors” photos of Wayne Knowlton and sister, Rita Knowlton.

Also note the placement of the identifier "vol. 3." Two things need to be considered here:

  • If we place "vol. 3" after the publication data, as in your draft, we are saying that The Nessmuk was published 1932, in at least 3 vols., of which you are specifically citing vol. 3.
  • If we place "vol. 3" before the publication data, then we are saying the The Nessmuk's third volume was published 1932. This is the actual situation.

One puzzlement just popped up...

All your corrections were made to a 2-layer citation - my last decision had made it a single layer (see above). Preserving my goal to provide a master source, should everything after ...image 30 be a second layer or a "stuffed" specific item field?

Wayneson, in my response of 1/10 at 10:04, both suggestions are two-layer citations. Note the semi-colon between the layers of each. Those denote layers in a citation. If all the citation elements for the book were stuffed into the specific item field of a one-layer citation to the database, then there would be no semicolon in the citation.