Citing a series of online city directories--more questions

By LKC on Sun, 01/29/2023 - 17:13

Forums

Warning: This is a long one.

After reviewing past discussions on EE about citing online city directories, I'm still puzzling over how best to tackle this situation: creating citations for images from a series of volumes in a library's digital collections--in this case, the New York Public Library's collection, "New York City Directories." 

My research focuses on tracing a former resident of New York City, a husband and father, who disappeared shortly after WW I, so city directories are among my sources. Since the research subject had a common name but less common profession, the occupation and address in each entry distinguish him from others in the similar-name list. For proof, I've extracted these details into a table where I correlate them with other relevant evidence. The citations, currently in a separate Word document, will appear as footnotes in the table or below it.

I'm creating layered reference notes, placing the digital collection first since it's the common element, then the volume year(s), digital image number(s), website name, URL, and access date. The second layer holds the print publication information, page number(s), and entry description. Here's an example before I go on to my questions:

"New York City Directories,” 1909-1910, digital image xxx of xxxx, New York Public Library Digital Collections ([permalink] : accessed 28 January 2023); citing Trow's general directory of the boroughs of Manhattan and Bronx . . . for the year ending August 1, 1910 (New York, NY: Trow Directory, Printing and Bookbinding Co., 1909), p. 284, entry for [name, occupation, address].

So, my questions:

  1. Do you agree with including the subject’s published occupation and address in each citation to help the reader, or should this still be considered "information" not for the citation?

  2. What is the best place for the entry information, the first layer or the second? Or does it matter? I first placed it after the digital image number in layer one, but it interrupted the logical progression to the digital collection title, so I moved it to the end of the citation.

  3. Is it necessary or desirable to include the page number in the print volume? I’ve seen published citations for similar sources both with the page number and without. If the page number isn’t provided, should the entry information be moved to layer one?

  4. Have I handled dates correctly? There are a few issues here.

  • First, the digital image is numbered among a group of images for a specific time range implied in the printed volume’s title: “ . . . for the year ending August 1, 1910.” Data collection for many NYC directories spanned two calendar years. For easy reference, the NYPL database reflects the time period by assigning each digital volume a date in the format 1909/10. I’ve converted the date format to Chicago Manual style and placed it before the image number in layer one. Correct?

  • Second, the copyright date for the print volume must appear in layer two, but it's often the year before the book was actually completed, so I’ve cited it accordingly.
  • Third, while the citation would be even longer without abbreviating the book's title, isn’t it important to know where and when data collection occurred?

  1. Should I include the directory volume number? Most city directory citations I’ve seen don’t.

  2. Is it acceptable to abbreviate the publisher’s location to “New York?” I’ve seen similar examples in NGSQ.

  3. Current issues of NGSQ are using more abbreviations in source citations, presumably to save on printing costs. Is it acceptable for a genealogist today to shorten citations in a research report or manuscript version of a case study? Doing so might help in managing real estate on a standard piece of paper. We’ve seen “pop. sched.” as the abbreviation for “population schedule” for some time, but shortening has expanded in usage. And I sometimes see both long-form and abbreviated words and terms in the same published volume, but that’s an editorial issue. Thoughts?
  1. The NYPL asks that citations include the name of the library division: Irma and Paul Milstein Division of United States History, Local History and Genealogy. Is it sufficient to include it only in the source list?
  1. If reference notes to different volumes from the same collection appear in an uninterrupted sequence, is there an acceptable way to shorten them? The 17th edition of the Chicago Manual discourages the use of Ibid. in favor of shortened citations, a sign of the times, I guess. (This former classics professor sighs deeply.) But I’m not even sure how to use Ibid. here. I’ve already used ellipses to replace part of the print volume titles.

  2. Would waypoints be more helpful to the reader, especially if one way of reaching a place in a digitized book achieves a more legible image than another? Or might this be an occasion for a note? Here’s the thing: I chose to use the NYPL collection for the Manhattan and Bronx directories because it’s more complete and images clearer than on some other sites, but clarity depends on how you get to an image.

  • When you reach a specific volume in the NYPL collection, you see the first image—the  cover, title page, or whatever is the first extant page. Then, there are two ways to locate an image: (a) click “view the volume as a book” and use the "Jump to [page]" scroll box at the upper right, or (b) use the navigation boxes to the lower right of the current image. Both are cumbersome.

  • The "Jump to" scroll box allows scrolling 100 pages at a time. When you reach that number, you have to click on "load next 100" or use the right and left arrows to move to another page. The numbers in the scroll box are actually image numbers rather than pages in the printed publication, and the identical printed page shows up as a slightly different image number, perhaps depending on whether you're viewing a single page or two-page spread. The images accessed in this way can be enlarged slightly but are blurry. One positive aspect of this method is that it’s the only way, as far as I can tell, to see the total number of images, since it appears at the end of each batch of 100.

  • If you take the other route, there are just eight clickable navigation boxes visible at a time, and you have to click on the right arrow repeatedly to flip hundreds of images forward or on the left arrow to move back. The image number appears when you hover the mouse over an image, so that helps. But using this method along with the scroll zoom provides a very sharp image that's easy to read. Or is it best to leave it to the reader to figure out website navigation? TMI?

Thanks very much for your help!

Lesley

Submitted byEEon Mon, 01/30/2023 - 09:53

Linda, let's see if we can simplify all this

  1. A city directory is a book that is cited like a book: 

Creator, Title in Italics (Place of publication: Publisher, Date), specific page and/or entry.

  1. A website is cited like a book:

Creator, Title in Italics (Place of publication = URL : Date), specific image number of item.

  1. A website that has multiple items (databases, articles, etc.), each carrying its own title, is cited like a chapter title in a book. In front of the citation to the book, we add:

Creator of Chapter/Database if Needed, “Title of Chapter/Database in Quotation Marks," ...

When we use a book at a website, we have two things to cite:

  1. The original book.
  2. The database and website that delivers an image of the book.

Our citation may use one of two approaches:

  • Cite original in Layer 1 and database/website in Layer 2.
  • Cite database/website in Layer 1 and original in Layer 2.

Whichever order we choose to use, there is one fundamental rule: Don’t mix peas and apples.  In other words:

  • All details for the original should all appear in the layer that describes the original.  
  • All details for the website should appear in the layer that describes the website.

For others who are reading our thread, EE 12.55 has the basic format for citing city directories.  EE 12.56–12.58 cover special issues that city directories often pose.

Submitted byLKCon Mon, 01/30/2023 - 11:17

Hello, EE. My first name has been misspelled many ways, but this is the first time I've been called "Linda." Made me chuckle.

Yes, I packed too much into my post--sorry. I've read the relevant sections of Evidence Explained and keep the latest edition close by. I've also reviewed the discussions in this forum. I value all EE resources highly.

If you read my post again, you'll see that I understand what you've stated in your response. I'm seeking feedback on handling specific details within a layered citation and guidance on possible ways to shorten subsequent citations to the same website and collection. (I know that Ibid. applies only to an uninterrupted sequence of citations.)

If it helps to flag fewer questions, your thoughts on 1, 2, 3, 6, and 9 would be most helpful. Thank you.

Lesley

Leslie, in answer to your 1, 2, 3, 6, and 9:

  1. Do you agree with including the subject’s published occupation and address in each citation to help the reader, or should this still be considered "information" not for the citation?

Whether to add into a citation all detail from a record depends upon (a) whether we’ve already given that information in the text to which the citation is attached, and (b) whether the information is needed to either locate the specific entry or to evaluate the source. EE  2.7 “Discursive Notes & Overlong Citations” expands upon this.

  1. What is the best place for the entry information, the first layer or the second? Or does it matter? I first placed it after the digital image number in layer one, but it interrupted the logical progression to the digital collection title, so I moved it to the end of the citation.

If the entry information is in the original book, then it is cited with the original book.  If entry's data appear in the website’s framework but not in the book itself, then it is cited with the website. (See my peas-and-apples caution, above.)

  1. Is it necessary or desirable to include the page number in the print volume? I’ve seen published citations for similar sources both with the page number and without. If the page number isn’t provided, should the entry information be moved to layer one?

A page number is a standard part of a book citation in every citation style. It would be omitted only if someone were citing the book generically as in an informational note to tell someone that the book exists.  If we cite specific details from a book, we are expected to say exactly where in the book those details appear.

6.    Is it acceptable to abbreviate the publisher’s location to “New York?” I’ve seen similar examples in NGSQ.

For a publisher’s location, yes. If you were referring generically to “New York,” you would not leave your reader wondering whether you were referring to the city or the state. In citing a publication, if we say “New York” the reader understands that the city is the place where the publisher is seated. The whole state would not be the publisher’s business site.

9.  If reference notes to different volumes from the same collection appear in an uninterrupted sequence, is there an acceptable way to shorten them? The 17th edition of the Chicago Manual discourages the use of Ibid. in favor of shortened citations, a sign of the times, I guess. (This former classics professor sighs deeply.) But I’m not even sure how to use Ibid. here. I’ve already used ellipses to replace part of the print volume titles.

Ibid would not apply, given that it means "in the same source as above." Even with one publisher, as you move to a different year, you have a different book with different publication data and sometimes different titles.

Assuming that all “volumes” (i.e., years) are from the same publisher, do you see a reason why the approach given at 12.56 "Directories: Citing Multiple Years" does not work?

Submitted byLKCon Mon, 01/30/2023 - 17:23

Thanks very much for your responses. I do keep EE 2.7 in mind.

The approach at EE 12.56 to multiple years of a printed volume makes sense to me, and I understand how to create a subsequent citation for a single digitized volume at a time. I'm uncertain how well it would work to create a subsequent note citing dozens of years of digitized volumes, since we still need to reference both layers with the date, image number, and page number for each volume/year. I think the entry information would have to appear only in the table in this case. Do you think it's feasible in this case?

Lesley