Redundant information in citation/

By Anonymous on Sat, 11/12/2016 - 21:17

Forums

I have a citation to a collection of abstracts, or perhaps transcriptions, or perhaps both! of newspaper death notices.  I would like to include both the date of death and the date of the newspaper publication in my citation.

I think this citation captures what's needed, but I'm concerned that the third layer ("citing...") that I added to include the publication date is mostly redundant.  Is there a better way to do this?

Thank you,

Brian

"Connecticut, Hale Collection of Cemetery Inscriptions and Newspaper Notices, 1629–1934," database with images, Ancestry (http://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=2900 : accessed 11 Nov. 2016), > Browse this collection > Connecticut Newspaper Notices Vol 26 > image 132 of 251; imaged from Charles R. Hale, compiler, "S.L.N. 00, Connecticut Courant, Hartford Connecticut, Death Records, October 29, 1764–December 30, 1865" MS (Hartford : Connecticut State Library, 1940), p. 131, entry for Miles Hill, d. 12 Nov. 1802; citing Connecticut Courant (Hartford, Connecticut), 22 Nov. 1802.

Submitted byEEon Sun, 11/13/2016 - 10:52

Oh, how complicated things have become in this wonderful age of "online records."

EE would agree, Brian, that there's needless redundancy here. The "citing" layer really isn't necessary. Let's go back to what Ancestry's "citation" actually is:

If we say "citing ..." then our data needs to be what Ancestry actually cited—or a condensation of it. However, your "citing ..." layer has information that is not actually in Ancestry's citation.

Let's rethink the layers here:

  • Layer 1, what you are actually using (the database) and what you are actually seeing (a printed page of listings--or abstracts of a sort, definitely not transcriptions).
  • Layer 2, the item that has been imaged--as identifiable from what that imaged source actually tells you about itself (not what Ancestry says about it). In this case, we find that data on image 1 for that volume--the note at the front of the volume.

One item from your layer 3 obviously needs moving: the identification of the specific item of interest. The logical place to put this—following EE's Velcro Principle—is immediately after the image number.  As a corrollary, think about a census record. When we identify the image census page, we then immediately say what entry on that page we're interested in.

These alterations would leave us with this:

"Connecticut, Hale Collection of Cemetery Inscriptions and Newspaper Notices, 1629–1934," database with images, Ancestry (http://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=2900 : accessed 11 Nov. 2016), > Browse this collection > Connecticut Newspaper Notices Vol 26 > image 132 of 251, listing for Miles Hill, Bristol, died 12 November 1802, published 22 November 1802; imaged from (as per cover label at image 1) Charles R. Hale, compiler, "S.L.N. 00, Connecticut Courant, Hartford Connecticut, Death Records, October 29, 1764–December 30, 1865" MS (Hartford : Connecticut State Library, 1940).

 

Submitted byBrian Gon Mon, 11/14/2016 - 23:43

I had a small eureka! moment here.  It's now dawned on me how I frequently mingle what I'm seeing with what the online source is imaging.  That leads to confusing citations!

One small question, I noticed that you dropped the MS page number.  Did you do that because the image number goes directly to the page, or did you do that for other reasons?

Adding it somehow doesn't feel right, however : 

 ; imaged from (as per cover label at image 1) Charles R. Hale, compiler, "S.L.N. 00, Connecticut Courant, Hartford Connecticut, Death Records, October 29, 1764–December 30, 1865" MS (Hartford : Connecticut State Library, 1940), 131.

Thank you!

Brian

Submitted byEEon Wed, 11/16/2016 - 08:43

Brian, there's no problem at all with adding it. After your recollection of the source has gone cold and you reread the citation (or when someone else does), the fact that you are citing "image 132" and saying it is "p. 131" will likely trigger a question as to whether you made a typo in one place or another. That, of course, should send you or your questioning reader back to the source to double check. To forestall that, after the "131" you might add [sic].