What are the thoughts on using URL shorteners?
When an archive isn't using some sort of persistent ID, you end up with lots of gobbley gook that isn't guaranteed to be persistent (like the following
I am wanting to cite a quote from this website that states "New York State did not require local governments to report births, marriages, and deaths until 1880."
This is what I have come up with, but was after US based folk opinions. I am in Australia.
I have certified copies of vital records that I have acquired over the years and am working on re-entering the records with correct citations into a new software program (correcting years of bad habits). A simple citation for my grandfather's birth certificate would be:
North Dakota Bureau of Vital Statistics, birth certificate no. 12913 (1917), Lineol Joseph Gow; Department of Health and Consolidated Laboratories, Bismarck.
So here's my issue, i've located an unsourced photocopy of a death certificate, issued by Germany, for a Dutch citizen. The dates are right so it's likely valid. Here goes my citation for this.
Layer 1 is the certificate, issued by the 3rd Reich. Layer2 is the web site where i located the information. Layer 3 should be the repository for this information but it's not given (sure wish those who'd done this had read EE and put the citation on the photocopy, one can hope for the future :)
Recently, I did some record exploring with FamilySearch.org and took screenshots of some of the records I found to share. As I was compiling the data, I went back to verify the records and discovered that the first screenshot I took of one of the records never came up that way again. Has anyone ran across such an issue before?
I see that CMOS, 17th ed., says that using ibid is discouraged. But my Evidence Explained, 3rd ed., supports using ibid. For my own use, I prefer ibid rather than a subsequent note (in the right situation, of course) - it makes the footnote section look a bit cleaner. Just wondering what is the current EE thinking on this - follow CMOS or encourage the use of ibid? Thanks so much!
I'm working on a family from the Netherlands. They had 16 kids. Most got married. Some had two, or more, husbands. Using the register format of Individual, birth, death. Marriage, spouse birth death. You end up with a minimum of 5 citations per child. The citations are mostly 3 layer with a decent sized URL. Typically 4 lines as an endnote. I'm getting about 3 kids per page :) It makes for a very choppy look.
My choices appear to be, live with it, don't cite everything, take something out, or get some sort of epiphany.
Development of "Subsequent Note" and "Source List Entry" for QuickLesson 26
Dear Editor; As I often do, I was re-reading, "QuickLesson 26: Thinking Through Ancestry.com Citations" on the EE site. It's a very useful "walk-through" of the process of developing citations for Ancestry data. I notice that the development of the companion "Subsequent Note" and "Source List Entry" for QuickLesson 26 does not appear to be addressed. Would it be possible to add a short bit to the QuickLesson to describe this aspect, thereby more fully addressing the subject?
It's probably true that we struggle most with citations when we don't understand exactly what we are looking at. I am attempting to cite a Massachusetts marriage record that I found through FamilySearch. And I'm struggling with citation because I freely admit that I don't understand what I'm looking at. My law degree isn't helping me at all on this one.
The journey begins here:
I'm working on some Dutch records right now and I think I have this right, but i'd like a check.
The website WieWasWie has indexed much of the digitized records held throughout the country. The actual digitized records are held in regional archives. The search pattern is go to WieWasWie, enter in your details get the page, goto source, and read the record.
