Citation Issues

Dear EE,

I want to check my understanding. In review of 9.32 for the NYC example (p 456), I would understand that most people with a NYC vital record would use 3 layers:

1. WHAT:  identify the overall source itself, in a vacuum:  Kings County, New York, New York, Brooklyn Birth Certificate #001, John Doe, 1 January 1961

2.  WHERE: identify the origin of the image: New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

In the past, I have consulted a source on a FHL microfilm, from which I must have attained the following information about the source:

Records of the Methodist Episcopal Church, New York, New York, 1785–1893, v. 7, Greene Street marriages, 1832–1869 (transcript), p. 308, Ward-Martin marriage (1855); New York Genealogical and Biographical Society, New York, New York; FHL microfilm 17780.

I often have the situation in which I find information that I do not wish to automatically relegate to my research notes. In fact, sometimes, the line between material that belongs in research notes and that which belongs in formal findings is clearly blurred. In these cases, I believe that a citation should be considered. But how and using what format ...

Dear Editor;

I've read over various portions of the EE book (3rd ed.) and still am trying to come to terms with the overall purpose of each layer in multi-layered citations. This has been bothering me for a while, but I need to get this straight in my mind. My apologies, in advance, for the long posting.

Here is an actual example, crafted from my research, which I hope can be used for discussion purposes. It is based upon the QuickCheck Model, "Digital images - International Censuses (U.K.)". For the benefit of readers, this is found on p. 240.

When using Kindle books, particularly on ipad, page numbers are often not shown. Instead, there is simply a "location" number. I'm not sure if these locations are device specific or if they are consistant enough to use in place of page numbers. Any thoughts on how this might be properly cited?

I'm trying to determine why there is a difference between the way AncestryDNA and Family Finder results are cited. On the QuickSheet example, AncestryDNA results begin with "AncestryDNA Results for [name], database report..." Family Finder results begin with "FamilyFinder," database report...for [test taker anme] and [match name]... I would prefer to use the AncestryDNA example for FamilyFinder as well as it will allow me to create a specific source for each of my test takers (40+). Would there be any reason I couldn't do that?

Looking at EE 9.1 and the following guideline and examples.

I purchased a marriage certificate some years ago, and as I have been going over my previous research, have realised that I never sourced the marriage information.

I more than likely, found an index entry either of FamilySearch or Ancestry to start with, and do not have an issue with creating a citation for either of those databases. Just relooking at the FS index, no certificate number is recorded, but Ancestry do infact record one and I possibly used that when I ordered the record. 

Ancestry's yearbook collection can be accessed in multiple ways: through searching for a specific person who has been indexed, or by browsing through state > city > school > year. I came across an example where the name of the high school on the yearbook itself (Enola High School) doesn't match the title that Ancestry has provided (East Pennsboro Area High School). I'm thinking that it's important to include both pathways: if someone wanted to look for the yearbook in the Enola Public Library or on eBay, they'd need the actual school name.

I understand that subgroups should be a part of citations to records in the National Archives. I've noticed that records in the National Archives Catalog (in the infoormation sidebar) list the Record Group, Series, and File Unit, but do not give you the Subgroup. Am I missing this somewhere? Also, I look through the guide and found the list of finding aids pertaining to Preliminary Inventories, but I have been unable to locate the actual PIs themselves.

For example, this one...

Here's one I've wondered about.