Forums
I've been mulling over this citation for a while and am no closer to a resolution. It is time to consult the expert. The source is a record book from the Court of Equity in Newberry District, South Carolina, imaged at FamilySearch. The item of interest is a deed record in Record Book Q2:459–61. It stretches out over three pages and two digital images (and mercifully readable). Here is a link to the source page: https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/476704. As you can see, this page not searchable collection, or really a collection at all -- just a gateway to getting to these records. In fact, if I search the film number, FS brings me here.
Here are the stable arks to the pages in question: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-N3ZY-793P-X and https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-N3ZY-793V-N
In addition to these stable arks, I can link to the actual film where the images appear: https://www.familysearch.org/search/film/008689271
Is it possible that the citation really be as simple as the following?:
Newberry District, South Carolina, Court of Equity, Record Book Q2:459–61, deed record, James Taylor to Jeremiah Morgan, 19 November 1817; digital images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/film/008689271), images 238–39.
Could I ever use two urls in the same citation so that I provide the stable arks of the images in question, or is that getting too clunky?
Newberry District, South Carolina, Court of Equity, Record Book Q2:459–61, deed record, James Taylor to Jeremiah Morgan, 19 November 1817; digital images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-N3ZY-793P-X and https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-N3ZY-793V-N : accessed 5 October 2022).
Over thinking is a speciality of mine.....
V P, Your first example…
V P, Your first example works fine. It also automatically converts to the arks, after which each image has a different URL. That does tend to confuse people.
There's no reason why you could not, in your own personal research notes, use both URLs as "double insurance." After all, a URL is the place of publication and when we're citing books (that being the most basic comparison for all citation adaptations) we can say that a book is published "New York & London."
And there's no reason why you could not just cite the ark.
My own personal habit, when I'm citing many pages from an FHL digital film, is to take the shorter approach that you used in the first example: cite the film and the specific image number on the film. It's shorter. When I have a 150-page report for my research in a South Carolina county, citing the shortest path to each record keeps it from being a 200-page report. Shorter URLs also mean less likelihood for my making a mistake.
As a postscript, knowing how thorough you are, I'm sure you've seen QuickLesson 25: "ARKs, PALs, Paths & Waypoints (Citing Online Providers of Digital Images)". But, I'll mention it anyway, for the benefit of others who read this post.
EE, Thank you so very much…
EE,
Thank you so very much for this. Those stable arks are definitely in my research notes and document logs. It seems to me that ultimately the main concern is the "audience" for the citation. What do I need/want vs. what a journal might want vs. what might be best suited for a particular client. More thinking.....