I am citing an abstract of colonial vital records for Rhode Island. It was published over a span of about 20 years and includes 21 volumes of the entries/details from the vital record of various towns in Rhode Island from 1639 to 1850. The compiler is noted as James Newell Arnold and there is no editor listed.
In looking at the arrangement of the abstract, each volume is for a given county, e.g. Volume 4, Newport County Birth Marriages and Deaths. The volume is then divided into "Parts" with each part consisting of the entries for a given town. There is a title page for each volume and then another title page for each part within the volume. The numeration starts over for each part or town.
Here is a link to Title Page for Volume 4 in a database with images on Ancestry. The volumes are also imaged in a database on AmericanAncestors.
Here is my attempt. For consistency in my source lists, where possible, if I can locate images of the title and binding, I try to lead with the author rather than the database.
James N Arnold, compiler, Rhode Island Vital Extracts, 1636-1850: First Series, Births, Marriages and Deaths, 21 vols. (Providence, Rhode Island: Narraganset Historical Publishing Co., 1891 to 1912), Volume 4 (1893), Tiverton, Part VII, p. 97, entry 1-37 MOSHER Nicholas, of Thomas and Hannah; citing vital records for the State of Rhode Island; accessed through "Rhode Island, U.S., Vital Extracts, 1636-1899," database with images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/3897/ : downloaded 25 May 2021) >Vol. 4: Newport County: Births, Marriages, Deaths > image 669 of 691.
Given the similarities (almost identical) in the title of each of the parts, compared to the title of the volumes, and the lack of an editor, it seemed redundant to format this with the "part" treated as a chapter within " " along with the title of the volumes.
Also was not sure how to include that volume 4 was published in 1893.
Curtis, when I open up your…
Curtis, when I open up your link, what I see on the title page (image 3) is this:
James N. Arnold, Vital Record of Rhode Island, 1836–1850, Series 1, Births, Marriages and Deaths: A Family Register for the People, vol. 4, Newport County (Providence, R.I., Narragansett Historical Publishing Co., 1893).
After the introduction, there’s a new title page (image 7) that is identical except that Vol. 4 carries the section name “Portsmouth, Part 1”. As we flip page by page, we see
Within this framework, EE would cite your item of interest this way:
James N. Arnold, Vital Record of Rhode Island, 1836–1850, Series 1, Births, Marriages and Deaths: A Family Register for the People, vol. 4, Newport County (Providence, R.I., Narragansett Historical Publishing Co., 1893), Part VII: Tiverton, p. 97, MOSHER, Nicholas, of Thomas and Hannah, extracted from Tiverton Book 1, p. 47; imaged, “Rhode Island, U.S., Vital Extracts, 1636–1899,” Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/3897/images/41384_2421406273_0007-00692 : downloaded 14 March 2023) > Vol. 04: Newport County: Births, Marriages, Deaths > image 669 of 691.
Our differences are these:
You’ll also notice the consistency of the pattern, in which the descriptive words that identify the structure of what we are working with are stated before we cite the title to that part of the structure:
EE, Thank you, part of my…
Thank you, part of my struggle was trying to “combine” models for multi volume publications with the model for citing chapters. EEs approach, which I would call “citing each volume independently,” provides more clarity as to the actual structure of the entire publication. This also reinforces the that creating citations is an art, not a science. I need to think in terms of taking concepts to create a citation rather than putting together building blocks.
I understand your concerns about the “citing . . .” phrase, but when working with abstracts/transcripts shouldn’t there be some reference to the source of the information? The statement I used was the terminology I came up with as a way to describe the sources of his information
One of the other challenges, is trying to adapt all this to templates within genealogy databases. (The italics for the entire title is a good example of this.) Your approach will make creating the template for a reference note easier if I accept that within the software I will have a source record for each of the 21 volumes rather than one source for the entire set of 21 volumes. I just have to figure out how to tie all those to one common Bibliography listing/entry for the 21 volumes.
Thank you again for your help and guidance.
Curt, you wrote: "This also…
Curt, you wrote:
"This also reinforces the that creating citations is an art, not a science. I need to think in terms of taking concepts to create a citation rather than putting together building blocks."
Curt, let's put it this way: We first learn the building blocks. Then we adapt them to fit each need.
"I understand your concerns about the “citing . . .” phrase, but when working with abstracts/transcripts shouldn’t there be some reference to the source of the information? The statement I used was the terminology I came up with as a way to describe the sources of his information."
And that's an important point. After the citation, you can simply add a sentence to say that the compiler gleaned these records from official registers held by each town.
Post-script: at EE's Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/evidenceexplained/post/pfbid02AX4gZn2nxiZqrxg7Dmk5UnYjywdDTQNwwQMdQEDpFqNaYjdty 1YZ5UN1nmYfC1vgl_) Diane MacLean Boumenot, an authority on Rhode Island's records, adds a note explaining that the "1-37" in column 1 of Arnold's entry represents not the "entry number" (as per your original draft) but the book number and page number of the original volume. I have amended the EE citation from last night to state this.
"One of the other challenges, is trying to adapt all this to templates within genealogy databases."
Ah, yes! That's the tail that wags the dog in the modern research world. In creating Evidence Style, I have struggled mightily to take a morass of citation styles and a hodgepodge of citation habits accumulated by history researchers across a hundred years and reduce it all to a set of mix-and-match building blocks that could be adapted to fit any and every source, inside and outside of software. But the vagaries of different types of sources and different parameters used by different software still force us to make choices between ease and clarity.