Ensuring clarity in citations containing information from pre-printed forms

History-Hunter, you do a great job of finding records that take deep thought to understand and identify!

EE’s citation of this particular list from that particular ship arrival does differ a bit from yours.  First, I’ll post our version and then discuss the differences. As usual in this forum, I’ll color code the different layers of the citation. Within each color, boldface is a point that will be discussed.

     1.  “List of Manifest of Alien Passengers for the U.S. Immigration Officer at Port of Arrival [Second-Cabin Passengers], S.S. Columbia sailing from Glasgow 10^th March, 1906 [and] Arriving at Port of New York Mch 20, 1906,” list A, sheet 15 (stamped at right), line 26, entry for David Murison;  “New York Passenger Arrival Lists (Ellis Island), 1892-1924," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9PT-F4XV?cc=1368704&wc=4FMB-7R8%3A1600312333 : accessed 11 April 2019) > Roll 677, vol 1480-1482, 19 Mar 1906 > image 516 of 739; citing “NARA microfilm publications T715 and M237 (Washington D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.)”; image 487 indicates that this ship's rolls appear in NARA original vol. 1482.

Issue 1:

Your citation leads with the label FamilySearch gave to its database, then it discusses the actual record, then it goes back to FamilySearch’s website at which the database appears, then it moves on to the actual record’s archive location.  Peas and apples are being mixed. The database title, which is a FamilySearch construct, needs to go in the layer in which you cite FamilySearch. It should not be part of the identification of the original record.

Issue 2:

The “title” that you assign to the document itself ("S.S. Columbia sailing from Glasgow 10th March, 1906 [and] "Arriving at Port of New York Mch 20, 1906”) is not the actual title of the record. Three smaller issues crop up here:

• The title of the record is the one printed at the top of the page in big type: “List of Manifest of Alien Passengers for the U.S. Immigration Officer at Port of Arrival.”  Among other things, this official title tells us that (a) the form only covers “alien” passengers; and (b) that it was a manifest created at the port of arrival. Both distinctions got lost in your draft.
• Above that official title of the form are directions for those who fill out the form, including a descriptor that defines the one specific class of alien passengers that are to be included on this list: “Second-Cabin Passengers.” It would be wise to include that qualifier in the title, by placing it in square editorial brackets.
• Below that title is the line you have snipped out and used for the title of the document—i.e., the ship name, places, and dates. It is indeed wise to include this in your citation; but it should be handled as a subtitle, subservient to the actual title.

Issue 3:

You cite the page as “folio 13 (stamped).” Four points here:

• We aren’t actually dealing with folios. Folios are folded pages, similar to a booklet, that will have at least 4 sides and usually total something that is a multiple of 4. (See EE 6.8) What you are dealing with are loose sheets, on which the passenger list appears on one side with stamped sheet numbers, while the  other side (with a penned number) is used for two certifications by officials. When we look closely, we see that the certification side is filmed first; the stamped side is filmed after it.
• Rather than “13,” the key identifier for that page is “List A.”  If we click back to the start of the lists for that ship (image 486, which carries the certification for filming, and then analyze the manner in which all the lists are formed, we get a clearer picture.  I’m pasting in a table of the pages as arranged. Note that there are two stamped numbers on the passenger side of each page. You’ll also notice that the lists were filmed in reverse order, sort of.
• The reconstruction of all the sheets also informs us that the blurry digit in the right-stamped number for List A is 15 rather than 13.  You’ll notice on other pages that the “3” stamp has a rounded top, while the “5” has a straight top.
• After the filming of List A, your item of interest, the sheets move on to steerage but are still consecutively stamped on the right, although the left hand column shifts to a different numbering system. The number on the right-hand side of the page does appear to be the controlling number for the full set of pages.

List No.	From	Class	Stamped No. on Left	Stamped No. on Right	Image Nos.
List 57	Londonderry	Steerage	42	16	517-18
List A	Glasgow	2nd	2	15	515-516
List B	Glasgow	2nd	3	14	513-514
List C	Glasgow	2nd	4	13	511-512
List D	Glasgow	2nd	5?	12	509-510
List E	Glasgow	2nd	6	11	507-508
List F	Glasgow	2nd	7	10	505-506
List G	Glasgow	2nd	8	9	503-504
List H	Glasgow	2nd	9	8	501-502
List I	Glasgow	2nd	10	7	499-500
List J	Glasgow	2nd	11	6	497-498
List K	Glasgow	2nd	12	5	495-496
List 50	Londonderry	2nd	13	4	493-494
List 51	Londonderry	2nd	14	3	491-492
List 52	Londonderry	2nd	15	2	489-490
List L	Glasgow	1st	1	1	487-488

Issue 4:

This FamilySearch database is one of those that is organized by a path, with waypoints. It’s useful to include that in Layer 2, where you cite FamilySearch. The path goes immediately after the parentheses that contain the URL : date. The path is then denoted by the greater-than > sign between each element of the path.

Issue 5:

For Layer 3, the source-of-your source data, you copy exactly the words used by FamilySearch. When we copy words exactly, they should go in quotation marks. In this case, given the fact that FS cites two different microfilm publications without indicating which one carries your list, if you don’t put quotation marks around the citation that you have copied exactly, then your own readers will wonder why you cited two different microfilm publications instead of specifying the exact one.

Issue 6:

When we study the pages for this ship closely and scan back to the start of the set for the ship, we see at image 487 that this set appears in NARA’s vol. 1482 (whereas the FS path gives the far-less-specific "vol. 1480-1482." You may want to add the actual volume number to the end of the source-of-the-source data in case there comes a time when the original volume needs to be checked to verify something that may not be clear on the image.

Nitpicks:

• When writing the name of a ship, it is conventional practice to put the ship name in italics—but not the initials that precede the name. (EE 6.39)
• When typing the parenthetical publication data (URL and date), a space should be left between the URL and the colon so that the colon does not become part of the URL and make it unworkable. (EE 2.37, last para.)

Whew!

 

P.S.

As for the preprinted-form issue and whether we should distinguish between words that are typeset and words that are handwritten, the overriding issue is that we are now all using typeset for everything we create. If we make the distinction by typing the handwritten words in some penmanship font, we also introduce two issues:

• We still are not reproducing the original exactly, because the penmanship font won't match the idiosyncrasies of the original scribe.
• We make it harder for ourselves and others to follow the text of what we type in that penmanship font. Typeset text is easier to read.

In analyzing this record, what added value do you see in distinguishing the preprinted words from the penned words?

History-Hunter, EE uses "penned" and "stamped" to identify page numbers primarily on censuses where many of those will have two to three different "page" numbering schemes going on—some stamped and some penned. The point is to identify which set of numbers one is using.

Your passenger list also serves as a good example, where there are two different sets of stamped numbers. When you cited "Sheet 13 (stamped)," you were looking at the stamped series at the top right of the page. Aside from the 13 vs.15 readability issue, sheet 13 (as stamped at top right) is List C from Glasgow, whereas sheet 13 (as stamped at top left) is List 50 from Londonderry.

History Hunter asks: Why cite the path when the URL is supposed to be a permalink and it takes one directly to the image?  Because it's awfully easy to make a typo when typing 90 characters of gibberish. Because often when editors typeset a URL they have to add non-breaking characters, sometimes have to experiment to get a break in an appropriate place, and sometimes characters get lost in that process. And because "permanent" links, at this point, represent optimism more than reality.

Re the question "from where did the image 487 reference originate?": I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking "where on image 487 does the NARA volume number appear?" or .... ?

History-Hunter, you are right in saying that a correct permalink should stand on its own. On the other hand, "should" doesn't always mean "does." Image 487 represents the start of the series for that ship roll, not the one or two images of your interest. Scrolling back to the start of a series to see what is there often provides us with more information or a better perspective. On your exact image, the provider's heading tells us that the image comes from somewhere in volumes 1480, 1481, or 1482. If we scroll back to image 487, we learn that the exact volume is 1482. That is why EE's suggested citation added the note "image 487 indicates that this ship's rolls appear in NARA original vol. 1482."

History-Hunter, the volume number refers to original volumes at NARA. Film publications are cited by their name/number (T715 in this case), roll number, and frame number.