Citing Ships Manifests ... A citation style question

History-Hunter,

When we create a citation for an imaged copy online, we use descriptors and linking words that are grammatically correct and precise for the situation. Any formulaic word might be correct in one instance and not in another.

In the example that you give, after you say that you are using a database and images, and then you add that you are specifically using images 32 and 50, there's no need to invoke imaging a third time by creating a new layer that begins "imaging manifest of Columbia." When we access the pages you reference, we can specifically see the name of the ship, the date, the place of departure, and the destination. All of that can go in the one layer in which we identify the database and the image we’re using and seeing there at that database. 

Put another way, we only need two layers in the citation:  

• one to cite the database and the specific image(s) it offers;
• one to say that the database is “citing [thus-and-such which is not visible on the image].”

There is, however, a different issue with your proposed citation that needs thinking through. You say …

“UK, Outward Passenger Lists, 1890-1960,” database and images, Ancestry (https://search.ancestry.ca/search/db.aspx?dbid=2997 : downloaded 25 April 2019), images 32 … and 50 …”

That begs a question: Images 32 and 50 of what?

• Images 32 and 50 of the database?  No, that can’t be it because that database has many different images numbered 32 and 50. 
• Images 32 and 50 of the SS Columbia list? No, because the list is not that long. (Also, if we were citing pages of the Columbia list, we would cite the page number used on that list, not the image in the database.) When we examine the “set” of 158 images that include 32 and 50, we see that image 1 of that set of images is for the SS Caledonia, image 24 is for the SS Concordia, etc. 

In this case, the path that Ancestry places at the top of the image tells us that images are grouped by month and that images 32 and 50 represent various ship lists for the month of March. 

Considering these issues, EE would adapt your first reference note citation this way:

“UK, Outward Passenger Lists, 1890-1960,” database and images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.ca/search/collections/ukoutwardpassengerlists/ : downloaded 25 April 2019) > Glasgow > 1906 > March, passenger list, SS Columbia, Glasgow to New York departing 10 March 1906, entries for JB Murison and David Murison, image 32 (also image 50 for summary showing destination); citing “Board of Trade: Commercial and Statistical Department and successors: Outwards Passenger Lists. BT27. Records of the Commercial, Companies, Labour, Railways and Statistics Departments … The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, England.”

Incidentally, when  I clicked on your dbid link, Ancestry acted wonky. When it finally let me into the site, it changed your dbid URL to  https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/ukoutwardpassengerlists/. A small part of that alteration is due to my Ancestry subscription being U.S. based, while yours is Canadian based. But Ancestry also eliminated the techy “db.aspx?dbid=2997” and substituted a word-based URL. 

H-H, you ask:

That said; I am not sure why exactly you chose to use the "trail of breadcrumbs" method. The Ancestry database has both a search-engine access and a hierarchal access method. Can you explain your reasoning so that I can apply it elsewhere?

In this case, I chose the path approach because you cited image numbers and I had broached the need to explain what the image numbers represented. If we use the search-engine approach, then it takes us directly to the one image in question, removing the need to specify which image one should choose. In the latter case, when a passenger list has numbered pages, it would also be wise to identify the page number.

As for why Ancestry acted wonky when I used your dbid URL: who knows!  For about 15 tries on four different browsers, it kept bumping me out and defaulting to a "join Ancestry" screen even though I was logged in with each browser. Perhaps it was a technical problem with Ancestry. I just thought I should mention it, given the question you posed a week or so ago in another forum asking about the use of dbid URLs at Ancestry in lieu of the URL that carried the database name.

H-H, re your Question 1:

There was an RMS Columba but that was a different ship from the Columbia. The SS Columbia's history is a tangle I've worked through before. The ship by that name, which made voyages between Glasgow and New York in that era, is referenced only as a steamship in the sources I've seen. I'm attaching two of them.  On 9 January 1906, the NY Times (p. 12) referenced its arrival from Glasgow and explicitly identified it as "SS Columbia."

On 19 March 1906 the NYT announced the arrival of the voyage on which your David Murison is listed as a passenger. That day, NYT (p. 1)  refers to it as "steamship."

As you probably know, the Ellis Island website also offers descriptions, histories, and images of vessels that brought immigrants, but its details for the SS Columbia are a mess. I'll use that as an example on EE's Facebook page shortly.

H-H, re Question 2:

For clarity, our subsequent notes should lead with the first words used for that source in the First (Full) Reference Note. If we pick wording from somewhere in the middle of the First Ref Note, it will be hard for others (or ourselves at a later date when our recollection of the source has grown cold) to match the Subsequent Ref to the full note.

Thanks, H-H, for taking the time to add the book reference to help others. The last reference is working for me.