Danish Parish Registers Online

Lene, thanks for your patience while I was off conferencing.

You define two issues on which you seek help. I see a third issue we might also discuss.

1. How to shorten the citations.
2. How to avoid confusing readers when the database covers one span of years but the book (according to cataloging data rather than a visual examination of the book itself) carries a different span.
3. Using cataloging data to identify an imaged book when the book’s label has not been reproduced.

ISSUE 1: Let’s save this for last, after we’ve worked through the other issues.

ISSUE 2. You write:

It may be confusing to the reader that the first part of the citation (for the original book) lists a different range of years than the second part of the citation (for the digital images).

The different date spans should not be confusing in a layered citation—i.e., one that uses Layer 1 to identify the original record and Layer 2 to identify the database and its organizational structure—so long as

• there is a clear division between the two layers of your citation; and
• there is a descriptive transition word or phrase to link the two layers.

Confusion usually happens when someone injects details from one layer into the other layer. Even when we use original materials at brick-and-mortar archives, we still have this issue of different date spans in the same citation because, for example, a register or file that’s dated 1838–1860 will be part of a larger series or collection that’s dated  1813–1969.

ISSUE 3: You write:

The page with the digitizations do not state the years contained in the physical book, so I look that up in a database of all the collections held by the archive, because that is needed to cite the original.

It is always good to study these archival catalogs. That helps us better understand the register or record being used. However, EE does not advise using the catalog data as a silent substitute for the name of a register that is not visible on the film.

When we create citations to digitized records, we have two basic approaches to choose from:

1. Layer 1: cite the original register/record; Layer 2: cite the database, website, and path. We use this approach when the images allow us to clearly identify the register/record.
2. Layer 1: cite database, website, and path, followed by a description of the exact item; Layer 2, cite whatever identifiers the website provides to identity the source of the data. This is best to use when the images do not allow us to identify, for ourselves, the register/record and we must rely upon what the provider tells us—either in a sidebar to the image or in a catalog description elsewhere.

In this case, it’s not clear why you say you must take your data from the separate database that describes the collections.  As you say, the title of the register is not visible on that one imaged page. But if we go back to the start of the image series, we see the following:

Image 1 appears to depict the box in which the register is housed. It carries this label:

EC-013, København Vor Frue Sogn; 1813-1969, Kontraministerialbog for Vor Frue Sogn; 1813-1860, Vielser–  40-41.

By ordinary archival practice, readers might interpret this to mean:

• Record group or series:                 EC-013
• Box or item within series:             40-41, covering churches named Vielser–[through whatever]
• Locale:                                              København
• Collection title & dates:                 Kontraministerialbog for Vor Vrue Sogn, 1813-1860

Image 2 is clearly the cover of the register itself. It carries no title stamped into the front cover . A partially visible spine shows that the spine is labeled, but we cannot read that label. Instead, we find a label pasted on the front cover:

EC-013, Vor Frue Pastorat, København, 3/13-40, 1813-2004, “Kontraministerialbog for Vor Frue Sogn, 1813-1939

By ordinary archival practice, this should mean:

• Record group or series:                 EC-013
• [Item number?]                              3/13-40
• Creator:                                            Vor Frue Pastorat, København
• Date span for parish:                      1813–2004
• Volume title:                                   “Kontraministerialbog for Vor Vrue Sogn, København, 1813–1838”

Note that when citing archival sources, we put quotation marks around titles of registers or documents. We don’t put quotation marks around series titles, box labels, etc.

Within this archival structure, a citation to the original would logically be:

Vor Frue Sogn (København), “Kontraministerialbog for Vor Frue Sogn, 1813–1838,” Copulerede: page 19, 1815, entry 3;

Note that the identifying word I've used here for “19” is page. Because a “folio” is a big sheet of paper folded so it has several leaves, a folio number would cover multiple sides of that piece of paper. Typically “folio no. ___” is used when the number appears on just one side of a piece of paper or one side of a leaf. When every side of a sheet of paper carries a number, as in this register, we refer to it as a page number. (EE 7.6)

After this Layer 1, then we would create Layer 2 to Identify the website and path. If there were a specific database to cite, then the title of that database would go in quotation marks before the title of the website. (In this case, the structure of the website and its delivery makes the database title uncertain.) The title of the website goes in italics as you have it. The waypoint names along the path don’t use quotation marks. But when we must type specific words into a search box, then those words would indeed carry quotation marks.

Following this pattern, Layer 2 would be this:

…; imaged at Rigsarkivet (https://www.sa.dk/en/ : accessed 24 August 2019), path: Archives online > Parish Registers > Kirkebøger fra hele landet > Archive: “København Vor Frue Sogn” > Kontraministerialbog (1813-2003): Ny Scanning i farver - indtil 1892 > Viede 1813 - Viede 1838 > image 28 of 393.

Note that I added the image number at the end of the path. That, too, needs to be identified because page 19 of the register does not appear on image 19.

The combined citation (Layer 1 plus Layer 2) would be:

Vor Frue Sogn (København), “Kontraministerialbog for Vor Frue Sogn, 1813–1838,” Copulerede: page 19 (1815), entry 3; imaged at Rigsarkivet (https://www.sa.dk/en/ : accessed 24 August 2019), path: Archives online > Parish Registers > Kirkebøger fra hele landet > Archive: “København Vor Frue Sogn” > Kontraministerialbog (1813-2003): Ny Scanning i farver - indtil 1892 > Viede 1813 - Viede 1838 > image 28 of 393. 

This creates 64 words—7 words longer than your original citation, although it is 11 characters shorter.

ISSUE 1: Shortening

Your first instinct, to strip away translations, is a good one. If you were producing your research for Danish readers and used an occasional English-language record, your readers would appreciate your translating the English title into Danish. If you were producing research for English readers and used an occasional Danish-language record, your readers would appreciate the translation. But you’re Danish and using Danish records. Translation of record titles and descriptors into a different language would not be expected.

Following this line of thought, the English words in the citation above would be rendered in Danish.

One other option exists for shortening, and it’s one that makes a significant difference. Rather than citing the path, you might cite the direct URL. When we do this, we need to make sure that the direct URL showing at the top of the web page is a (presumably) stable ULR rather than a dynamic URL.  I tested the URL on different browsers, different computers, and it delivered the document page in every case. Using the direct URL would generate this citation:

Vor Frue Sogn (København), “Kontraministerialbog for Vor Frue Sogn, 1813–1838,” Copulerede: side 19 (1815), indgang 3; afbildet Rigsarkivet (https://www.sa.dk/ao-soegesider/en/billedviser?epid=21618411#380024,73909603 : adgang 24 August 2019), billede 28 af 393. 

We’re now down to 30 words. (And, not being a Danish speaker, I realize I might have chosen a wrong word—or form of the word—in translation, a point on which you'll correct me and I'll learn from.)

Lene,

Thanks for discussing your research obstacles and practices in detail. Today's technological advances have created a maze of problems, for sure.

You ask:

"When you open a book, you can see two pages, this called opslag in Danish. Which word is best used for that type of page numbering in English?" 

To my knowledge, there is no English word to describe this practice. (Perhaps one of our readers will know one.) On the rare occasions that we encounter it, we would deal with it by saying "p. 219 (left side)" or "p. 219 (right side)."

You also ask:

"Is it possible for me to keep the waypoints, but strip some of it in a second citation, when citing the same original, but not the same digital series?"

In instances such as this, EE would not cite the provider in the shortened subsequent citations. EE would use the citation to the original for the shortened version.