Citing record of birth found on FamilySearch

Hello sarafergione. Welcome to EE!

Your question is one that perplexes many researchers, judging by the number of times we get this question. The answer is simple. I'll borrow here from a prior response:

https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/when-layer-database-images  

“Some researchers—when they use many different items from a single database (or any other source), prefer to focus the citation upon the larger item (the database, the record collection, etc.) and then add each individual record's details in the "specific item" field. Others prefer to start the citation with the specific record book and then, in a second layer, identify the larger item—in this case the database and provider that published the database-images.

To use the first database above as an example, if you pull 20 or 30 different records from that database and you cite each one individually using the second format above, then your own database would create 20 or 30 different "master sources" within your Source List.  By using the website’s database as the lead element, you would have only one "master source" to deal with.

EE illustrates both approaches—both in the manual and at this website.  If you have a digital edition of EE, query for the term "lead element" and you'll find dozens of examples demonstrating the differences that result when you focus your citation on one element rather than another. Or, query this website for the phrase “lead element” and you’ll find numerous discussions of specific incidences.

Your examples also raise a couple of other issues that I'll address separately.

Sarahfergione, since you offered specific examples, I’ll tweak them for a couple of points you did not raise:

Government Agency as Author

          1. New Haven, Connecticut, Town Clerk, “Births, Vol. 15, Jan 1864-Nov 1868,” p. 8, for “Hugh Byrne,” child of Thos. and Mary Byrne born 26 Feb 1864; New Haven (Connecticut), Town Clerk; imaged in “Records of births, marriages, and deaths, 1639-1902 ; indexes to births, marriages, and deaths, 1639-1914,” database with images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9BY-9Z1H?cat=580583 : accessed 3 May 2022) > Film #007731213 > Image 624 of 949.

When we create a layered citation, the author of the original record is not a layer to itself, as in your draft. (Each layer is separated by a semicolon; thus, you have three layers above.) Whenever we cite an original government record, the name of the agency that authored the record goes in the field where we identify author. Reuniting the separate pieces of the author’s identity leaves the appropriate two layers:

• Layer 1: the identity of the original record.
• Layer 2: the identity of the website that provides an image of that original record.

FamilySearch Database vs. Catalog Description

Beyond this, I hit a snag when I used the database title you give: “Records of births, marriages, and deaths, 1639-1902 ; indexes to births, marriages, and deaths, 1639-1914.”  Explicitly:

• When I go to FamilySearch.org > Search > Records and enter that database name into the search box labelled “Collection Title,” nothing happens. This means there is no collection by that title. Anyone who is interested in that “collection” you’ve identified and want to search it for other records cannot locate it as a collection.
• When I go to FamilySearch.org > Search > Catalog and I enter the film number that you give (007731213), I’m taken to the FamilySearch catalog that provides an umbrella description of the various items that have been aggregated onto that one roll of film. That catalog description is the set of words you’ve used as a collection title. But it's not a collection title, it's just FHL's cataloging data.
• When we click on that catalog description, it opens up to a larger menu that lists a number of different films. The more detailed catalog description there tells us (in red) that the film has been put into a large [and indexed] collection, for which we’re told “click here.”
• Clicking that will take us to an actual collection, but the title is quite different from the collection title you created. The actual title (at https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/1674736) is “Connecticut Births and Christenings, 1649–1906.”  (That collection's search engine also fails to deliver Hugh Byrne, when I type in the appropriate details into the query form; but that's a different issue.)

So, we now have choices. 

Short option: Cite this to the specific roll of film, with the original record as the lead element:

          1. New Haven, Connecticut, Town Clerk, “Births, Vol. 15, Jan. 1864–Nov. 1868,” p. 8, for “Hugh Byrne,” child of Thos. and Mary Byrne, born 26 Feb 1864; imaged at FamilySearch digital film 007731213 > image 624 of 949.

Long option: Cite this to FamilySearch's indexed collection:

          1. New Haven, Connecticut, Town Clerk, Births, vol. 15 (Jan 1864–Nov 1868), p. 8, “Hugh Byrne,” child of Thos. and Mary Byrne, born 26 Feb 1864; imaged in “Connecticut Births and Christenings, 1649–1906,” database with images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9BY-9Z1H?cat=580583 : accessed 3 May 2022) > film 007731213 > image 624 of 949.

You’ll also note a couple of other points, where I’ve given you two options

• First example: citing the exact book, placing the exact title of the book in quotation marks. When we do this, we must copy the title exactly as it appears on the register's cover or spine.  The use of quotation marks means we are quoting exactly. We’re not adding in anything and we’re not deleting anything.
• Second example: citing the series and volume generically.  We often do this with town hall and courthouse records such as deeds, court files, or vital records. Births would be the name of the series. Then we say vol. ___ and, if appropriate add dates in parentheses. In this case, I did not add the periods after “Jan” and “Nov,” which are needed if we are quoting the exact title. CMOS and other manuals of style strongly encourage us to use periods when we abbreviate; but if your chosen style is to eliminate periods when abbreviating months, then the use of periods in citing the series generically would follow your chosen style because you are not quoting the book’s title exactly.