Census citation help

Hello spcchap. Welcome to EE.

Your citation is well done. With regard to your other questions …

“digital image” vs. ”image”

Either phrase is appropriate.  In 2007, when the first edition of EE was released and RootsMagic adopted its citation framework, the delivery of documents online was still new. “Digital image” was the explicit term used then, in contrast to “microfilm image.”  Since then, online delivery of document images has become ubiquitous. If we cite a document and say “imaged, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com) …,” everyone knows the image is “digital.” 

database vs. database with images

This distinction is critical. Some databases offer images. Some do not. Whether we take our information from (a) the image of an original document or (b) from a provider’s database entry that extracts pieces of information, omits other information, and may or may not read correctly the handwriting on the original can seriously impact the reliability of our work. Therefore, our citation should indicate exactly what our information is taken from.

National Archives microfilm vs. NARA microfilm

EE addresses this at 2.57 Acronyms & Initialisms

“The first mention of [whatever] entity should state the name in full, followed by the acronym in parentheses. … Thereafter, we may simply use the acronym.”

Indicating boarders in household

You lost me on this one. In the 1930 census that you cite, I don’t see a reference to Frankie Dickerson. That census states that Liston P. Chappell was the head of household, renting his home.  In any event, your question should be answered at EE 6.6 “Citing Household Heads or Others of Interest.”

Creating a “standard”

In para. 3 you wrote:

“I know I’m being very OCD about this, but … I want to create a standard within my own genealogy program without second-guessing myself all the time.”

EE would not say you are being OCD. EE would say you are being thoughtful. There is a common misconception by individuals who come into the genealogical field—often from IT or science or mathematics or other fields where “standards” have a different focus from those that apply to historical research. In this field, words have precise meanings also; and those meanings affect the quality of the research we do.

However, by genealogical standards using formulaic words are not be a standard.  Our wording is not formulaic in the sense that “In this position, in a citation, this word must be used.”  In historical research, it is important that we do critically think about what we are using and which word fits the situation involved and the precise source we are using. In that sense, yes, we would “second-guess” ourselves every time we create a citation.

spcchap, you wrote:

database vs. database with images

• "images" = the information I gleaned came solely from the image
• "database" = the information I gleaned came solely from the abstract
• "database with images" = the information I gleaned came from both the abstract and the image

Let’s put it this way: the meaning of a word (just like information in a document) depends upon its context. As an example, here is a citation I used last night in a research report I’m currently working on:

     1. “United States Bureau of Land Management … Tract Books, 1800–c.1955,” database with images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-L9W3-14CT : 16 August 2022) > Mississippi > Vol M7 > image 96 (original page 90).

This citation leads with the name of something that could be a database, a collection, or even a how-to-article. The next field of the citation identifies exactly what kind of entity this is: “United States Bureau of Land Management … Tract Books, 1800–c.1955” is a database with images. 

Later in the citation, in the field for “specific location of data” within the cited source, we have a path that leads down to the specific item which requires the use of the word image again in a different context.

In short, the word “image is used twice, for two different purposes. Eliminating either of the usages would leave the citation incomplete or open to confusion.

As a second example focusing upon database entries rather than images:

     2. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, General Land Office Records, database with images (https://glorecords.blm.gov/details/patent/default.aspx?accession=MS0050__.016&docClass=STA&sid=54d5obja.0pj : accessed 17 August 2022), database entry for John Williams, E½ NW¼ Section 29 Township 9N Range 18W; citing Accession No. MS0050__.016.

This website also offers a database with images, in which it also offers different modules. What I have cited above is an entry for which there is no image. It contains data that I cannot get from an image; therefore, I need to use it. The site also offers patent images. Using that module, for the same tract of land, I have to alter my citation to accurately reflect what I’m using:

     3. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, General Land Office Records, database with images (https://glorecords.blm.gov/details/patent/default.aspx?accession=MS0050__.016&docClass=STA&sid=54d5obja.0pj#patentDetailsTabIndex=1 : accessed 17 August 2022), patent image for John Williams, E½ NW¼ Section 29 Township 9N Range 18W.

You’ll notice in Note 2 that my reference to the database entry did not just say “database.” This harks back to the second of your three definitions bulleted above.  A database is not the same thing as a database entry. If we say just “database” when we are using one set of abstracts (or extracts) from a database, then the user of our work will not know whether we used a database entry or an actual image.

Now, let’s consider your third bulleted definition, using “database with entry” to mean we used the image. In that case, applying your definition, let’s drop the “patent image” from the specific item field, on the premise that it would be redundant:

     4. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, General Land Office Records, database with images (https://glorecords.blm.gov/details/patent/default.aspx?accession=MS0050__.016&docClass=STA&sid=54d5obja.0pj#patentDetailsTabIndex=1 : accessed 17 August 2022), John Williams, E½ NW¼ Section 29 Township 9N Range 18W.

Can a reader (or can we, at some future date when our recollection goes cold) discern from this citation that we are citing the image?  No.  Not even the word “patent” in the URL tells us that we have used the image itself because the URL for the database entry also uses the word “patent.”

Indicating boarders in household

As for the “gotcha”: You can rest assured that when anyone asks me how to cite a source, I check the source. Every source has its quirks. Trying to give blanket advice for a type of source or type of problem  without analyzing it and its context would be tantamount to someone blindfolding me, leading me to a large animal, and then asking me whether it’s a pinto or a donkey and how to cure what ails it.

For the boarder question, you provide this example:

          1950 U.S. census, Citrus County, Florida, population schedule, Inverness, enumeration district (ED) 9-9, sheet 20, dwelling 183, Donald J. Bradshaw household; digital images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 7 August 2022); citing National Archives microfilm publication T628, roll 327.   "Donald J. Bradshaw household living as boarders in the household of Frankie Dickerson". 

Then you wrote: “That [addition] just seems too wordy and unnecessary - but I'm drawing a blank how to shorten that properly.”

EE would reverse your emphasis because this census does not have a “Donald J. Bradshaw household. The household head is Frankie Dickerson.

1950 U.S. census, Citrus County, Florida, population schedule, Inverness, enumeration district (ED) 9-9, sheet 20, dwelling 183, for Donald J. Bradshaw, boarder in Frankie Dickerson household; digital images, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 7 August 2022); citing National Archives microfilm publication T628, roll 327.

Incidentally, the name of the website you are using is just Ancestry. It’s not Ancestry.com.  It should also be italicized; the website is a standalone publication, independent of anything else. We italicize its name just as we would italicize the name of a book that is a standalone publication. My apologies for not noticing that this morning when I was rushing out to keep an appointment and answered you too quickly.