Register of Birth in FamilySearch

Hello, Linda.  You’ve given us an example with a lot to unpack. It makes an instructive lesson for all our followers.

First, you are wise to note that the citation proffered by FamilySearch at https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:H9G7-793Z  is a citation to the record abstract, not the actual record. For clarity, a citation to that FS page would say:

"Illinois Births and Christenings, 1824-1940", database entry, FamilySearch  (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:H9G7-793Z : 22 July 2021), Elmer Kennedy, 1879.

However, a digital image of the original register is available and so that is what we want to use and cite. At the bottom of that image, under “Information,” FS also gives us a suggested citation to the image:

"Illinois, County Marriages, 1810-1940," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QSQ-G924-R65Z?cc=1803970 : 28 November 2018), > image 1 of 1; county offices, Illinois.

While many of the citations that FS offers are thorough, this one is not. As with most things in life, the difference likely  depends upon the experience and skill of the individuals who create the citations for FS. Despite its problems, the citation would be an aid to many beginners.  You, on the other hand, are well past that point, so let’s analyze what you are using, what elements need to be cited, and which elements need to be attached to each other.

Your first decision in citing this record would be this:  Do you want your citation to begin with the actual document or with the database?  That decision would be governed by these considerations:

Choice 1:

• If you have numerous records from the database that you need to cite—records from a variety of counties, let's say—you might want to feature the database. That way, you have just one Source List Entry to cover them all.
• If you are using a relational database and creating software within its templates, choosing to emphasize the database would mean that each time you chose that one Source List Entry, then your software would automatically populate the citation template with everything except the specific item field. You would then enter all the data for the original document into that specific item field.
• The result of this approach is a one- or two-layer citation. As demonstrated by the FS citation to the original, Layer 1 cites the database, plus all information about the original stuffed into the Specific Item Field. Layer 2 then gives the provider’s source-of-its source info.  However, its source-of-its-source info adds nothing useful to the citation and could be eliminated. The example also omits several pieces of essential detail that should be included, as discussed below.

Choice 2:

• If you wish to emphasize the original record, you should first examine the images to see if you have sufficient data to do so. In this case, you do. The filmer’s target at image 99 tells you the location of the original: the county courthouse in Bloomington. Image 100 displays the cover of the book, with its exact title. Then the images begin with p. 1 of the book and run throughout the book. The result is the same experience you would have if you held the book in your hand and thumbed it page by page.
• Choosing this approach also means that you have a two-layer citation. Layer 1 cites the original document; Layer 2 cites the database/website that delivers the document. There is no need for a third layer to report the source-of-the-source data, because you will have provided that in Layer 1. 

Whichever choice you make, there is one critical issue:  Details for the original document should not be confused with, or attached to, details for the database. (In graphic terms, don't mix peas with apples.) The original created by the county clerk is an entirely separate object from the database created by FamilySearch.  With this in mind, let’s examine your First Reference Note:

"Illinois Births and Christenings, 1824-1940," browsable database and images, FamilySearch, https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:H9G7-793Z, birth register image, Elmer Kennedy, 8 April 1979, no. 1732, McLean County, Illinois, Register of Births, Item 2; digital image from FamilySearch microfilm 007,625,317 > Item 2 > Image 269 of 819 > Record no.1732.

This citation represents the following elements:

Layer 1: “Title of Database,” descriptor, Title of Website (URL = Place of Publication : date of publication or access is needed), descriptor, specific item [name, date, register no., county/state, partial title of volume, item number on microfilm];

Layer 2: descriptor, second reference to FamilySearch, path [microfilm number > second reference to item number on microfilm > image no. > registration number from actual register.

By identifying the elements, we can more clearly see several issues. First:

• After you identified the volume, you tell us that it’s the second item on a roll of microfilm that hasn’t been identified. However, “Item 2” is a descriptor created by the person who made the film for the Family History Library. It does not in any way identify the original register.
• After you identify the microfilm, you tell us the registration number within the volume that you described in the first layer. But that registration number does not identify the microfilm in any way. That registration number was created by the person who recorded the birth and it applies only to the original register.

A second issue is the division of the data into two layers. In Layer 1, you identify the database, then the specific item. In Layer 2 you give us the path that would take us from the database to the specific item.  Logically, the identity of the specific item comes at the end of the path that we take to get there. All of that would go in one layer.

A third issue is the inclusion of a path to take us from the database to the specific image. For that filmed image, FamilySearch provides no path. (When there is a path involved, FamilySearch identifies the path above the image--as does Ancestry and most similar sites.) When we go to the root URL for this database (https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/1676968), we have no path to follow. We can’t choose a film number, after which a new menu offers us item numbers to choose from, etc.

A fourth issue is the date that you give in the “specific item” field. As with most birth registrations, the one you are citing carries two dates: the date the registration was made and the date the child was born. The citation should state what your chosen date represents.

A final issue is the presentation of the URL.  You will note above that I added parentheses around the URL : date data in your citation. A citation to a website follows the same format as a citation to a book. Publication data, in both, appear in parentheses.  The URL is the equivalent to “place of publication” for a printed book. The date that source was published or the date we accessed it online also appears within the parentheses in which publication data is set off from other descriptors of the source.

Now that we have dissected the issues, lets rebuild the citation—one for each choice you might make.

Choice 1, Emphasizing the database: One layer, with all data for original register placed in “specific item” field

“Illinois Births and Christenings, 1824–1940,” database with images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QSQ-G924-R65Z?cc=1803970 : accessed 19 November 2022), image: McLean County, Illinois, Register of Births, vol. 1, 1877–1881, double-page 167, registration no. 1732, Elmer Kennedy, born 8 April 1879.

Choice 2, Emphasizing the original: Two layers, separated here by color

McLean County, Illinois, Register of Births, vol. 1, 1877–1881, double-page 167, registration no. 132, Elmer Kennedy, born 8 April 1879; imaged, “Illinois Births and Christenings, 1824–1930,” database with images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QSQ-G924-R65Z?cc=1803970 : accessed 19 November 2022), digital film 7626317, image 269 of 819.

You’ll notice two things:

1. I’ve eliminated the word “browsable” from the descriptor.  It adds nothing. If we’re citing a book, do we say its “browsable”? Nope. All pages are browsable. If we’re using a roll of microfilm, all images are browsable. Saying so is pointless. FS uses that term to tell us that a database is not indexed, but an indexing situation could be changed tomorrow.  Again the corollary: when citing a book, do we say say that it’s not indexed, or do we just cite the relevant page?
2. The format for the “specific item” field of Layer 2 is the simple comma-delineated format we’d used if we were citing a book. It’s not the path format that uses the greater-than sign as the path goes from largest element to next-largest to smaller to smallest.  

SOURCE LIST ENTRY:

Your draft offers this:

Illinois. "Illinois Births and Christenings, 1824-1940". Database.  FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:H9G7-793Z : 22 July 2021).

Three issues here:

1. The State of Illinois is not the author/creator of the database titled “Illinois Births and Christenings, 1824–1940.” That title identifies a FamilySearch creation. (Again, the issue is mixing peas and apples.)
2. A Source List Entry should be generic, not specific. You would not want to create a separate Source List Entry for each image. You’d create it for the database and your entry would cite the URL that goes to the database, not to the specific entry.  Or you’d create an entry for a record book or record set at the courthouse, in which case you would not cite the specific page number.
3. Because a Source List Entry is generic, not specific, if we choose to emphasize the database on the premise that we are taking many things from it, then we'll likely have several or many dates on which we extract the data. Just the year (or years) is typically used for the generic Source List Entry when we use multiple items from that database.

And so …

Choice 1, Emphasizing the database

FamilySearch. “Illinois Births and Christenings, 1824–1903.” https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/1676968. 2022.

Choice 2, Emphasizing the original

Illinois, McLean County. Register of Births, vol. 1, 1877–1881.

In the latter case, citing the original register, we don't conventionally cite a date or year on which we consulted it because that original register is fixed. The content of a register created 1877 to 1881 would not differ whether we consulted it in 2018, 2022, or 2030.