Forums
I have a citation question specifically about something in FamilySearch. It appears that when FamilySearch needs to split a volume, FS will name them as S, Sa, Sb, etc., but I’m thinking it’s best to cite as marriages volume S with the appropriate image group number and not as Sa, Sb, or whatever FS has assigned to it.
The following link provides one such example:
https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/1805639?availability=Family%20History%20Library
I have crafted the following citation for another marriage in this record set, but for a volume that was not split across multiple image group numbers:
Wharton County, Texas, Marriage records, vol Q: 179, Kurtz-Derrich, 21 September 1942; digital images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-65B9-3W5 : accessed 27 Feb 2024), Image Group Number 4395464 > Image 233 of 376.
mbcross, those quirks do…
mbcross, those quirks do frustrate us.
Your Paragraph 1:
EE's Velcro Principle comes in handy in these situations. To quote from EE4 3.16:
THE RULE THAT HAS NO EXCEPTION
The mix-and-match nature of citations to online images has one cardinal rule: Details that describe one entity must not be attached to a different entity. Think of this as a Velcro Principle for online citations: what’s meant to stick together should stick together.
If we choose Emphasis on Record, then all details we use to describe the original record stay together in Layer 1, while all details that identify the website or database stay in Layer 2. For example:
In the situation you reference in paragraph 1, you would identify the record book by the label on its cover. If FamilySearch divides the book and calls it S, Sa, Sb, [or whatever], then that information goes in the layer in which you identify FamilySearch.
Your Paragraph 2
The link you provide in your full citation takes me straight to the image. No problem there. However, the paragraph 1 situation is not discernible there and other problems arise:
Unfortunately, quirks like this are a common occurrence with online records.
How does it affect you? Well, the nice citation that you created will work so long as one uses only the URL and image number. If you (or a user of your citation) make a typo in the URL—or, if its changed at some future date—then the backup information you provide (the image group number) won't be usable without experimentation as I did above—until and unless FamilySearch corrects the catalog.
Because of this, it would be best for your citation to identify the database in which that image group appears:
Wharton County, Texas, Marriage records, vol Q: 179, Kurtz-Derrich, 21 September 1942; imaged, "Texas, County Marriage Records, 1837–1965," FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-65B9-3W5 : accessed 27 Feb 2024) > Image Group Number 4395464 > image 233 of 376.
Let's try with another…
Let's try with another citation; it is not the same couple but a case of two brothers from one family marrying two sisters from another family.
Wharton County, Texas, Marriage records, vol. P: 257, Kurtz-Derrich, 21 September 1940; digital images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-X9XS-L1T : accessed 27 Feb 2024), Image Group Number 4395432 > Image 311 of 354.
In this case, I checked the Image Group Number in the catalog, and it does take me to the correct collection; however, we do still have the issue that it takes me to a page whose heading states "1909-1934" but includes marriages to 1953.
Now, Matthew, we're at the…
Now, Matthew, we're at the heart of the issue (well, one of them): what do we do when image producers image the inside pages of original record books without imaging the cover?
And this leads us right back to “The Rule That Has No Exception,” discussed above for layered citations: Details that describe one entity must not be attached to a different entity.
Your draft citation (with coloration to differentiate the layers) is this:
Wharton County, Texas, Marriage records, vol. P: 257, Kurtz-Derrich, 21 September 1940; digital images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-X9XS-L1T : accessed 27 Feb 2024), Image Group Number 4395432 > Image 311 of 354
The image that you have used is this:
From that image, we can discern the following:
What we cannot identify from this image is the name of the book. For that information, we typically scroll back to the first images for the book. However, in this case:
This leads us back to your question: What do we do when FamilySearch arbitrarily divides a volume into parts and assigns new numbers or new identification for the additional parts?
As you’ve already determined, if we go to the next image group in FS’s series (IGN 4395434), we find the same issues: The image set begins with image 301—suggesting, logically, that it is an extension of the prior image group (IGN 4395434). However, the identity of the volume has changed:
According to the Film/Digital Note in FamilySearch’s frame, we are now using a different volume, one called “Marriage records, vol. Pa. 1939–1941.” What we don’t know is this: What is on the cover of the original volume? When someone goes to the record office that holds this volume, what volume title do they look for? Many times, record offices themselves split “fat” volumes into parts when they fall apart and need rebinding. We might assume from these images that FamilySearch divided the original volume into different image groups and renamed the parts—but that’s an assumption or a conjecture until and unless we examine the original volume. We don’t cite assumptions or conjectures as fact.
Bottom line:
We cannot identify the original volume from what we see on the images. We can only cite what FamilySearch tells us. Thus, the need for The Rule That Has No Exception: details that describe one entity must not be attached to a different entity. Details assigned by the provider should not be inserted into our identification of the original record.
Solution:
The solution here is simple. Instead of crafting our citation to emphasize the original book that we have not used and cannot identify of our own knowledge, we cite what we used—the database:
“Texas, County Marriage Records, 1837–1965,” FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-X9XS-L1T : accessed 27 Feb 2024), Image Group Number 4395432 > image 311 of 354 > Kurtz-Derrich, marriage, 21 September 1940, Wharton County, at p. 257 of book with no cover image; citing “Marriage records, vol. P, 1939–1941.”
Does all this matter, so long as we're citing the FamilySearch image? Not really, at this moment. But what happens when FamilySearch loses its permission or license to offer these records and the images are taken down? In that case, any effort to verify the authenticity of an image in circulation among researchers will require consulting the originals in the record office that holds the records. At that point, the exact identification of the volume we have used does matter significantly.