Forums
I am working on citing a couple of immigration cards from Brazil. These cards can be found at Ancestry and FamilySearch.
The way in which they are organized is a bit perplexing and can be confusing when you first look at them. There are two cards I am writing citations for. For clarification in my citations, I use FHL microfilm or DGS numbers instead of search paths. I do this because it is the fastest way for me to find the records at a later date.
An explanation of how FamilySearch cataloged these records can be found here: When you enter the DGS number 4910543 into the catalog you are taken to this page. "Brazil, Rio de Janeiro, registros de imigração (parte 5), 1930-197"
Scrolling down this is the entry for the DGS number is:
The specific DGS series is "Cartões de imigração, Caixa 380, Maço 14, 1930-1970"
The third image in this group gives the following information: Note: Not all of the DGS numbers contain a title image of what the records are.
Presidência da República Arquivo Nacional
Divsão Polícia, Marítima Aérea E DE Fronteiras
DOMAF-RJ
Fichas Consulares
Maço 14
Notação: Br.AN.RIO.Ol.FC. 380.14. 1/100
Opening the film FamilySearches title calls this database is: Brasil, Cartões de Imigração, 1900-1965 Group 4
I personally can see calling a series parte 5 in one place and then calling it Group 4 in another can cause some confusion.
FamilySearch has several wikis about these records.
"Brazil, Rio de Janeiro, Immigration Cards (FamilySearch Historical Records)" here.
Brazil, "Rio de Janeiro, Immigration Cards Digital Folder Number List," here:
Due to the potential for confusion, I decided to write my citation emphasizing the archives where the originals are and in my last layer adding the FHL DGS number with the specific image numbers. These are the two citations I have come up with. I did add a basic translation below each citation.
The first one:
Divsão Policia Maritima Aerea E DE Fronteiras Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Fichas Consulares, cartões de imigração, caixa 380, maço 14, 1930-1970, card for Hedwig L Schindler, 1955; Arquivo Nacional of Brazil, Rio de Janerio; FHL DGS 4910543, images 44-5.
Division of police for the borders, maritime and air, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, consular records, immigration box 380, packet 14, 1930-1970, card for Hedwig L Schindler, 1955; National Archives of Brazil, Rio de Janeiro; FHL DGS 4910543, images 44-5
The second one:
Divsão Policia Maritima Aerea E DE Fronteiras Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Fichas Consulares, cartões de imigração, caixa 467-TMP, vol 5, 1930-1970, card for Hedwig L Schindler, 1955; Arquivo Nacional of Brazil, Rio de Janerio; FHL DGS 4798809, images 131-2.
Division of police for the borders, maritime and air, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, consular records, immigration box 467-TMP, vol. 5, 1930-1970, card for Hedwig L Schindler, 1955; National Archives of Brazil, Rio de Janeiro; FHL DGS 4798809, images 131-2.
Have I missed anything?
Thank you, Ann
Anne, I haven’t been…
Anne, I haven’t been ignoring you this morning. I've had trouble drilling down through the FamilySearch layers that you reference. Cybergremlins were delivering the message “FamilySearch is not responding due to a long-running script.” Then, when a page would finally be delivered, I’d get a bunch of programming language, rather then the detail needed.
Once I got through to the actual images, there was one more roadblock our readers may stumble over. Below the data you transcribed from the image, you write:
“Opening the film FamilySearches title calls this database is: Brasil, Cartões de Imigração, 1900-1965 Group 4.”
I think what you mean is this:
Opening the “Information” tab under the images, we see this:
"Brasil, Cartões de Imigração, 1900-1965," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-95YX-PPV?cc=1932363&wc=QS6H-ZNT%3A1019546801%2C1020493301 : 3 December 2015), Group 4 > 004910543 > image 1 of 203; Arquivo Nacional, Rio de Janeiro (National Archives, Rio de Janeiro).
Then you say:
“I personally can see calling a series parte 5 in one place and then calling it Group 4 in another can cause some confusion.”
The set up of this whole series is definitely confusing. It would be possible or logical for a collection to have a “group” within a “parte.” (As a comparable example, on one of the cataloging pages, the collection is described in terms of “Caixa 380, Maço 14”—i.e., bundles within boxes.) In this case, I’m wondering if there is not a simpler answer to the apparent discrepancy between “Parte 5” and “Group 4”—like, perhaps, a typo?
From a broader perspective, given what is said in the catalog descriptions, it is not at all clear what “group 4” (or “group 5”) represents in FamilySearch’s suggested citation—or whether "group" is FS's translation of "parte." Perhaps Raymond R. will see this post and weigh in, giving us his FS perspective.
In the meanwhile, your suggested citation should work, with one caveat. You are citing FamilySearch’s digital film number and images, but not citing the FamilySearch website that must be accessed in order to use the digital film. If you prefer to cite the Family History Library microfilm (which you aren’t actually using), then the film number to cite would be the one that’s given in FS’s suggested citation: 004910543.
Thank you! I didn't think…
Thank you! I didn't think you were ignoring me. I suspected you were having some of the same problems I was having with the links and descriptions. I spent two days trying to figure this out. Every time I tried to relocate the record something would not work. One look and I could find it in the overall records search and next it wouldn't show up. Then I would go into the Catalogue and it would work once and not again. On a number of occasions, I would make it to the images and the title at the top would be different.
I think it was one of the wikis that said something like FamilySearch divided this collection into 10 groups. No explanation as to why is given.
Last night I still was mulling it over and thought about adding the Parte number with the group number in brackets. But haven't taken a look at how that would work yet.