Citation Question for a multipage Census Record

Evidence Explained:

Dear Editor,

I have a question about a Census Record has a Household at the bottom of one page, and the Household continues at the top of the next.

I cite my Census Records by Household, but that might be a different topic, in doing so, I was able to identify the name of a 2nd wife, because her children from a previous marriage were listed in the household being related to the Father, her 2nd husband, as Step (daughter, son).

My question is, what if that Household is on two pages? Do I do this:

1930 U.S. census, population schedule, New Jersey, Bergen County, Englewood; supervisory district: 3; enumeration district 2 - 54; sheet number 3A (written); 89 Engle Street; dwelling number 29A; family number 90; Lines 48 - 50; Julia H Sautelle household; Image: 961.0; FHL microfilm: 2341046; NARA microfilm publication T626, roll 1311; digital image, Ancestry.com (hpp://www.ancestry.com : accessed 31 March 2015).

and 

1930 U.S. census, population schedule, New Jersey, Bergen County, Englewood; supervisory district: 3; enumeration district 2 - 54; sheet number 3B (written); 89 Engle Street; dwelling number 29A; family number 90; Lines 51 - 55; Julia H Sautelle household; Image: 962.0; FHL microfilm: 2341046; NARA microfilm publication T626, roll 1311; digital image, Ancestry.com (hpp://www.ancestry.com : accessed 31 March 2015).

or

1930 U.S. census, population schedule, New Jersey, Bergen County, Englewood; supervisory district: 3; enumeration district 2 - 54; sheet number 3A-B (written); 89 Engle Street; dwelling number 29A; family number 90; Lines 48 - 50 and 51 - 55; Julia H Sautelle household; Image: 962.0; FHL microfilm: 2341046; NARA microfilm publication T626, roll 1311; digital image, Ancestry.com (hpp://www.ancestry.com : accessed 31 March 2015).

Thank you

Russ

 

Submitted byEEon Fri, 04/03/2015 - 14:18

Russ, EE would also combine the two pages into one citation, saying "sheets number 3-A and 3-b."

One added thought, re the "Image: 962.0."  If this is an Ancestry image number, it should be cited in the layer that relates to Ancestry. If it is an image number you found on the FHL microfilm, then it should not be separated from the film ID by a semi-colon.

Submitted byrworthingtonon Fri, 04/03/2015 - 14:27

Dear Editor,

Thank you. So, my 3rd and combined Reference Note is the choice. BUT I have some editing to do. That said, is this better:

1930 U.S. census, population schedule, New Jersey, Bergen County, Englewood; supervisory district: 3; enumeration district 2 - 54; sheets number 3A- and 3B (written); 89 Engle Street; dwelling number 29A; family number 90; Lines 48 - 50 and 51 - 55; Julia H Sautelle household; Images 961.0 and 962.0, FHL microfilm: 2341046; NARA microfilm publication T626, roll 1311; digital image, Ancestry.com (hpp://www.ancestry.com : accessed 31 March 2015).

You made a very key point for me, and I never thought about it this way:

A Reference Note is a series of Layers, separated by semi-colon's. 

That totally makes sense. Thank you

Russ

Submitted byEEon Mon, 04/06/2015 - 09:54

Russ, would you like to tinker just a bit more? Following the concept that semicolons separate the layers of a complex citation, with commas separating the interior parts of each layer, it looks like you have about a dozen layers above. Aren't there just 3?

  • citation to the original census (which ends with "household");
  • citation to the image copy you used (i.e., Ancestry--which youcover with your last eight words);
  • citation to the source of your source (i.e., the citation to the microfilm publication and FHL catalog version from which Ancestry imaged its copy.

There are also those who would contest the necessity of adding "images 961.0 and 962.0" if the numbers you are citing are the frame numbers from the FHL film of the NARA publication.  If we were citing only the film and if there were no other way to access the right frame of the film without citing the frame number, then we would include it. With censuses, however, we have so much other data to cite—data that leads exactly to the critical point—that frame numbers of the film increase the wordiness without increasing the value.

 

Submitted byrworthingtonon Mon, 04/06/2015 - 10:10

Dear Editor,

I over thought the "Layer" issue. Be very happy to clean up my act.

What I realized is that those Image Numbers are from Ancestry.com and not NARA, at least that is where I picked up from, I think. I will go back and look. IF that is the case, would I then include the number of Frames or images ?

Thinking of IF those numbers should be included: in my genealogy database, I have a link directly to the first of two images, I also have the Images in my database. So, if one were to look at my database, they wouldn't need that additional information. In the Online Version of the same file, there is a link to that image, but you need a subscription to see it. AND since these images are on other (and some times free) websites with search engines, do I need to include the image numbers at all.

I ask, be cause I get lots of questions on my blog, OR people read my blog and they think I know what I am talking about, I want to be a close as possible in what I post.

Thank you,

Russ

Submitted byrworthingtonon Mon, 04/06/2015 - 17:35

Dear Editor,

OK, I got my QuickSheet, Citing Ancestry.com® Databases & Images, cleaned my glasses, and really looked at page 2. Wow, was I way off. Let me try one more time:

 

1930 U.S. census, population schedule, New Jersey, Bergen County, Englewood, supervisory district: 3, enumeration district 2 - 54, sheet number 3A and 3B (written), 89 Engle Street, dwelling number 29A, family number 90, Lines 48 - 50 and 51 - 55, Julia H Sautelle household; digital image, Ancestry.com (hpp://www.ancestry.com : accessed 31 March 2015), citing FHL microfilm 2341046, image 961.0 and 962.0, NARA microfilm publication T626, roll 1311.

 

I think I put the Image numbers in the right place, based on the information provided by Ancestry.

"Year: 1930; Census Place: Englewood, Bergen, New Jersey; Roll: 1311; Page:3A; Enumeration District: 0054; Image: 961.0; FHL microfilm: 2341046"

I sure must have liked semi-colons. I should have studied writing / english a lot harder is school or paid attention.

If this is a little closer, I have a lot of work ahead to clean up the mess. But, it's worth it.

Thank you.

Russ

Submitted byEEon Mon, 04/06/2015 - 21:07

Russ, there are all sorts of info graphics on how seldom semicolons get used on the Internet. Obviously, you were just trying to help out that underappreciated punctuation mark.

 

Submitted byrworthingtonon Mon, 04/06/2015 - 22:30

Dear Editor,

As my cousin, DearMYRTLE would say "<< giggle, giggle >>"

Thank you,

Russ