Forums
I'm somewhat confused on how to cite vital records located at the Wisconsin Historical Society, Library and Archives (WHSLA). This actually pertains to using a mixture of the society's information on the film box and the filmer's target information.
Example: Centenial [sic] Washington Jerry, b. 27 May 1877
The WHSLA microfilm box reads "Pre-1907 Wisconsin Births, Barron County, Reel 3 Record 1904, through, Reel 6 Record 851, 3B." There are no "reel" numbers on the film, and I don't remember seeing any divisions in the film that would point to different reels. As far as I could tell, the records are arranged chronologically for the most part. And "3B" is the boxes unique number given it by the society.
The filmer's target reads "State Historical Society, Madison, Wis., Barron County, Wisconsin, Registration of Births, Item no. 2." I didn't see a FHL number before the target, but according to FamilySearch the film is no. 1,306,421. My subjects birth record is on page 1 following the filmer's target. It is record number 1905. As I mentioned previously, I don't rememer seeing divisions in the film, such as item 3, 4 or 5. (I did a lot of research while there, so it's a bit of a blur.)
Citation:
Barron County, Wisconsin, Registration of Births, p. 1, record 1905, Centenial [sic] Washington Jerry, 27 May 1877; microfilm 3B, Wisconsin Historical Society Library and Archives (WHSLA), Madison.
Should I add the item number after the film number? That is, "microfilm 3B, item 2." If so, it seems I would be citing both the cover of the box and the filmer's target.
This goes for marriage records too. The box has the usual Pre-1907 . . . , but adds information such as "vol. 1, page 1 to 160," and the filmer's target will add additional information, such as the years "1852–1858." So an example of a marriage record citation would be:
Rock County, Wisconsin, Registration of Marriages, vol. 1 (1852–1858):103, entry no. 12, Fredrick Garlt–Mary Magee, 1866; microfilm 254M [item no.?], Wisconsin Historical Society Library and Archives (WHSLA), Madison.
Thank you.
chmcgee:
chmcgee:
Just to clarify for readers: given that you're citing a microfilm edition of an original record, we need a multi-layered citation. The first layer is the citation to the original. The second is the identification of the form in which you've used it.
Layer 1: The original record
Given that the records are subdivided by county, the better model for this would seem to be EE's QuickCheck Model on p. 426, "Local Records: Vital-Records Register."
Layer 2: The microfilm edition
If I understand you correctly, this is where your questions lie. According to the WorldCat catalog entry for this film, the filming was done by the Genealogical Society of Utah; therefore it should be cited using that defunct agency's FHL catalog number and the item number on the roll that GSU assigned. EE's models at 9.43 and 9.46 would seem to work for you.
EE,
EE,
Considering your information, I came up with the following citations,
Birth record:
Barron County, "Pre-1907 Wisconsin Births," p. 1, record 1905, registration for Centenial [sic] Washington Jerry (1877); microfilm 3B, Wisconsin Historical Society Library and Archives (WHSLA), Madison; FHL microfilm 1,306,421.
Marriage record:
Rock County, "Pre-1907 Wisconsin Marriage Records," vol. 1, p. 103, entry no. 12, Fredrick Garlt–Mary Magee, 1866; microfilm 254M, Wisconsin Historical Society Library and Archives (WHSLA), Madison; FHL microfilm 1,275,527.
In both citations I left out the item number since neither roll cites multiple items, as explained in EE 2.28. I did not cite extra information on the film box as I consider it unnecessary; e.g., "Reel 3 Record 1904, through, Reel 6 Record 851," for the birth record, and "page 1 to 160," for the marriage record. (Although, I did use the volume number for the marriage record since there are two volumes.) Finally, I felt I should add the year of the event after the name(s). It just seems right. But what's the significance in using parenthesis or not, such as in EE 9.32 vs. 9.33, First Reference Note, 3.
Chuck
OK... I'll add another layer
OK... I'll add another layer to this. An index to delayed birth records in North Carolina. The original index is attributed, I believe, to the Register of Deeds in the county of interest (Rutherford County, in this case). These indexes were filmed by the North Carolina State Archives. And finally, the films have been digitized and were found on Ancestry.com. Here is Ancestry's source info:
Ancestry.com. North Carolina, Birth Indexes, 1800-2000 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2005.
Original data: Register of Deeds. North Carolina Birth Indexes. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina State Archives. Microfilm.
The image also gives the volume of index (1880-1959) and the roll number (NCVR_B_C_086_68001)
So.... a triple layer citation? To the original index, then the microfilm, then Ancestry?
Triple-layer citations?
Triple-layer citations? Absolutely, Greg. Whatever it takes to explain the nature of the record and its chain of provenance. You'll find examples of those in EE also.
Let me first say how helpful
Let me first say how helpful this site and the forums have been! I have come across one I'm still a little unsure of though. It's a birth certificate on FamilySearch that's a digitized version of an FHL microfilm citing a state record that is held by the Delaware Public Archives. This is what I've come up with so far, but I feel like I'm missing something; any suggestions welcome!
Delaware Department of Health and Social Services, Office of Vital Statistics, birth certificate 601 (1923), William Rodgers; digial images, FamilySearch, “Delaware State Birth Records, 1861-1922” (https:// familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-266-11025-60018-28?cc= : accessed 8 February 2015) citing Delaware Public Archives, Dover; FHL microfilm 1,944,143.
Laura, thanks for the thumbs
Laura, thanks for the thumbs-up. Do invite all your friends and fellow-researchers to join us here.
You've done a quite good job with a multi-layered citation. You identified the original document (image) in the first layer, the website that provided it in the second layer, and then the source of the source. Anyone reading your citation should be able to understand exactly what you used, be ablle to evaluate it; and have a breadcrumb trail to follow back to the original.
Formwise, we might tweak a couple of points:
The citation might be a bit clearer to say:
Delaware Department of Health and Social Services, Office of Vital Statistics, birth certificate 601 (1923), William Rodgers; from "Delaware State Birth Records, 1862-1922," database with images, FamilySearch (https:// familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-266-11025-60018-28?cc= : accessed 8 February 2015), imaged from FHL microfilm 1,944,143; citing "Hall of Records, Dover."
At the end, I've substituted "Hall of Records," because this is the exact phrase that FS cites. We may know, from our own experience, that Delaware Public Archives is the current name of the old Hall of Records. But if we are saying that FS cites thus-and-such, then we need to cite exactly what FS has cited. If we want to record in our citation what the new name is, then that third layer of our citation might be something like one of these below:
... citing "Hall of Records [now Delaware Public Archives], Dover."
... citing "Hall of Records, Dover," a repository now known as Delaware Public Archives.