Citing Ships Manifests ... A citation style question

Dear Editor;

I've finally started to get a fair amount of my records cited, transcribed and filed. I have recently been reviewing my citations of ship's manifests, because (hopefully) I've learned a bit since I did them. 

In doing some of my recent citations, I've noticed the use of citation statements like "; imaging ...." This form was utilized on the forums, but I don't see it when searching in the EE book (3rd ed.) I believe the instance I remember was in imaged books of the Scottish Calendar of Confirmations.

That said; it appears that it is most useful when a full document has been imaged and one wishes to refer to just a few images within that document.

I put together the following trial citation for one of the ship's manifests and would appreciate some feedback from yourself and others before proceeding with others.

Source List Entry

"UK, Outward Passenger Lists, 1890-1960." Database and images. Ancestryhttps://search.ancestry.ca/search/db.aspx?dbid=2997: 2019.

First Reference

"UK, Outward Passenger Lists, 1890-1960," database and images, Ancestry (https://search.ancestry.ca/search/db.aspx?dbid=2997 : downloaded 25 April 2019), images 32 (passenger list entries for "J B" [T B] Murison and David Murison) and 50 (summary showing destination); imaging manifest of Columbia, departed Glasgow 10 March 1906 for New York; citing “Board of Trade: Commercial and Statistical Department and successors: Outwards Passenger Lists,” BT27 [TNA reference], The National Archives (TNA), Kew, Richmond, Surrey, England. 

Subsequent Note

"UK, Outward Passenger Lists, 1890-1960," Ancestry, images 32 (passenger entries for "J B" [T B] Murison and David Murison) and 50 (summary showing  destination); imaging manifest of Columbia, departed Glasgow 10 March 1906 for New York.

Submitted byEEon Fri, 07/05/2019 - 14:36

History-Hunter,

When we create a citation for an imaged copy online, we use descriptors and linking words that are grammatically correct and precise for the situation. Any formulaic word might be correct in one instance and not in another.

In the example that you give, after you say that you are using a database and images, and then you add that you are specifically using images 32 and 50, there's no need to invoke imaging a third time by creating a new layer that begins "imaging manifest of Columbia." When we access the pages you reference, we can specifically see the name of the ship, the date, the place of departure, and the destination. All of that can go in the one layer in which we identify the database and the image we’re using and seeing there at that database. 

Put another way, we only need two layers in the citation:  

  • one to cite the database and the specific image(s) it offers;
  • one to say that the database is “citing [thus-and-such which is not visible on the image].”

There is, however, a different issue with your proposed citation that needs thinking through. You say …

“UK, Outward Passenger Lists, 1890-1960,” database and images, Ancestry (https://search.ancestry.ca/search/db.aspx?dbid=2997 : downloaded 25 April 2019), images 32 … and 50 …”

That begs a question: Images 32 and 50 of what?

  • Images 32 and 50 of the database?  No, that can’t be it because that database has many different images numbered 32 and 50. 
  • Images 32 and 50 of the SS Columbia list? No, because the list is not that long. (Also, if we were citing pages of the Columbia list, we would cite the page number used on that list, not the image in the database.) When we examine the “set” of 158 images that include 32 and 50, we see that image 1 of that set of images is for the SS Caledonia, image 24 is for the SS Concordia, etc. 

In this case, the path that Ancestry places at the top of the image tells us that images are grouped by month and that images 32 and 50 represent various ship lists for the month of March. 

Considering these issues, EE would adapt your first reference note citation this way:

“UK, Outward Passenger Lists, 1890-1960,” database and images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.ca/search/collections/ukoutwardpassengerlists/ : downloaded 25 April 2019) > Glasgow > 1906 > March, passenger list, SS Columbia, Glasgow to New York departing 10 March 1906, entries for JB Murison and David Murison, image 32 (also image 50 for summary showing destination); citing “Board of Trade: Commercial and Statistical Department and successors: Outwards Passenger Lists. BT27. Records of the Commercial, Companies, Labour, Railways and Statistics Departments … The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, England.

Incidentally, when  I clicked on your dbid link, Ancestry acted wonky. When it finally let me into the site, it changed your dbid URL to  https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/ukoutwardpassengerlists/. A small part of that alteration is due to my Ancestry subscription being U.S. based, while yours is Canadian based. But Ancestry also eliminated the techy “db.aspx?dbid=2997” and substituted a word-based URL. 

Submitted byHistory-Hunteron Fri, 07/05/2019 - 16:46

Dear editor;

Thank you for your reply.

This is what I had originally:

Source List Entry

"UK, Outward Passenger Lists, 1890-1960." Database (partially indexed) with browsable images. Ancestryhttps://www.ancestry.ca/search/collections/ukoutwardpassengerlists: 2019.

First Reference

"UK, Outward Passenger Lists, 1890-1960," Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.ca/search/collections/ukoutwardpassengerlists: downloaded 25 April 2019) > Glasgow [port] > 1906 [year] > March [month], browsable images, image 32, Columbia, departed Glasgow on 10 March 1906, bound for New York, entries for T.B and David Murison; citing “Board of Trade: Commercial and Statistical Department and successors: Outwards Passenger Lists,” BT27 [TNA reference], The National Archives (TNA), Kew, Richmond, Surrey, England. See also image 50, which is the summary page of the passenger list and attests to the port of departure as being Glasgow.

Subsequent Note

"UK, Outward Passenger Lists, 1890-1960," Ancestry, Passenger List for the Columbia departing Glasgow in March 1906, image 32.

You will notice the similarity to what you suggested. The "partially index" wording is there to reflect that not all images are indexed and accessible via the search engine. (Admittedly; there are still tweaks to be made in the wording.)

That said; I am not sure why exactly you chose to use the "trail of breadcrumbs" method. The Ancestry database has both a search-engine access and a hierarchal access method. Can you explain your reasoning so that I can apply it elsewhere?

Originally; I chose the hierarchal approach, solely to divorce my image access from the search engine indexing errors that I've been finding. I often found the names did not reflect the names shown in the image. So; If I can better understand your reasoning, I'd more than happy to continue using it.

As for the database root path... In some databases, what passes for a name in the path string is almost gibberish. (here it wasn't so bad at all.) So; I tried to use the database Id instead. Having been in software engineering, I recognized it as being a simple access to a look-up table of the current URLs. When one accesses the link, the aspx code looks up the current URL and goes to that page. This allows one to localize the configuration that needs to be done in maintaining the site. I don't think that these Ids are all that likely to change. In fact, I'd actually expect the explicit URL to be more variable. In addition, the database Id is also used in mining the database for "hints" relating to ones online Ancestry tree. So; recording it in the citations does have a bit of added value. That said; I do view it as a personal choice and was just experimenting with a  change to that method.

I'm not sure why you found "Ancestry acted wonky". The Ancestry card catalog actually utilizes links with the Database Id embedded. You can see it by looking at the embedded links. I'm assuming you've had no issues with the catalog? If you have, I think Ancestry really needs to know about it. It would seriously impact their card catalog.

Submitted byEEon Fri, 07/05/2019 - 20:45

H-H, you ask:

That said; I am not sure why exactly you chose to use the "trail of breadcrumbs" method. The Ancestry database has both a search-engine access and a hierarchal access method. Can you explain your reasoning so that I can apply it elsewhere?

In this case, I chose the path approach because you cited image numbers and I had broached the need to explain what the image numbers represented. If we use the search-engine approach, then it takes us directly to the one image in question, removing the need to specify which image one should choose. In the latter case, when a passenger list has numbered pages, it would also be wise to identify the page number.

As for why Ancestry acted wonky when I used your dbid URL: who knows!  For about 15 tries on four different browsers, it kept bumping me out and defaulting to a "join Ancestry" screen even though I was logged in with each browser. Perhaps it was a technical problem with Ancestry. I just thought I should mention it, given the question you posed a week or so ago in another forum asking about the use of dbid URLs at Ancestry in lieu of the URL that carried the database name.

Submitted byHistory-Hunteron Fri, 07/05/2019 - 21:56

Dear Editor;

Thank you for your explanation.

I've also been thinking about what you said and the following occurred to me.

  1. If there are relevant images in the collection and they are not accessible via the search engine, then the "trail of breadcrumbs method" needs to be applied. This is because there is no other way to reach those "hidden" images. If one is accessing an image that is searchable, one could choose to use the search engine (but, actually, either method would work).
  2. I read, in one of the chapters of EE, that you cautioned people about "correcting" errors in spelling when accessing databases, because it would affect the ability to locate the record again. In your recent example, I noted that you didn't need to show corrections to the names, because you were referring to what one would see in viewing the image. To me, this seems a very clean way of dealing with situations involving erroneous transcriptions.

I do appreciate the time you've spent on this issue. It's been causing me quite a bit of concern. Now I'm in a position to move ahead on about 20 or 30 manifests mentioning the Murison's. They really seemed to travelled a lot.​

Submitted byHistory-Hunteron Sat, 07/06/2019 - 10:02

Dear Editor;

Upon updating my citation as you suggested, I noted two small items for which I'd like to request clarification.

  1. In the image of the passenger list, there is no indication of the Columbia being designated a Steamship (S.S.). I've others that have a similar issue, but my reference books tell me they are designated as Royal Mail Ships (R.M.S.).  Should we locate and add such info to a citation?
  2. When we choose the "To emphasize the database and website" form of a First Reference Note, should the Subsequent Note revert to the "To emphasize the original manifest" form or follow the form established in the First Reference Note?

Submitted byEEon Sat, 07/06/2019 - 11:54

H-H, re your Question 1:

There was an RMS Columba but that was a different ship from the Columbia. The SS Columbia's history is a tangle I've worked through before. The ship by that name, which made voyages between Glasgow and New York in that era, is referenced only as a steamship in the sources I've seen. I'm attaching two of them.  On 9 January 1906, the NY Times (p. 12) referenced its arrival from Glasgow and explicitly identified it as "SS Columbia."

On 19 March 1906 the NYT announced the arrival of the voyage on which your David Murison is listed as a passenger. That day, NYT (p. 1)  refers to it as "steamship."

As you probably know, the Ellis Island website also offers descriptions, histories, and images of vessels that brought immigrants, but its details for the SS Columbia are a mess. I'll use that as an example on EE's Facebook page shortly.

Submitted byEEon Sat, 07/06/2019 - 11:57

H-H, re Question 2:

For clarity, our subsequent notes should lead with the first words used for that source in the First (Full) Reference Note. If we pick wording from somewhere in the middle of the First Ref Note, it will be hard for others (or ourselves at a later date when our recollection of the source has grown cold) to match the Subsequent Ref to the full note.

Submitted byHistory-Hunteron Sat, 07/06/2019 - 12:08

Dear Editor;

Thank you for your answers. 

 

So; One can add S.S or whatever is appropriate, provided one has checked. I have a book from archive.org that has helped a great deal in this regard:

"Trans-Atlantic Passenger Ships -- Past and Present (Eugene W. Smith)"

archive.org/details/transatlanticpas00smitrich

 

The other answer makes perfect sense, but I thought I'd best check.

 

Yes. Because ship names are italicized—as are titles of standalone publications—identifying the italicized name as a ship helps to prevent confusion. On most rolls, SS" is stated. On other rolls it's not, in which case we can simply state that its a ship.

Submitted byEEon Thu, 07/11/2019 - 09:37

Thanks, H-H, for taking the time to add the book reference to help others. The last reference is working for me.