Citation Issues

Dear Editor,

In my genealogy database program, I have links to a profiles on several "online tree websites". I have this so that I know that I have a profile on that "other" website and may need to update it, as I update my own database. That process has become very helpful. Not only do I know I need to update that online tree, but can look at that online tree for other resources.

Is there a hard and fast rule or recommendation for the number of footnotes applied to support any one element?

For example:   5 documents support a person's name, are all the footnotes ALWAYS applied to each element.  Name, Name1,2,3,4,5

1 birth certificate 2 death certificate 3 marriage license 4 census 5 census

If all 5 are not used, how do you decide how many to use?

Thank you,

Paula Smith

The subject and all of their information has been cited fully and well.  However, the subject's parents who are merely listed as John (abt 1880 - 1914) and Jane (1885-1920) are harder.  There was no direct evidence to indicate proven birth/death information.  It was through little, mini proof statements that their life events were documented through a lot of analysis.

MY QUESTION IS, How do I site years of census', tomb stones, newspapers, and such that created the argument for their b/d information?

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I was wondering if there were any privacy issues with citing a living person's birth certificate. I know you shouldn't share the birth certificate itself, but is there a problem with sharing the birth certificate number as you would in a citation?

Dear Editor;

I'm finding it difficult to come up with a good first layer for citing one of my "unusual" family artifacts and could use some advice on how to handle it.

Dear Editor;

Would you clarify a small issue for me regarding the ordering of information for newspaper articles?

I tend to have many reference to a newspaper of a particular name. So; I prefer to emphasize the newspaper, rather than the article title. In a previous post, you addressed a case in which there was no author. However; I do have some cases that have an author and want to place it in the appropriate position.

Dear Editor,

I wanted to ask a question about why different QCM show dates in parenthesis, yet "similar items" are not.

Journal Articles show dates in parenthesis, QCM 779, 780, 781.

Magazine Articles show dates in parenthesis, QCM 782.

Newspaper Articles show dates in parenthesis, QCM 784

But Newspaper Articles, QCM 785, 786 are not.

I have read 2.70, 14.7 and 14.9, but I still don't understand why some dates are shown in parenthesis and others are not.

I know there was a similar question recently regarding this issue but I think the foreign language confused me. I know there are supposed to be layers to a citation. 

I guess in this case, that would be the original document. Then the layer when that document was microfilmed by the NC Archives? Then the layer where those records were digitized and a database was created by a third party. Or maybe I have them in the wrong order?

Frederick Godcharles wrote a syndicated daily column for newspapers. The article I'm citing appeared in multiple Pennsylvania newspapers on 16 September 1924.  I chose this newspaper because I was capturing the image and this newspaper had the clearest print and the most compact column form.

FHL DGS 7595725 ("Town and vital records, 1727-1892") (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QSQ-G9NW-RK5) includes images of a volume entitled "Births, Marriages, Deaths: Town of Kennebunk" (book cover is image 7).  This appears to be, at least in part, a Record Copy (EE, 1st ed., 1.27 and 8.5), rather than an original register, based on my assessment that over 100 years of birth records (1745-1883, images 11-59) appear to be in the same handwriting.  Having said that, there are many additional entries, especially in the later years, that are of others' writing.