The short answer is: The principle is to cite what one has actually used. If you've downloaded an image from Ancestry, it's a good idea to also capture the meager source information they provide, and NARA's microfilm number is usually part of the "original information" section. I should also mention that there are some cases where multiple copies of the US Federal Census exist, because copies were made to send to the state *and* to the Federal Government. NARA's copy will be the Federal one; where state copies survive, those will not be the same original source. So yes, we also need to record the jurisdiction and other details in case someone wants to find the equivalent household record in both copies. Jan Jan Murphy packrat74@gmail.com On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Adrian Bruce <abruce6155@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 3 January 2016 at 19:08, Jan Murphy via < > family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: > >> Adrian -- could you explain what you meant when you said "why *do* so many >> Americans record the microfilm number of a census when they've downloaded >> it from Ancestry?" ? >> >> > Jan - I did mean the NARA microfilm number. It seemed odd to me that it > was thought necessary to quote such an item, when it had played no part in > obtaining the image. However, as I sort of indicated, I was presuming that > it was possible to use jurisdictional details, enumeration districts, etc., > and the various forms of page number(s) to locate the "same" page in > another company's images. If it isn't, or if the NARA film number simply > makes it easier to find the image, then that's a good reason. I'm also > assuming (oops) that each census was only filmed once... > > Your use of the NARA Reference Information Papers sounds an excellent > reason for using the NARA film number (I think we've had this bit of the > conversation before in another place). > > Adrian >