Hi, I would welcome some advice on the best way to use Citations, Sources and Repositories. For example, let's say I have just found the following page: What do I put where in my citations, sources and repositories? This web page could be a citation for:  - Eleanor Gibbes  - Alexander Gibbes  - Sarah Gibbes (we don't know her maiden name)  - Eleanor's birth  - Alexander's residence on 6-Jul-1785  - Sarah's residence on 6-Jul-1785 Where do I put:  - the URL of this page  - that the original source was England and Wales Non-Conformist Record Indexes (RG4-8), 1588-1977  - a transcript of all the information on this page  - an image of this page If I create separate citations for each event, and put all this information into the citations, then I will have to enter it all 6 times, which seems very inefficient. If I create a separate source for this web page, and refer to it in each of the 6 citations, then I avoid the previous problem, but now I have to have a separate source for every single FamilySearch page that I use. And what do I put in the Respository? Thanks for your advice - Rowan

On 2/8/2019 10:43 AM, Rowan Sylvester-Bradley wrote: > I would welcome some advice on the best way to use Citations, Sources > and Repositories. Rowan, As has been said by experts, creating citations is as much an art as a science, so you will no doubt get a number of responses, some of them contradictory with others. The following are my ideas. > For example, let's say I have just found the following page: > > What do I put where in my citations, sources and repositories? > > This web page could be a citation for: >  - Eleanor Gibbes >  - Alexander Gibbes >  - Sarah Gibbes (we don't know her maiden name) The page has what information about them? Their names? if so you enter the citation to their Name Tags. Their relationships to a parent or child? If so you enter the citation on the Relationship Tags. Or something else? >  - Eleanor's birth Her birth Tag. >  - Alexander's residence on 6-Jul-1785 >  - Sarah's residence on 6-Jul-1785 Create a Living or Residence Tag and cite it there. > Where do I put: >  - the URL of this page What kind of a page is this? Someone's personal website? A database like those found on Ancestry or FamilySearch? A transcript or image of a prior published work? Someone's tree on a website? For most of them I don't include a URL because in my experience they tend to change often. If it's a private cite I create a Source for it using a variation of the Electronic Database Tag Type and put the URL there. If it's a database on Ancestry or the like I create a Source for the database that includes what is listed as the provenance of the database, and Ancestry's main URL, not one specific to the database or record because those often seem to change. >  - that the original source was England and Wales Non-Conformist > Record Indexes (RG4-8), 1588-1977 It depends on how you create the Source you use for the Citation. If the Source describes only this page and that original source applies to everything there, put that in the Comments section for the source. If it applies only to part of the information for which this Source is cited put it in the CD of the Citation. >  - a transcript of all the information on this page >  - an image of this page Again, depends on what kind of page. If it's a database on Ancestry, FamilySearch, etc. I record none of that except in the CD of the Citation, and only then if what the source differs in any way from what I record. That is, does my Tag have more information than what's on the page, or different information. If the page contains images of original sources I save the image on my computer, not in TMG. If it's text, like an obituary, I save either a copy of the page, an image of it, or copy the text to a file on mly computer. Not in TMG. > > If I create separate citations for each event, and put all this > information into the citations, then I will have to enter it all 6 > times, which seems very inefficient. Yes, but accurate. Assuming you don't normally settle for a single source for the information you record for a person, you need citations for each Tag to know which sources confirm others, conflict with others, and which information come from each so you can evaluate the information as you find additional sources. > If I create a separate source for this web page, and refer to it in > each of the 6 citations, then I avoid the previous problem, but now I > have to have a separate source for every single FamilySearch page that > I use. Again, what do you mean by "a page"? Are you talking images of source documents, database entries, or trees? If it's an image of a document cite the document, noting you found an image of it on FamilySearch. If it's a database, first see if you can find the document it came from. If the image is associated cite the document in the image, not the database. Many (most? ) films in the FHL are now on FamilySearch and you can view them even if they are not linked to the database (may take a bit of searching). If you find them, cite them and not the database. If I'm stuck citing a database I create a Source for each database, and record in the CD "record for Eleanor Gibbes" or the like and any reference or citation details that are offered. In any case I never find the concept of a "page" on FamilySearch something to cite. Terry Reigel

Terry, Many thanks for your useful ideas on this. I've added a few comments below in all caps (just to distinguish my comments, not because I'm shouting - normally I would use an innocuous color like green, but I understand that Rootsweb discards all colors). On 08/02/19 18:05, Terry Reigel wrote: > On 2/8/2019 10:43 AM, Rowan Sylvester-Bradley wrote: >> I would welcome some advice on the best way to use Citations, Sources >> and Repositories. > > Rowan, > > As has been said by experts, creating citations is as much an art as a > science, so you will no doubt get a number of responses, some of them > contradictory with others. The following are my ideas. > >> For example, let's say I have just found the following page: >> >> What do I put where in my citations, sources and repositories? >> >> This web page could be a citation for: >>  - Eleanor Gibbes >>  - Alexander Gibbes >>  - Sarah Gibbes (we don't know her maiden name) > The page has what information about them? I TRIED TO ATTACH THE PAGE > BUT THIS OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T WORK, SORRY. THE PAGE IS AT > http://sylvesterbradley.org/images/eleanor_gibbes_birth.jpg (UNLESS > ROOTSWEB DELETES ALL LINKS TOO) Their names? YES if so you enter the > citation to their Name Tags. Their relationships to a parent or child? > YES If so you enter the citation on the Relationship Tags. Or > something else? >>  - Eleanor's birth > Her birth Tag. >>  - Alexander's residence on 6-Jul-1785 >>  - Sarah's residence on 6-Jul-1785 > Create a Living or Residence Tag and cite it there. >> Where do I put: >>  - the URL of this page > What kind of a page is this? IT'S A PAGE FROM FAMILYSEARCH, PRESUMABLY > THE RESULT OF A DATABASE SEARCH. Someone's personal website? A > database like those found on Ancestry or FamilySearch? A transcript or > image of a prior published work? Someone's tree on a website? For most > of them I don't include a URL because in my experience they tend to > change often. YES, I UNDERSTAND THIS POINT, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT > MAY BE USEFUL TO GIVE THE ORIGINAL URL, AND TO HAVE A COPY (EITHER AN > IMAGE, OR A COPY OF THE WEB PAGE) IN ONE'S OWN COMPUTER IN CASE THE > ORIGINAL DISAPPEARS. If it's a private cite I create a Source for it > using a variation of the Electronic Database Tag Type and put the URL > there. If it's a database on Ancestry or the like I create a Source > for the database that includes what is listed as the provenance of the > database, and Ancestry's main URL, not one specific to the database or > record because those often seem to change. >>  - that the original source was England and Wales Non-Conformist >> Record Indexes (RG4-8), 1588-1977 > It depends on how you create the Source you use for the Citation. If > the Source describes only this page and that original source applies > to everything there, put that in the Comments section for the source. > If it applies only to part of the information for which this Source is > cited put it in the CD of the Citation. I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT > TO PUT IN THE DETAIL SECTION, AND WHAT IN THE MEMO SECTION. >>  - a transcript of all the information on this page >>  - an image of this page > Again, depends on what kind of page. If it's a database on Ancestry, > FamilySearch, etc. I record none of that except in the CD of the > Citation SORRY, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT IS THE 'CD' OF A CITATION?, and > only then if what the source differs in any way from what I record. > That is, does my Tag have more information than what's on the page, or > different information. If the page contains images of original sources > I save the image on my computer, not in TMG  - MY END OBJECTIVE IS TO > CREATE A WEBSITE USING SECOND-SITE THAT ALL MY FAMILY (AND ANYONE ELSE > WHO IS INTERESTED) CAN LOOK AT. FOR THIS TO DO ITS JOB PROPERLY, IT > SEEMS TO ME THAT I NEED TO CREATE ALL THESE IMAGES, COPIES OF WEB > PAGES ETC AS EXTERNAL EXHIBITS SO SECOND-SITE WILL INCLUDE THEM. > BASICALLY I'D L:IKE THE SS WEBSITE TO CONTAIN _ALL_ MY INFORMATION. If > it's text, like an obituary, I save either a copy of the page, an > image of it, or copy the text to a file on mly computer. Not in TMG. DITTO >> >> If I create separate citations for each event, and put all this >> information into the citations, then I will have to enter it all 6 >> times, which seems very inefficient. > Yes, but accurate. SURELY DUPLICATED INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE > NECESSARY FOR ACCURACY? Assuming you don't normally settle for a > single source for the information you record for a person, you need > citations for each Tag to know which sources confirm others, conflict > with others, and which information come from each so you can evaluate > the information as you find additional sources. >> If I create a separate source for this web page, and refer to it in >> each of the 6 citations, then I avoid the previous problem, but now I >> have to have a separate source for every single FamilySearch page >> that I use. > > Again, what do you mean by "a page"? Are you talking images of source > documents, database entries, or trees? IN THIS CASE, A DATABASE ENTRY > I SUPPOSE. If it's an image of a document cite the document, noting > you found an image of it on FamilySearch. If it's a database, first > see if you can find the document it came from. If the image is > associated cite the document in the image, not the database. Many > (most? ) films in the FHL are now on FamilySearch and you can view > them even if they are not linked to the database (may take a bit of > searching). If you find them, cite them and not the database. > > If I'm stuck citing a database I create a Source for each database, > and record in the CD "record for Eleanor Gibbes" or the like and any > reference or citation details that are offered. > > In any case I never find the concept of a "page" on FamilySearch > something to cite. > > Terry Reigel > > MANY THANKS _ ROWAN > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/tmg@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY  Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal > RootsWeb community -- -- Rowan Sylvester-Bradley 22 Fox Green Great Bradley Newmarket Suffolk CB8 9NR United Kingdom Phone: 01440 783157 Email: rowan@sylvesterbradley.org

On 2/8/2019 1:52 PM, Rowan Sylvester-Bradley wrote: > The page has what information about them? I TRIED TO ATTACH THE PAGE > BUT THIS OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T WORK, SORRY. THE PAGE IS AT > http://sylvesterbradley.org/images/eleanor_gibbes_birth.jpg Rowan, OK, I got your image and found the page on FamilySearch. This record is a database entry, an index to the original record. So it's not really a "source" but just points you to one. The "proper" think to do with this is to record it as your source temporarily and find the original record. Then cite that and exclude your initial citation to the index record. This index is not to images that can be found on FamilySearch but to the Public Record Office in London. Someone familiar with British records could suggest how that might be done. In reality you may not want to do that depending on how important this person is to your research and the cost and difficulty of getting a copy of the original. > For most of them I don't include a URL because in my experience they > tend to change often. YES, I UNDERSTAND THIS POINT, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME > THAT IT MAY BE USEFUL TO GIVE THE ORIGINAL URL, AND TO HAVE A COPY > (EITHER AN IMAGE, OR A COPY OF THE WEB PAGE) IN ONE'S OWN COMPUTER IN > CASE THE ORIGINAL DISAPPEARS. That's your choice of course. I don't see the point in recording the detailed URL. Part of the reason is the detailed URL is way too long. Do you want something like this in every footnote: https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?count=20&query=%2Bgivenname%3Aeleanor~%20%2Bsurname%3AGibbes~%20%2Bbirth_place%3Amiddlesex~%20%2Bbirth_year%3A1785-1785~ And of course there is little reason to believe it will work in a few years. Rather, I would create a Source that identifies the database and provides as a URL only familysearch.org, and in the Citation Detail the name of the person in the record, in this case Eleanor Gibbes. Then anyone who cares can find it by searching that database for that name. Keeping an image of the record is again a matter of preference. In my view there is precious little in these records, so I'm happy simply recording the data that's there in the tag. And, as I said, if what I record is in any way different I make a note of that in the Citation Details field in the Citation so it appears in the footnote. >  I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT TO PUT IN THE DETAIL SECTION, AND WHAT > IN THE MEMO SECTION. There are at least three places you can record details. Information about the Source itself, which applies to everything in the source, can be put in the Comments section on the Supplemental tab of the Source Definition screen. Then be sure the [COMMENTS] Source Element appears in at least the Full Footnote template so it will appear in the output. It's not in all the default templates. If I were creating a Source for this database for example, I'd note that it's an index of record Group RG5, and cites Baptist Church records. Information about the record from a specific record in the database can go in either the Memo field of the tag or in the Citation Detail field. Put it in the Memo if it's important enough that you want it in the body of the person's page, and put it in the CD if you want it to appear in the footnotes. What you put in the Memo is not linked to a specific Source, do you must relate it to the source by what you enter if that's relevant. Our you might just say "some sources say..." What you put in the CD is automatically associated with the Source, so that's generally the place for details that are specific to this one source. >  MY END OBJECTIVE IS TO CREATE A WEBSITE USING SECOND-SITE THAT ALL MY > FAMILY (AND ANYONE ELSE WHO IS INTERESTED) CAN LOOK AT. FOR THIS TO DO > ITS JOB PROPERLY, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT I NEED TO CREATE ALL THESE > IMAGES, COPIES OF WEB PAGES ETC AS EXTERNAL EXHIBITS SO SECOND-SITE > WILL INCLUDE THEM. BASICALLY I'D L:IKE THE SS WEBSITE TO CONTAIN _ALL_ > MY INFORMATION. I think that's a great objective. A site created with Second Site that includes images of sources is a very nice, complete, package. Where we may differ is in what we view as a "source." In my view a database record is not really a source, but a clue about where to find the source. If I decide to never find the real source (and I do decide that for more distant relatives if getting it is difficult) I record the database record, but I don't see the point in including an image of it as part of a website. > Yes, but accurate. SURELY DUPLICATED INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE > NECESSARY FOR ACCURACY? I think it is. Are you going to be satisfied with this one record as a source for all the entries for these three people? I'd guess not. I'd suppose you will find other records for each of them, and they will have different information. Perhaps the marriage or death date of Eleanor. Or information about her birth that is the same or different than what's here. Hopefully birth, marriage, and death information for her parents. When you make your website those bits of information (name, relationships, birth, marriage, death, etc.) will appear separately. If you don't cite the several sources you have used how will you or your readers know where you found each piece? If they don't all totally agree how will you or your readers know how to evaluate the differences or conflicts? Second Site will produce one footnote for each different Source/Citation Detail combination for each person. So if the same Source is cited for several different bits of information they will all share the same footnote so long as there isn't anything different in the CD field of the citations. Terry

Hi Rowan, Just because I think source citations are fun, I'll add my thoughts. First, I never like the phrase, "best way to ...." There are very few things that seem to have a single "best way," and one of my favorite aspects of TMG is the fact that it doesn't tell me what the one "best way" is. This is the source citation I would construct for your database entry. It's based on _Evidence Explained_ (1st ed.), QuickCheck Model, p. 165. I haven't double-checked for any changes in the 3rd ed. Note that this is the way I interpret some of Mills's citation principals, not necessarily what she would do with this same record. "England and Wales Non-Conformist Record Indexes (RG4-8), 1588-1977," database, _Family Search_ (https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/1666142 : accessed 8 February 2019), Eleanor Gibbes birth (1785); citing National Archives (Kew) RG 5, General Register Office: Birth Certificates from the Presbyterian, Independent and Baptist Registry and from the Wesleyan Methodist Metropolitan Registry, specifically citing p. 192, Long Alley, St Leonard Shoreditch, Middlesex. * To paraphrase Terry and quote Robert Charles Anderson, "An index is not a source, it's a finding aid." I do agree with this, but until you view the original record, an index or database entry is a record of where you found your information and where you plan to look for a better record. This citation specifies that you saw a database of indexed records, definitely not the best available source. * Although URLs to individual records are long and likely to change, I do like to include the URL to the website collection in such umbrella websites as _FamilySearch_, _Ancestry_, etc. It's up to you to locate that collection URL. * Always read the helps and background information for these collections. The _FamilySearch_ wiki describes each record group included in this collection and gives a link to the UK National Archives' catalog description for each record group. The Eleanor Gibbes entry is identified as a record from RG 5. This information appears in the citation layer beginning "citing National Archives ...." I put this information in the "Comments" section in the Master Source entry. If I also find records in this database from the other included record groups, I would need to create a second Master Source entry for those. You might want to do something less fussy. * The document information on the Eleanor Gibbes entry also includes the specific page and (probably) volume, but I would need to do more investigation to determine exactly how I wanted that entered. This is where I found the information for the line beginning, "specifically citing ...." I put it in a defined CD part. I use the split citation detail feature for many of my source type templates. The date of access and the record entry identification are also placed in the CD. * If you read the UK Archives' information, you will see that electronic images are available on their "partner website," which turns out to _TheGenealogist_. Depending on how critical this person is in your research, you might want to see how many other records on this site you might want, and then subscribe to see them. You need to check out copyright restrictions before posting any images, though. I think these records may be protected by Crown copyright - but don't quote me on that. * You should always check the _FamilySearch_ catalog to see if the records you want have been digitized, but not indexed. It could save you money. Anyway, that summarizes my work flow when crafting these citations. And as Terry said, citation is as much art as science. Susan Johnston On 2/8/2019 11:52 AM, Rowan Sylvester-Bradley wrote: > Terry, > > Many thanks for your useful ideas on this. I've added a few comments > below in all caps (just to distinguish my comments, not because I'm > shouting - normally I would use an innocuous color like green, but I > understand that Rootsweb discards all colors). > > On 08/02/19 18:05, Terry Reigel wrote: >> On 2/8/2019 10:43 AM, Rowan Sylvester-Bradley wrote: >>> I would welcome some advice on the best way to use Citations, >>> Sources and Repositories.

Rowan Sylvester-Bradley wrote: > I would welcome some advice on the best way to use Citations, > Sources and Repositories. First, Rowan, there is no one "best" way. It is up to you how you use them so long as you report the source and repository information in a way that someone else could find this citation. > If I create separate citations for each event, and put all this > information into the citations, then I will have to enter it all 6 > times, which seems very inefficient. > If I create a separate source for this web page, and refer to it in each > of the 6 citations, then I avoid the previous problem, but now I have to > have a separate source for every single FamilySearch page that I use. > And what do I put in the Respository? I am assuming from your example that you are trying to cite data from a pedigree resource web page on Family Search. What I do for such FamilySearch data is first identify FamilySearch as the Repository: Name - Other: LDS On-line Family Search Place Detail: https://www.familysearch.org/ I then have a "lumped" Source for such pedigree resource citations: Title: LDS Pedigree Resource Short title: LDS Pedigree Publisher: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Publisher Address: Salt Lake City, Utah Full Footnote: [ITAL:][TITLE][:ITAL]<, [SUBTITLE]><, [SERIES]><; [CD]>. Cited as [ITAL:][SHORT TITLE][:ITAL]<. [CM]> Short Footnote: [ITAL:][SHORT TITLE][:ITAL]<, [SERIES]><, [CD]><. [CM]> Bibliography: [ITAL:][TITLE][:ITAL]<, [SUBTITLE]><, [SERIES]>. <[PUBLISHER ADDRESS]: >[PUBLISHER]<, [PUBLISH DATE]>. <[REPOSITORY REFERENCE]. >[REPOSITORY]<, [REPOSITORY ADDRESS]><. [ANNOTATION]> So I get only one Bibliography entry from this "lumped" source: LDS Pedigree Resource. Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. LDS On-line FamilySearch, http://www.familysearch.org/. ==================== An example citation to a Birth tag: CD: /ark:/61903/2:2:S5BG-6XH, Margaret Norma Romoyse Sorrick, submission id: MM36-1GH, 11 May 2011 CM: Birth: 16 Jan 1904 Which gives a Full Footnote of: LDS Pedigree Resource; /ark:/61903/2:2:S5BG-6XH, Margaret Norma Romoyse Sorrick, submission id: MM36-1GH, 11 May 2011. Cited as LDS Pedigree. Birth: 16 Jan 1904. Or a citation to an Emigration tag: CD: ark:/61903/2:2:3CS9-WQF, submitted 28 Feb 2016 (file 2:2:2:MMDL-SXC), Johann Wilhelm Stumpfund CM: Entered in Philadelphia, 1753 \[Source: Passenger and Immigration Lists Index, 1500s-1900s, Place: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Year: 1753\] Which gives a Full Footnote of: LDS Pedigree Resource; ark:/61903/2:2:3CS9-WQF, submitted 28 Feb 2016 (file 2:2:2:MMDL-SXC), Johann Wilhelm Stumpfund. Cited as LDS Pedigree. Entered in Philadelphia, 1753 [Source: Passenger and Immigration Lists Index, 1500s-1900s, Place: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Year: 1753] ================== By having the FamilySearch information in the CD, I can just use <[F3]> when citing to multiple tags, and put only the data concerning this tag in the CM. Just my way of doing things. Hope this gives you ideas, Michael

At 2/8/2019 10:43, Rowan Sylvester-Bradley wrote >I would welcome some advice on the best way to use Citations, >Sources and Repositories. For example, let's say I have just found >the following page: Others have given good advice. Let me point out that. I am wondering if you understand the three terms. A Source is simply a description of the document that supports your data and includes enough information for a reader to find the document. The Repository is where the document may be found. Not all Sources require a Repository although a user may include a Repository in a Source for their own use. Citing a Source is the attaching of the Source to the information it is supporting. This may be a Tag or even another Source (e.g., the Source of a Source). A Citation consists of the appropriate Source and any desired specific data (Citation Details) telling where (within the Source) the information was found. Source Citations have three different formats -- Full Footnote (FF), Short Footnote (SF), and Bibliography (B). The FF is the basically what you used in high school. Most professions have source documents that are unique to that profession and thus the design of the citations are different from other kind of documents/books/periodicals/etc. Due to the fact that genealogy encompasses many kinds of source documents from many professions, we tend to see many different Source Types where each type describe a different kind of document. Trying to described all the various standard Source Types in TMG would require a book and maybe two or three. <g> These books are called style manuals and there are probablyu at least a dozen that could be referenced. Two stylebooks pretty well cover most Source Types in TMG. The standard TMG Source Types are modeled after the types descvrbed in Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 1997). This is the go-to style manual for genealogy, and you would do well to acquire a copy (124 pages) or find a copy you can look at from time to time. Mrs. Mills also has published an 885 page style manual that goes a lot deeper in telling how to the various citations are designed and why. It is Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence Explained, Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 2007). Some of the citation models in "Evidence Explained" differ from the similar model in "Evidence!". Which you use is personal preference. I vary in my choices. Lee

Lots of great technical advice. I follow the basic principal that it is important to me to be able to share my work with others to help further their own research. To this end, I try to follow the scientific approach - that all good science must be reproduceable. Therefore, I try to document the source of every fact I add in a way that will give others the means to reproduce my research and confirm the facts I present. After decades of trying to follow this, it wasn't until I tried to put my own book together that recognized the need to produce citations in formats that met the basic criteria of good style systems for publication, as used by the major genealogical journals and publishing houses (e.g., NEHGS and their Register). Let your choice of approaches be guided by your own personal goal. Greg On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 4:55 PM Lee Hoffman <azchief@bellsouth.net> wrote: > At 2/8/2019 10:43, Rowan Sylvester-Bradley wrote > >I would welcome some advice on the best way to use Citations, > >Sources and Repositories. For example, let's say I have just found > >the following page: > > Others have given good advice. Let me point out that. I am > wondering if you understand the three terms. > A Source is simply a description of the document that supports your > data and includes enough information for a reader to find the > document. The Repository is where the document may be found. Not > all Sources require a Repository although a user may include a > Repository in a Source for their own use. Citing a Source is the > attaching of the Source to the information it is supporting. This > may be a Tag or even another Source (e.g., the Source of a > Source). A Citation consists of the appropriate Source and any > desired specific data (Citation Details) telling where (within the > Source) the information was found. > > Source Citations have three different formats -- Full Footnote (FF), > Short Footnote (SF), and Bibliography (B). The FF is the basically > what you used in high school. Most professions have source documents > that are unique to that profession and thus the design of the > citations are different from other kind of > documents/books/periodicals/etc. Due to the fact that genealogy > encompasses many kinds of source documents from many professions, we > tend to see many different Source Types where each type describe a > different kind of document. > > Trying to described all the various standard Source Types in TMG > would require a book and maybe two or three. <g> These books are > called style manuals and there are probablyu at least a dozen that > could be referenced. Two stylebooks pretty well cover most Source > Types in TMG. The standard TMG Source Types are modeled after the > types descvrbed in Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence! Citation & > Analysis for the Family Historian (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing > Company, 1997). This is the go-to style manual for genealogy, and > you would do well to acquire a copy (124 pages) or find a copy you > can look at from time to time. > > Mrs. Mills also has published an 885 page style manual that goes a > lot deeper in telling how to the various citations are designed and > why. It is Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence Explained, Citing History > Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace (Baltimore: Genealogical > Publishing Company, 2007). Some of the citation models in "Evidence > Explained" differ from the similar model in "Evidence!". Which you > use is personal preference. I vary in my choices. > > Lee > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/tmg@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community >

Lee, Thanks for your reply. I understand the three terms in principle. I am just trying to work out the best way of using the features within TMG to hold the information. What I'm trying to achieve is: 1. An efficient way of entering the data. E.g. for a census return, I should not have to enter the same citation data multiple times for each family member, and for multiple tags for each member. 2. All of the citation/source data should be recorded within TMG. 3. There should be local copies of the data (e.g. screenshots, or scans/photos, or local copies of web pages, or transcripts), so that if the original source disappears or moves location (which it often does on the internet), there is still a copy (which needs to be accessible via the Second Site website) for future researchers to refer to. 4. The data should be presented in my Second Site website in a good, accurate, complete and easy to understand way. One of my main uncertainties is whether the source should be very general (i.e. just FamilySearch, or The British Library), or much more specific (i.e. a single page within FamilySearch with its URL, or a specific page within a specific book found within a specific department at the Brtish Library), or somewhere in between. You explain that the Citation Detail should include the information about where in the source I found the information relevant to this event/tag. What is the Citation Memo field best used for? I have copies of both the Elizabeth Shown Mills books, but I haven't yet spent enough time fully understanding and working out how to implement her suggestions within TMG. Thanks for your advice - Rowan On 08/02/19 21:53, Lee Hoffman wrote: > At 2/8/2019 10:43, Rowan Sylvester-Bradley wrote >> I would welcome some advice on the best way to use Citations, Sources >> and Repositories. For example, let's say I have just found the >> following page: > > Others have given good advice.  Let me point out that.  I am wondering > if you understand the three terms. >  A Source is simply a description of the document that supports your > data and includes enough information for a reader to find the > document.  The Repository is where the document may be found.  Not all > Sources require a Repository although a user may include a Repository  > in a Source for their own use.  Citing a Source is the attaching of > the Source to the information it is supporting.  This may be a Tag or > even another Source (e.g., the Source of a Source).  A Citation > consists of the appropriate Source and any desired specific data > (Citation Details) telling where (within the Source) the information > was found. > > Source Citations have three different formats -- Full Footnote (FF), > Short Footnote (SF), and Bibliography (B).   The FF is the basically > what you used in high school.  Most professions have source documents > that are unique to that profession and thus the design of the > citations are different from other kind of > documents/books/periodicals/etc.  Due to the fact that genealogy > encompasses many kinds of source documents from many professions, we > tend to see many different Source Types where each type describe a > different kind of document. > > Trying to described all the various standard Source Types in TMG would > require a book and maybe two or three. <g>  These books are called > style manuals and there are probablyu at least a dozen that could be > referenced.  Two stylebooks pretty well cover most Source Types in > TMG.  The standard TMG Source Types are modeled after the types > descvrbed  in Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence! Citation & Analysis for > the Family Historian (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, > 1997).  This is the go-to style manual for genealogy, and you would do > well to acquire a copy (124 pages) or find a copy you can look at from > time to time. > > Mrs. Mills also has  published an 885 page style manual that goes a > lot deeper in telling how to the various citations are designed and > why. It is Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence Explained, Citing History > Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace (Baltimore: Genealogical > Publishing Company, 2007).  Some of the citation models in "Evidence > Explained" differ from the similar model in "Evidence!".  Which you > use is personal preference.  I vary in my choices. > > Lee

On 2/9/2019 8:21 AM, Rowan Sylvester-Bradley wrote: >  I am just trying to work out the best way of using the features > within TMG to hold the information. What I'm trying to achieve is: > > 1. An efficient way of entering the data. E.g. for a census return, I >    should not have to enter the same citation data multiple times for >    each family member, and for multiple tags for each member. <SNIP> > 4. The data should be presented in my Second Site website in a good, >    accurate, complete and easy to understand way. Rowan, It is my belief that your objectives #1 and 4 are mutually exclusive. Your census example is a perfect example of why this doesn't work. Typically a more recent census record will typically provide the following information about a person: 1. The person's name, often spelled differently than in other sources, not uncommonly totally different, and generally for women different than the name in pre-married records or records from other marriages. 2. The age and birth place information, where the age often does not agree with other sources showing the date, and the place often is less detailed and occasionally conflicts with place information from other sources. 3. Sometimes information about the subject's relationship to a parent or child, sometimes explicit and sometimes implied, and rarely modified by terms like step or adopted, while other sources may provide it explicitly, or not provide it at all. 4. Often information about the subject's marriage, either explicitly or implied, and sometimes information about the date of the marriage, which often conflicts with other sources. 5. Often information about the subject's occupation, which often differs in detail, or completely, with information from other sources. 6. Sometimes information about a spouse's death, which is not uncommonly incorrect. So, if cite a census record for a person only once, and you also cite other census records and other sources for information entered for that person, how will you or your readers known which sources provided which information, and when they agreed or conflicted? Objective #4 is not achieved in my view. Terry Reigel

On 2/9/19 9:25 AM, Terry Reigel wrote: > On 2/9/2019 8:21 AM, Rowan Sylvester-Bradley wrote: >>  I am just trying to work out the best way of using the features >> within TMG to hold the information. What I'm trying to achieve is: >> >> 1. An efficient way of entering the data. E.g. for a census return, I >>    should not have to enter the same citation data multiple times for >>    each family member, and for multiple tags for each member. > <SNIP> >> 4. The data should be presented in my Second Site website in a good, >>    accurate, complete and easy to understand way. > > Rowan, > > It is my belief that your objectives #1 and 4 are mutually exclusive. > > Your census example is a perfect example of why this doesn't work. > Typically a more recent census record will typically provide the > following information about a person: > > 1. The person's name, often spelled differently than in other sources, > not uncommonly totally different, and generally for women different > than the name in pre-married records or records from other marriages. > > 2. The age and birth place information, where the age often does not > agree with other sources showing the date, and the place often is less > detailed and occasionally conflicts with place information from other > sources. > > 3. Sometimes information about the subject's relationship to a parent > or child, sometimes explicit and sometimes implied, and rarely > modified by terms like step or adopted, while other sources may > provide it explicitly, or not provide it at all. > > 4. Often information about the subject's marriage, either explicitly > or implied, and sometimes information about the date of the marriage, > which often conflicts with other sources. > > 5. Often information about the subject's occupation, which often > differs in detail, or completely, with information from other sources. > > 6. Sometimes information about a spouse's death, which is not > uncommonly incorrect. > > So, if cite a census record for a person only once, and you also cite > other census records and other sources for information entered for > that person, how will you or your readers known which sources provided > which information, and when they agreed or conflicted? Objective #4 is > not achieved in my view. > > Terry Reigel In my opinion, the answer to resolve objectives #1 and #4 is to use a distinct source for every Census family. That way the data in the Census is only listed a minimum number of times. The source record perhaps includes an image of the page of the census, or a transcript/summary of what the record states, and you create tags for your interpretation of what this means, with a citation to the source, perhaps with comments about your logic in the Citation Memo (with very specif sources, you don't have much to enter into the Citation Detail). As a side note, my 'Census' event doesn't try to detail all the information for the person from the census, but is basically just a record that I have found that census record and where the person was residing, and these are placed in a separate tag group near the end of the persons section. All the auxiliary information you describe above ends up in other tags detailing that type of information, which may or may not actually cite the census depending on the presence of other better sources (like if I have a birth certificate, I rarely cite the census in the birth event, unless I think it is evidence that the birth certificate might be in error). -- Richard Damon

At 2/9/2019 10:09, Richard Damon wrote >In my opinion, the answer to resolve objectives #1 and #4 is to use a >distinct source for every Census family. I tend to agree. It is a lot less work than what to citation expertsd want ua to do --- a citation for each person. Having a citation point to a househoold instead of an individual requires the reader to do some interpolation to gain the same information that we did. And in many cases, the reader may come to the same conclusion that we do. But, that may not be true in all cases. Still, I mostly use the household method unless I foresee a possible problem for a reader (and I probably miss a lot of these). Robert Lackey's citation models in "Cite Your Sources" tended to be more of the global variety. But, Elizabeth Shown Mills (and others) tell us that individual is the way to go. I would not want to argue either way as I can see the pros and cons of both sides. The problem is that the pros and cons tend to act on personal preferences which tends to color the argument. Lee

What I am trying now is to create a separate source for each page of census record (which effectively means one per family, since there is rarely more than one family of interest on one census page), and then to create a citation for each person and each event/tag of those people pointing to the source. That seems to me to offer the benefit that nearly all the information (including an image of the census page) is in the source, so I only have to enter it once, but at the same time the information is attached (via the citation) to each person and event that needs it. The information in the citation (apart from the reference to the source) just needs to be anything that is different or specific to this  person or event. This would typically be any non-obvious deductions that I have made from the census data. Does that sound reasonable? Thanks - Rowan On 09/02/19 15:58, Lee Hoffman wrote: > At 2/9/2019 10:09, Richard Damon wrote >> In my opinion, the answer to resolve objectives #1 and #4 is to use a >> distinct source for every Census family. > > I tend to agree.  It is a lot less work than what to citation expertsd > want ua to do --- a citation for each person.  Having a citation point > to a househoold instead of an individual requires the reader to do > some interpolation to gain the same information that we did.  And in > many cases, the reader may come to the same conclusion that we do.  > But, that may not be true in all cases. Still, I mostly use the > household method unless I foresee a possible problem for a reader (and > I probably miss a lot of these). > > Robert Lackey's citation models in "Cite Your Sources" tended to be > more of the global variety.  But, Elizabeth Shown Mills (and others) > tell us that individual is the way to go.  I would not want to argue > either way as I can see the pros and cons of both sides.  The problem > is that the pros and cons tend to act on personal preferences which > tends to color the argument. > > Lee > > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/tmg@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY  Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal > RootsWeb community -- -- Rowan Sylvester-Bradley 22 Fox Green Great Bradley Newmarket Suffolk CB8 9NR United Kingdom Phone: 01440 783157 Email: rowan@sylvesterbradley.org

On 2/9/2019 11:55 AM, Rowan Sylvester-Bradley wrote: > What I am trying now is to create a separate source for each page of > census record (which effectively means one per family, since there is > rarely more than one family of interest on one census page), and then > to create a citation for each person and each event/tag of those > people pointing to the source. That seems to me to offer the benefit > that nearly all the information (including an image of the census > page) is in the source, so I only have to enter it once, but at the > same time the information is attached (via the citation) to each > person and event that needs it. The information in the citation (apart > from the reference to the source) just needs to be anything that is > different or specific to this  person or event. This would typically > be any non-obvious deductions that I have made from the census data. > > Does that sound reasonable? Rowan, Yes, it does. Sorry, but I misunderstood your previous post to mean you were trying to enter only one Citation per person. What you are describing is essentially what I do. I create one Source per household, which may be what you mean. I often find a census household includes extended families. Likewise, it's not uncommon to find adult children in separate households listed adjacent to or near their parents or siblings. In those cases I create separate Sources for each household. When a person of interest is rooming with an unrelated person or in a hotel or institution I record the official head of household as the focus of the Source definition. I create citations for every census appearance I find for a person as well as other sources so I can easily see when the source agree or not. But I exclude all but the two or three that best support the information entered to reduce the number of note reference numbers. I leave more than that un-excluded only when there is a real conflict that needs to be documented. Terry Reigel

On 2/9/2019 8:21 AM, Rowan Sylvester-Bradley wrote: > ... > I am just trying to work out the best way of using the features > within TMG to hold the information. What I'm trying to achieve is: > > 1. An efficient way of entering the data. E.g. for a census return, I > should not have to enter the same citation data multiple times for > each family member, and for multiple tags for each member. > <SNIP> > ... > 4. The data should be presented in my Second Site website in a good, > accurate, complete and easy to understand way. And Terry replied: > It is my belief that your objectives #1 and 4 are mutually exclusive. I echo Lee's comment that I tend to agree with Terry on this. But there are things that you can do to minimize the data entry tasks. Then Rowan responded: > What I am trying now is to create a separate source for each page > of census record ... and then to create a citation for each person > and each event/tag of those people pointing to the source. Yes, I think a separate source for each page "sort of" makes sense if you insist on including an image of the census page itself, which most of us find unnecessary. However, I have many family enumerations which span two pages, so now you would need two sources with two images, and which source/page to cite may be an issue and make data entry more complicated. However like Terry, I would instead suggest focusing on a household, not on a page in the enumeration schedule. Terry creates one Source per household. I create one Source/CD "pair" per household, repeat the "last citation", and use the CM to enter information specific to a tag. As I mentioned earlier, if you make use of five separate features of TMG (Repository, Source, Citation Detail, Citation Memo, and Tag Exhibit) to enter five separate levels of source data specificity, I think data entry can be minimized for your objective #1. For the US census I would suggest the following structure: - the Repository be the National Archives and Records Administration. - a single Source for each population schedule of a particular county in a given state in a given census year, e.g. 1900 U.S. Census, Washington County, Ohio population schedule. For me this keeps the Source List size (and thus the Bibliography) manageable. - a single separate Census tag for a family's enumeration. - a complete verbatim text transcription (not image) of that entire family enumeration as a text Exhibit to that family's Census tag (this records the family's complete data, which should minimize your worry about the loss of the source). - a Citation to the Census tag using the above source where the Citation Detail ONLY identifies the precise location of that one family's entire enumeration within that Source, which may span pages. The reason I use BOTH the Citation Detail and the Citation Memo fields in my Source Type templates is because of the way that the "Repeat last citation" button works in a tag. That button ONLY repeats the last Source and its accompanying Citation Detail. It does NOT repeat the last Citation Memo. Thus that "last citation" Source/CD pair is specific for each family enumeration. The advantage of limiting the Citation Detail to only identify the family's enumeration within the source is that this repeated "last citation" now can be used unchanged in all citations to other tags of the family members. Only the data specific to information in that tag need be entered in this Citation Memo (e.g. person's name and age in a Birth tag), which leaves the "last citation" Source/CD repeatable and unchanged for use the next citation of any other family tag. It is the use of this "last citation" button with a fixed Citation Detail but differing Citation memo on each tag that makes it efficient to repeat the "same citation data multiple times for each family member, and for multiple tags for each member". Just my way of making data entry efficient. Hope this gives you ideas. Michael

>Michael J. Hannah [mailto:mjh@rr-nm.net] >Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2019 2:02 PM On 2/9/2019 8:21 AM, Rowan Sylvester-Bradley wrote: > ...Rowan responded: > What I am trying now is to create a separate source for each page of > census record ... and then to create a citation for each person and > each event/tag of those people pointing to the source. On 2/10/19 Michael J. Hannah wrote: > Yes, I think a separate source for each page "sort of" makes sense if you > insist on including an image of the census page itself, which most of us > find unnecessary. Interesting, I'm not aware of polling on numbers for folks attaching images (exhibits in TMG lingo) to TMG Source records, however, maybe Michael speaks from his "sense" of reading messages over in the list over years. I've written previously and will restate here again, that I like attaching a copy of an image supporting a source record to the TMG Source record, not to Event Tags. Most of the times it is one image, i.e., a birth or death cert or registration, a page/sheet for a census record, etc. However, if you do follow suggestions or one option/method that uses one household in a census record as a TMG source (like I do) and the census once in a while starts near the bottom of one page and runs over onto the next page, it's no big deal to attach two (or more) images as exhibits to one TMG source record. It's really nice that in Second Site there is a choice to show (or not) exhibits to sources as "links" in a SS website. It's a lot easier to look at in the site than it is to go through a file cabinet or look it back up on the internet! For census records, I used Terry Reigel's suggestions at https://tmg.reigelridge.com/Census.htm with some changes and included the location and date viewed right in the TMG Source template, i.e., as fields resulting in output " digital images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : 07 Jul 2012)" I do not use the repository or citation memo as Michael noted that he does. In the citation detail, I do add notes as Terry Reigel writes as one example in "Birth Tags - date and place for each person listed (in CD, I show details, as "shows age as 32 and state")." So, how you decide to use TMG and whether or not a Census record for one household is an individual TMG Source record is entirely up to you. Also, if you "like" having your digital record of a Census household or birth or death cert or other attached as an Exhibit to the TMG Source record, there is no downside that I know of other than the time spent attaching it. There are recommendations to attach Exhibits as "external" and not "internal" which I do follow. Tom

Rowan asked: > What I'm trying to achieve is: > > 1. An efficient way of entering the data. E.g. for a census return, > I should not have to enter the same citation data multiple times for > for each family member, and for multiple tags for each member. I don't see why not. When I look at the SS page of only one family member I want to see the full citation on their page too. I describe my way to enter census data in some detail in the "Census" chapter of my on-line book here: https://www.mjh-nm.net/CENSUS.HTML#CensusSources The way I make entering the citation data easier is to use BOTH the Citation Detail and the Citation Memo. The basic citation data goes in the CD so that when I go to another tag I can just click the button to repeat the last citation and the common data is entered without retyping. They I can separately enter in the CM the data that is specific to this tag. I find this quite efficient. > 2. All of the citation/source data should be recorded within TMG. Ageed. > 3. There should be local copies of the data Disagree. I would only do this if the source is either hard to obtain or likely to be lost. Census data is easy to obtain and unlikely to be lost. So I do not do this for census data. > 4. The data should be presented in my Second Site website in a good, > accurate, complete and easy to understand way. Agreed. Which is why I set the SS configuration for sources to have the Citation "Full, then Short", and include the Source Page using the "Bibliography" template. > One of my main uncertainties is whether the source should be very > general (i.e. just FamilySearch, or The British Library), or much more > specific (i.e. a single page within FamilySearch with its URL, or a > specific page within a specific book found within a specific department > at the Brtish Library), or somewhere in between. I agree, which is why I make use of all three TMG templates. My principle is for the Short Footnote to be just barely enough to refer back to the Full Footnote (or maybe find the Bibliographic entry), and the Full Footnote to be just enough to clearly identify the source and find its more complete Bibliographic (Source List) annotated entry. > I have copies of both the Elizabeth Shown Mills books My personal style intentionally differs from the principal cited by Ms. Mills, but since I almost always include a Bibliography with any TMG report or Source List with Second Site, this focus on the bibliograpy entry is recognized by the Chicago Manual of Style, which she recommends. Hope this gives you ideas, Michael