Is there a preferred citation format for Birth and Death Certificates databases?

Question

I'm working through adding birth/death certificates as sources from the Arizona Genealogy Birth and Death Certificates data base that was launched in 2009.  Is there a preferred citation format for this type of database (hosted by the state's Department of Health Services)?  What I have so far is below, but it feels a little off.  Suggestions?

• Arizona Department of Health Services, certificate of birth number 275:22 (07 Mar 1932), Leonard Leslie Bice, Bureau of Vital Statistics digital archive volume 1009 page 1433: 10091433.pdf

Comments

Shouldn't the citation include a hyperlink that points directly to the certificate concerned so that people can easily go look to see for themselves what the certificate says?

---

David, I agree.

Kimberly, appreciate what you're doing and admire you for wanting to make good citations. Have you looked at this from Evidence Explained?

Citations for Digital Archives

---

I agree, David.  I overlooked adding that earlier and will fix that element.

Thank you, Nelda.  I have been having a terrible time trying to navigate EE today and couldn't find anything suitable. The archive is a single living database (it has ongoing updates occurring) so it isn't a collection within a larger archive, which made me think the digital archive model wasn't a good fit - I couldn't figure out how to reorganize it to retain the person-specific data. I mean, it looks like this, and that feels even less complete/useful than my current citation. :/

• Arizona Department of Health Services. Arizona Genealogy Birth and Death Certificates. http://genealogy.az.gov/ : 2009-2019.

I also looked at the State-Level Records Vital-Records Certificate model (430), I'm just not really sure how to correctly adapt for the digital archive status as opposed to an official certified copy.  I planned to ask on EE for their editor recommended approach once my login is approved, but thought I would see if there is a WikiTree-preferred format already established given the growing number of states that are personally hosting their records.

(Sort of related: I was actually part of the scanning project that indexed Arizona's records in 2006 in preparation for this database, and am really excited to use it now!)

---

It would be good to include the name of the person i.e.Leonard Leslie Bice, otherwise it could be anybody's birth certificate!

---

Cool that you were in on the scanning project! That's hard work. I've been involved in scanning and indexing records so I know.

Yes, I agree--that model I linked from EE doesn't quite do all your citation needs to do (cite and point to the specific record for the specific person.) --the example in the middle kind of came closer than the one at the top, because it did cite a specific document whereas the upper one just cited the entire archive. I looked around for some other help but didn't find anything which quite fit. Looks like you've gotten some good advice below, though, so I know it'll end up being good. You got it off to a good start, for sure.

---

A follow up note, if anyone comes across this later: sadly, this resource migrated and the new server does not permit direct linking to the PDF documents - the URL generated when you view an image is a single-use URL.  When I have time to actually download all the certificates for impacted profiles I will (there are 16 that I know use the source page set up for this resource), but for now I have updated the URLs to point to the new search page.

Answer 1

Seems like a case for a layered citation. First layer defines the actual document being cited, something like

• Arizona Department of Health Services, certificate of birth number 275:22 (07 Mar 1932), Leonard Leslie Bice

Second layer indicates how you accessed it, in this case via the online database: 

• digital image in Arizona Department of Heath Services, Arizona Genealogy Birth and Death Certificates, online database and images (http://genealogy.az.gov : accessed 3 Apr 2019), Leonard Leslie Bice, birth, 1932.

So the full citation becomes:

• Arizona Department of Health Services, certificate of birth number 275:22 (07 Mar 1932), Leonard Leslie Bice; digital image in Arizona Department of Heath Services, Arizona Genealogy Birth and Death Certificates, online database and images (http://genealogy.az.gov : accessed 3 Apr 2019), Leonard Leslie Bice, birth, 1932.

You could also embed a hyperlink pointing directly to the certificate, but for brevity use square brackets to 'hide' it behind the link to the website's home page.

Comments

On this basis, I should end up with the following, I think?

Inline citation:

<ref>[[#AZDHS|AZDHS]]: Arizona Department of Health Services, Certificate of Birth number 275:22 (07 Mar 1932), Leonard Leslie Bice, digital image, [http://genealogy.az.gov/azbirth/1009/10091433.pdf http://genealogy.az.gov] : accessed 03 April 2019, Leonard Leslie Bice, birth, 1932</ref>

Source:

<span id='AZDHS'></span>Arizona Department of Health Services. Arizona Genealogy Birth and Death Certificates. Online database and images. http://genealogy.az.gov/ : 2009-2019.

(I really hope I didn't break the code here...)

---

I'm not sure about including an inline citation and source as separate elements?

Otherwise it looks good, just not sure why include the person's name and year of birth twice?

---

The second instance of name and birth date defines the search terms used to find the record in the database.

Here it looks like repetition, but there are many cases where you have to enter something slightly different in order to find a record that has been  incorrectly indexed.

I would normally cite the browse path rather than search terms  - but this particular website does not seem to offer direct browsing to the images.

---

Try not to do it this way, with the <span> tags and separate citation and source.  The <span> tag, according to the Help pages, is only supported because it has to be.  It will make the whole page look cluttered and confuse anybody who does not use that system (99% of users).  I have only seen it used once, and it threw up suggestions and was a nightmare for data doctors.

Just do one citation.  If the record was indexed incorrectly, put that in brackets after it, like (mistranscribed as BRICE).  Three words are much briefer than a whole double-citation!

---

Not sure who is commenting on what on in this discussion.

So to clarify,  I never suggested the use of <span> tags or having separate citation and source.

My answer is is use a single layered citation (as described in Evidence Explained) which would be surrounded by <ref></ref> tags (as preferred by WikiTree standards)

---

I was replying to Kimberley's post of 12 hours ago, where she gave an example of using a citation plus source, using <span> tags.

---

Sorry all, I got confused by the examples of a few Source free-space pages on what a source that is used multiple times should look like.

So here is what I went with as a combination of the suggestions and the EE guide for vital records; the URL alongside the accessed date links to the specific record.

Arizona Department of Health Services, birth certificate 275:22 (1932), Leonard Leslie Bice, digital image in Arizona Genealogy Birth and Death Certificates, online database and images (http://genealogy.az.gov/: accessed 03 April 2019).

---

That looks pretty good. 

Except that there should be a semicolon separating the citation layers.

Arizona Department of Health Services, birth certificate 275:22 (1932), Leonard Leslie Bice; digital image in etc 

---

At least that is an easy fix. Thanks, I'll edit the comma to semi colon when I get home on the handful I have started linking, and fix my source page too.

Answer 2

Looks good.  Personally, I would switch around the first two phrases, so you would have it starting off with 'birth certificate', example:

• Certificate of Birth, Arizona Department of Health Services, number 275:22 (07 Mar 1932), Leonard Leslie Bice, Bureau of Vital Statistics digital archive volume 1009 page 1433: 10091433.pdf

That way you could see at a glance what it was.  Just a thought.