Format of Family Search sources

Question

What should the format to a Family Search source look like? I've been modifying the link so it is an active link when you click on the FamilySearch text. Also, the descriptive text seems like a lot of extra information and would like to shorten the text if that is common.

Link copied from Family Search:

 "United States Census, 1870," database with images, FamilySearch(https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MN9L-4KC : 12 April 2016), Oscar Dayton in household of Almon Dayton, Wisconsin, United States; citing p. 1, family 3, NARA microfilm publication M593 (Washington D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.); FHL microfilm 553,220.

My modification:

 "United States Census, 1870," database with images, [https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MN9L-4KC FamilySearch], 12 April 2016, Oscar Dayton in household of Almon Dayton, Wisconsin, United States; citing p. 1, family 3, NARA microfilm publication M593 (Washington D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.); FHL microfilm 553,220.

Answer 1

Since Familysearch.org allows us to use their extensive database of sources for free I feel it is only right to cite the sources found on there the way they request us to. The problem with creating shortened sources is that if the link breaks it is much harder to locate but their sources usually give enough information so that you could make a hard copy of the profile and find the source without the internet.

Comments

This is a great reason to leave the rest of the citation as is.

---

It is a great reason not to change anything with their source citation.

---

From what I can tell, their citations meet the Evidence Explained/Chicago standards for citation which WikiTree advocates. And it is pretty nice of them to provide the ready-made citation. I wish some other websites for which I pay dearly did a better job of that. Citing Ancestry.com is a real chore.

---

Excellent, citation standards! As an engineer I need rules otherwise I make up my own standards to follow. The hyperlink in line with the citation will drive me nuts, links visible on a website (ugh!), but I guess if anyone ever prints out the page they’ll have everything.

Also it’s less work to just copy directly.

Answer 2

L, most members just paste the citation given by familysearch as-is.  I'm with you about wanting links to look nicer.  Here is the style I use to modify the link you gave as an example:

 [https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MN9L-4KC United States Census, 1870], database with images, FamilySearch(12 April 2016), Oscar Dayton in household of Almon Dayton, Wisconsin, United States; citing p. 1, family 3, NARA microfilm publication M593 (Washington D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.); FHL microfilm 553,220.

What I do is to start with the link, moving the URL to the beginning and using whatever is enclosed in the starting quotation marks as the "hot" text.

EDITED - oops, the first time I forgot to remove the ": " that used to follow the URL.

Comments

I like this answer already! I’m glad there are other clean format people out there.

---

I do something like it. I just replace the ( ) with [ ] and within I add the year and the sort of ducument [....... baptism 1748]. Everything else I keep the same.

Answer 3

My personal preference is to use FamilySearch citations as is, for the most part.

I do like to put the profiled individual's name in bold text. And occasionally I add a note at the end of the citation (e. g. "presumed match"). Other than those changes, I see no reason to tinker with the ready-made citations that FamilySearch so graciously provides. Besides, why make extra work for ourselves?

I also like to see the URL in the citation so I can check for duplication, as well as to verify that the URL is valid. You never know when the copy/paste gremlins will strike!

Answer 4

I source mine with the same adjustment. I think the clean layout helps me process the information when looking at them, if that makes sense. I need order! Haha

Answer 5

The auto-generated citations on FamilySearch are full of bad translations, grammar errors, and lots of utterly useless text, without the actually-useful details, so I don't use them. But the question is actually moot, most of the time, because there are no auto-generated citations for unindexed sources, which covers at least three-quarters of the sources I cite.

My usual citation format is a link, with the link text being the waypoints or breadcrumb-trail, and then a full transcription. For example:

*[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-89PH-S9FG-D?i=294&cat=258010 FamilySearch Film 004134119 Image 295 of 611 (Jewish congregation, Győr, marriages)]

:1883
:12. Kronberger Miksa, Pápán születésü
:Kronberger Moritz és Kronberger Adelheit
:Hamona
:25
:Kreisler Háni, Pápán születésü
:Kreisler Jozef és Reif Betti
:Pápa
:18
:Pápa, Homona 3-szor
:28. august
:Győr templom
:A jegyesek apjai
:Ranschburg Salamon Rabbin.

Answer 6

Does anyone still use the microfilm? If not, is there any point in having it in the citation? (The NARA microfilm or the FHL microfilm.) For people who are trying to find the reference in other databases, the specific place and the enumeration district would be more useful than the microfilm reference, wouldn't they?

Comments

I suppose if FamilySearch were to somehow rework all their online direct links where the ones they have today no longer worked, you could still use the film number in their search to find the record again. Or, if you wanted to see the record in another online archive the microfilm information might be helpful if the name index didn't work. There may be other reasons or you may be right that it's superfluous.

---

I think not. Look for example at the 1870 census browse function in FamilySearch: https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/1438024 It goes by place, not by microfilm reel number.

Perhaps there's a way to search by microfilm reel number on FamilySearch--I haven't seen one, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But the obvious way of searching uses place (and for censuses with enumeration districts, the enumeration district). That's certainly what I've used whenever I've need to (for example, when I'm looking for a record I know exists, but which doesn't come up in the index). So, is there any point at all in giving the microfilm information? And isn't the place (and the e.d.) far more important, for exactly this reason?

---

To search by film number on FS, go to Search - Catalog - Film/Fiche Number.

---

But doesn't that just you to the title, which is already in the citation? Why add the FHL Film number in addition to the title? There's no way to get to the record from that, right? If you want the record, you should go to the title, then the place--so again the specific place is useful, and the film number isn't.

And that of course doesn't give any reason at all for having the NARA film number.

I used to track film numbers religiously. But that was when I (and others) actually used the microfilm. I still don't see any reason to have them in references now.

---

You can get to the images from the film number on FS: click the camera icon in the catalog entry. Of course, you'll also need the image number, and I find it helpful to include the "of NNN" part, as a verification that you've got the correct film.

But you're right that now that they've stopped loaning microfilm, the film number is not particularly useful. The _digital_ film number (DGS) is slightly more useful, because you can bypass the catalog and just plug it into the film-viewer URL, but it's still specific to FS only.

As far as I know, microfilm numbering is always specific to the holding institution, regardless of the original source or filming entity. For example, when FS filmed the church registers in Hungary, part of the deal was that the National Archives of Hungary got a copy. This means that the NA's microfilm holdings are exactly the same as FS's, but the archival reference numbers and such are completely different.

Another reason to include the full "image N of NNN" reference is that films that are included in a waypointed collection on FS can have two different "identities": (digital) film number or waypoints. Because waypoints can break films into smaller chunks, the image number may not be the same.

When I had a month's subscription to the Lutheran records in Hungary, I at first tried to keep track of page numbers on the images, because I knew that their filming (digitization) was in totally different chunks than FS's holdings, but I gave up in favor of place, type, year, and entry number ("Szarvas, marriages, 1881, entry 3"), because page numbering was feast or famine: two or three different page numbers in the corners of some images, no page numbers anywhere on other images.

What it boils down to is giving sufficient information for someone else to find the same thing you were looking at. Something like the NARA film number can help with that, because it'll be the same whether you're using FS or Ancestry, but it is neither truly necessary nor sufficient.