Scott, We may be getting too nit-picky for many people (so those who aren't interested in the details of source citation a la EE can stop reading now). But, for those of us for whom details may be important:
> 1. The title of the website is in italics, which you > can't see here because of the Plain Text e-mail format. I am aware of that; but the title of the website is not "Mt. Hope & Riverside Cemetery Records;" that is only one item on a much larger website maintained by the University of Rochester. Therefore, as I read EE and her related QuickSheets, "Mt. Hope & Riverside Cemetery Records" would be in quotes, not italics. University of Rochester, River Campus Libraries - Department of Rare Books, Special Collections and Preservation would be in italics. [Not that I worry about punctuation in my day-to-day work, but you sound as though you want to understand and follow EE]. > 3. The Mount Hope Cemetery Office (essentially anything I put after > that semi-colon) is my attempt to properly credit the original source, > as recommended by Mills (also demonstrated in the census template > which cites a NARA microfilm roll). The U of R didn't create the > cemtery records, the cemetery did. My point was that I have no idea from looking at the online database and images who created the records, nor that Mt. Hope Cemetery actually has an "office." I can assume they do, but the website itself does not tell me (unless I missed it). For all I know, there's a church nearby and it was someone at the church who created the record, and a local historical society who received the grant and created the CD from which the online images were copied. I would be clear in my citation that the images appear to be a register of interments (some of the volumes actually have this title), but I don't know who created them, nor when they were created. > 4. As with the census, the "index" (or database if you prefer) is > only the means to the original interrment records. It > is the original interment records from which I am gathering my > information. There is nothing transcribed, nothing copied. They are a > digital image of the actual record...It's > really only step away from perusing the actual books > themselves. I was referring to the images themselves as an "index." I'm sorry, but there is no way all of those images are the original interment records. Many of them may be, but if you check the older records, back in 1837, the handwriting is a modern handwriting, so at least some of them are indeed copies/transcriptions. Without taking a lot of time, I can't tell when the registers began to be contemporaneous with the burials (I'm not sure I could figure it out even if I took the time). Therefore, I would make a comment in my citation that I'm not certain the register was made at the time of the burial. > So, perhaps we must assume a title? We don't need to assume a title of the website item; it is clearly "Mt. Hope & Riverside Cemetery Records." We do need to make an assumption as to what the images are. Given that the ones from the 1890s are stamped at the top of each page "Register of Interments, Mt. Hope Cemetery" that is what I would call it, but I would not put it in quotes because it is my personal description of the volume we're looking at, not the actual title. Now that I've studied the source more closely, I would change my citation to read (I'll put asterisks around what I would italicize): "Mt Hope & Riverside Cemetery Records," digital images, *University of Rochester, River Campus Libraries, Rare Books and Special Collections Databases,* (http://www.lib.rochester.edu/index.cfm?page=3310 : accessed 5 May 2010), entry for George B. Oswold (1935), p. 525 (stamped) of what appears to be a Mt. Hope Cemetery register of interments; it is not clear from the handwriting whether the entry was made at the time of the burial or is a later transcription. > I have not yet gleaned from Mills' book when it is appropriate to > include the item of interest upfront, ala the censuses, and > when to put at the back. I think (but am not certain) it is mostly a matter of personal preference, but we should be consistent if the source allows it. She also publishes some laminated 'Quick Sheets' for online sources, and I do know that, for material gleaned from websites, the typical format for the citation itself (first footnote) is: AUTHOR OR CREATOR (if known) ITEM TITLE (in quotes) ITEM TYPE (e.g. database or images) WEBSITE TITLE (italicized) URL and DATE (in parentheses) SPECIFIC ITEM OF INTEREST (i.e. Mr. Oswold) CREDIT LINE (source of the source) Thanks for sharing this example; I've learned a lot working with it! Connie Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
