From: Philip W. <wei...@gm...> - 2012-10-14 15:50:51
|
The film number for many FamilySearch records is listed in the record. Irrespective of how to cite the index record itself, it's usually worth requesting the film, viewing that record, and citing that. Phil. On Oct 14, 2012 8:46 AM, "Peter G" <sai...@ya...> wrote: > I'd leave the repository at Family Search, not Family Search, Country > Records Collection. > > For source, generally follow your #1 example, but add to the source, > "compiled by Family Search from individual Oregon county records 1851 - > 1975" > > and add to the citation what county the marriage was registered in. > > Also, look at this page on who Family Search recommends citing this set: > > https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Oregon_County_Marriages_%28FamilySearch_Historical_Records%29 > > > > > Peter > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Brian Hamilton-Vise <bdh...@gm...> > > > Thanks for all the help so far with organizing my sources. I have another > similar question. > > I'm working with a set of marriage records that FamilySearch has scanned, > compiled, and put online: < > https://familysearch.org/search/collection/show#uri=https://familysearch.org/records/collection/1803968>. > I can think of two ways to put this into Gramps, and both have their > shortcomings. > > # Option 1 > > _Repository:_ FamilySearch.org <http://familysearch.org/> > _Source:_ Oregon, County Marriages, 1851–1975 (Index and Images) [w/ > FamilySearch as the author, and the above URL as the pub. info) > _Citation:_ [Names], ["Index" OR "Marriage record"], [URL of specific > record] > > This seems like the better option to me, on balance, since FamilySearch > has effectively created a new source by compiling many county records into > one collection. But it makes me uncomfortable that no reference to the > original source is there. > > # Option 2 > > _Repository_: FamilySearch Collection: Oregon, County Marriages, 1851-1975 > (Index and Images) > _Source_: Index to Marriage Records, Yamhill County, Oregon > _Citation_: [Names], [Record #] > > This way feels more like it's naming the actual source of the data, but: > (a) FamilySearch gives very little information about the originals they > scanned, so I don't know where they are, what form they're in, which book > or reel or whatever my specific citation comes from, etc; and (b) I'm not > sure where to put the URL of the specific record. > > What say ye? > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM > Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly > what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app > Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-users mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM > Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly > what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app > Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-users mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users > > |