Family Historian User Group

Hi, have for some bizarre reason decided to clean up some of my records by adding repositories and would welcome some thoughts/guidance before going ahead with the task. I have been using Ancestral Sources for a while so have plenty of sources to link to repositories and have found the plug in from Mike Tate on the Forum, thank you. I thought i'd start with the Census but then pondered which repository. Initially I thought TNA, but then maybe GRO or is it GRO but at the TNA? I know the 1861 to 1911 are all coded RG (Registar General?) and 1841 & 1851 HO107 (Home Office) under the TNA coding?
For BMD I'm assuming GRO for register index/Free BMD and most certificates, with an aspiration to reach original parish records often with County Archive as repository?
Are there any other 'core' repositories I could add from the outset? I guess the county archives will get added, York explore for me, plus the Borthwick of course. Any others you might consider core from the outset (Probate/Will repositories maybe?) Where is the repository for Boyds Indexes etc?
Thanks Kev

Hi Kevin, have not heard from you for a while.
You are on the right lines with your Repository ideas, but will leave it to others to make suggestions.
You know you can create and link Repositories in AS.
Remind me which Plugin you think will be useful in this context.

My two pennorth:
1. (Digital images of) Censuses (England & Wales) - Author is "General Register Office (England & Wales)"; Repository is Ancestry or FindMyPast or wherever I got the image from. It is important to record which web-site, if only because they will have different indices.

Alternative would be to record the web-site as part of the publication data and then put the Repository as TNA - this feels wrong to me as I didn't go to TNA. Another alternative then would be to record the web-site as part of the publication data and then leave the Repository blank.

2. BMD certificates (England & Wales)
The Repository is where I sent for the certificate - so GRO or superintendent-registrar Register Office (e.g. Cheshire Central Register Office) if I send to a local office. In both cases, the call number is the reference number used to send for it.

3. (Digital image of) Parish Register - just like the census, it's the web-site where I got the image from.

(Microfilm of) Parish Register - the Record Office (or Library) where I saw the film.

(Digital index to) Parish Registers - again, it's the web-site where I got the image from, so FamilySearch etc.

(Digitally published transcript of) Parish Registers - again, it's the web-site where I got the image from, so Cheshire Parish Register Database etc.

4. Modern copy of will obtained from English Probate Registry - because the Author is Principal Probate Registry in my set-up, I have not repeated it and I've actually left the Repository blank. But my Published entry reads "photocopy made by HM Courts & Tribunals Service, Leeds Probate Registry, dd mmm yyyy"

5. Book in common, current circulation - Repository blank - i.e. go find your local library, it's as good as mine.

6. Rare book - Repository = British Library or wherever I found it.

7. CDs published by Family History Society - like a current book, leave the Repository blank, it doesn't matter what shop you buy it from. Note the Publication data must have the FHS data in there.

Basically I'm using the Repository to be a fairly literal minded "where did I get it from?". However - I don't always complete it, especially if it would just duplicate stuff in the Published item.

And the answer to Boyds? is - where did you see the copy you used?

tatewise wrote:Hi Kevin, have not heard from you for a while.
You are on the right lines with your Repository ideas, but will leave it to others to make suggestions.
You know you can create and link Repositories in AS.
Remind me which Plugin you think will be useful in this context.

Hi Mike, thanks for the reply,

until today I had no repositories in FH, hundreds of sources mostly from keying in using Ancestral Sources and therefore under type baptism, marriage burial or census. So I thought it time to improve my record keeping and start recording repository and if possible link my current sources to a repository. Not wanting to do this source by source, found your plug in Add Repository to Source Plugin v0.1 15 Oct 2015 on FHUG. To start, I created The National Archive (Kew), General Register Office (Southport) , Borthwick (York) and my county archive (Explore York) as repositories. Was about to connect the census types for England & Wales to TNA when I thought of looking at video http://www.fhug.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id ... itory_link . In it he (is it Nick Walkers voice?) links 1901 census to the repository name General Register Office address Kew. So this got me thinking, do I have have two repositories for GRO, bmd Index and some certificates at Southport and GRO censuses at Kew? If so, is it the 1861 to 1911 census under GRO at Kew and what for the 1841 & 1851 census (TNA HO107), are they Home Office at Kew?
thank you. Kev

Hi Kevin, I had forgotten about that Plugin.
Note that it is very focussed. It only adds a chosen Repository to Source records with Type set to Census.
Are you capable of modifying the Plugin to cater for various Type values, or will you need my help?

That is my voice in the video, but do not give too much credence to the Repository details, which is primarily illustrating how rather than what.

Others will give better advice on practical Repository details.

I would guess that the use of "Repositories" are many and varied. Unlike Adrian, I tend to use the Repository entry to record where the 'original' data source is stored, i.e. normally the Copyright Owner, so, for example:

1. "Boyd's Marriage Index is a tangled typescript bound in 533 volumes listing more than 3,500,000 English marriages for the period 1538 to 1837. It is held by the Society of Genealogists, London." - quote from Wikipedia

I would use "Society of Genealogists" as my 'main' Repository and record notes of where any specific Volumes I have or might need to refer to can be accessed more 'locally', or online.

2. Similarly, the main (and 'permanent') Repositories for Yorkshire Parish Registers and Bishops Transcripts are the West Yorkshire or North Yorkshire Archive Services or the Borthwick (Bishop's Transcripts) , but many of these records have now been digitised, indexed; and are currently available online via commercial sites: Ancestry and/or FindMyPast (but, only under time-limited contracts with the relevant Archive Service). So I have three main repositories, i.e. each Archive Service, which has its own permanent Reference System, with notes of where relevant records may currently be accessed online (or on microfilm/microfiche).

3. Individual Registrars' Offices, to me, are separate Repositories for the 'local' Indexes of Births, Deaths and Marriages which feed into the GRO Indexes (and can be more informative), but some of these may be accessible online either through relevant local authority websites or via regionalised online services such as YorkshireBMD, LancashireBMD etc.

4. Online sites such as FamilySearch, FreeBMD, FreeCENS, FreeReg, Ancestry, FindMyPast etc. are all legitimate Repositories for certain electronic data, but little of the information they provide can be, from my perspective, considered original, i.e. they are mainly facilitating easier access (under license) to data that someone else owns the actual copyright to. FreeBMD is somewhat different as the site does provide access to the original Index Pages, but its indexing is by no means as comprehensive as the commercial sites.

The main question for me is: Who may need to use any recorded Repository information in the future? If the answer is: "Anyone you may provide the information to", then there may be limited value in pointing only to a single remote or commercial Source that they may not be able to access. However, if the purpose is primarily a self-reminder of where the information was last seen and may be accessed again then.....

Mervyn

P.S. All England & Wales Census (1841-1911 and later) are held at TNA. The HO (Home Office) and RG (Registrar General) references merely identify which Government Department was responsible for the the Census at the time of production. So, in my opinion, there is only one Repository (location) and several "Class" references as the TNA refers to them. The Class system carries through to all former Government produced documentation to specifically identify the (historically) responsible Department/Agency.

mjashby wrote:... I tend to use the Repository entry to record where the 'original' data source is stored, i.e. normally the Copyright Owner, ...

I guess that's like the second option I had for Census. In that case the web-site still needs to be recorded somewhere, and the sensible place would surely be in the Publication data.

The issue for me with describing the "original" data and recording where the "original" data is stored in the Repository, is sometimes it really isn't clear where the original is! For whatever reason, UK digitally imaged sources tend not to be too much of a problem in that respect, but US stuff can be a nightmare as there was no national BMD registration system (say). Hence, a dataset for images of Missouri marriage records on XYZ.COM might contain stuff from the county level and stuff from the state. And stuff that was created at the county level but transmitted to the state. (Do not interpret this as the truth about Missouri's records, by the way!) Even with English records, some stuff gets obscure - school records are a classic case - Cheshire's school records (which may be all in one collection on FMP) are sometimes at Chester (the County Record Office) and sometimes at places like Stockport (presumably these were the county boroughs). And the English Electoral Registers on FMP are another case in point - I think that FMP used the British Library's films to create the collection but I am not sure we know where the Registers themselves are - whether they were all at the BL or some were filmed at County Record Offices.

mjashby wrote:... All England & Wales Census (1841-1911 and later) are held at TNA. The HO (Home Office) and RG (Registrar General) references merely identify which Government Department was responsible for the the Census at the time of production. So, in my opinion, there is only one Repository (location) ...

I'd agree with that - you could enter HO (Home Office) and RG (Registrar General) as part of the Author.

I don't know if it would help, or if there is a better way, but we could compile a research:index|> Genealogy Research Directory of Source document types versus Repository details, with some general advice about whether to use Author, or Publication Info, or Repository fields for the various details.

If there is any interest, I can quickly create the page structure, and leave it to interested parties to add the details, or request details to be added.

Gents, thanks for the responses, it is helping and I'm getting some clarity as to how I think I could proceed.
Noting I use Ancestral Sources whenever I have an image or transcript of a record (I tend not to use for indexes) I get the automatic population of Source Titles and Type and can link to the repository. If I enter a reference ID, for example the census id RG13 1225, or line on baptism register 239, this will appear as Publication on the source record. Nowhere to enter Author and therefore blank on Source fields.
Obviously any field can be used in any way, it depends on how we want to capture and interrogate the info on how we use any particular field. Considering your comments below my thoughts on repository and how I'd use it in FH are are similar to Mervyn. Hence I've now added SoG as repository for Boyds Marriage Index. Any TNA records, including the England & Wales censuses I'll link to the TNA (Mike I think I can do this using your plugin). BMD civil registrations Index, GRO Southport. Mervyn, are the Civil Registration archives kept at the register offices, or do they move them to a central repository? Baptisms, marriage, deaths, appropriate repository as can be identified (often county record office). So I think I have clarity as to how to use the repository, but it leaves me with the 'gap' of how to capture the website etc where I actually found the record and Adrian your comments have helped me with this also.
So using the census as an example: 1841, repository TNA. Author, Home Office, Publication? as it is published by various organisations could have many entries over time e.g Ancestry, FMP, Lost Cousins etc. A couple of issues with this I think. The author field does not easily lend itself to being populated or searched in this way and currently is automatically populated by Ancestral Sources with the Ref ID. So while I feel its logical to use publication in this way, I'd need a new home for Ref ID.
So gents, is this a way ahead? and if we get a consensus why not capture it in the knowledge base, thanks Mike. I think if give examples of a few key documents, a census return, birth index, birth cert, baptism, probate it would help.
Thanks for your help

kevinmerrison wrote:... are the Civil Registration archives kept at the register offices, or do they move them to a central repository? ...

Any England & Wales BMD certificate exists in multiple versions.

• The original filled in by the local registrar is kept by the Superintendent Registrar permanently. These may be indexed via sites like CheshireBMD. Some "county's" Registrar's outsource the storage of their really old registers - Manchester sent its pre-1915 registers to the Archives at Central Library (they are still not on public view and are accessed in the same, paid for, manner).
• Every quarter (originally) the SR was responsible for sending a copy of the last 3m's entries to the GRO (at Southport). Those remain there permanently.
• You (usually) get a copy.
• Marriages taking place in churches and chapels are recorded in their own register books, which remain there or are sent to "County" Record Offices.

This is a summary.

Draft info captured in attached excel doc for possible knowledge base and discussion. Some gaps which maybe Forum members can contribute?

Please see attached excel table in which I've tried to capture the discussion so far, maybe a way ahead and a spring board if a knowledge base item is appropriate.

Regards

Kev

I have made a start with research:document_repository_guidelines|> Document Repository Guidelines within research:index|> Genealogy Research.

Comments, ideas, extra details, etc, are all very welcome.

Is it worth providing the address/telephone/Email/website for any of the repositories, or can we assume they are easy to Google.

Mike, you make it all appear so clear. I would have thought if we give the institution name it's enough, unless clarity is required between similar institutions. I'd always look up e-mail, address, phone on website before making contact. Also less to keep up to date.
I've added to my list this evening:
England & Wales National Probate Calender (Index of Wills and Administrations) 1858 to 1966, Principal Registry of the Family Division (Holborn).
Prerogative Court of York (PYC) Wills 1389 to 1858, Borthwick Institute for Archives.
Preogrative Court of Canterbury (PCC) Wills 1384 to 1858, The National Archives.

The USA stuff is less well known to me but as I understand it the Federal Census from 1790 onward are held by the National Archives and Records Administration NARA (like our TNA), author Bureau of the Census.

tatewise wrote:I don't know if it would help, or if there is a better way, but we could compile a research:index|> Genealogy Research Directory of Source document types versus Repository details, with some general advice about whether to use Author, or Publication Info, or Repository fields for the various details.

If there is any interest, I can quickly create the page structure, and leave it to interested parties to add the details, or request details to be added.

Hi Mike,
I think we've got a good opening Knowledge Base for the Repositories, gives people a good idea how they might use the PB Repositories and links to it. Also, the plugin worked to connect census types to repository, thank you. Not seeking similar plugin for BMD etc as I'm not sure about the types and I expect it will more likely require individual entry depending upon the source (Original record, copy, etc).
In light of the discussions should/can Ancestral Sources be amended?
I think at the moment any entry in AS field Ref ID drops into FH field Publication; would it be better to drop into FH field Custom ID? As it is it's in the way of using the Publication field as has been discussed. I think this would also bring it closer to the notes in Where to Record It as it has Certificate Nos into PB-Source record - Custom ID.
Can we add an author input field when entering data on AS?
Can/should there be an automatic population of the author and repository data for the census inputs?
No idea how difficult this may be, but I think at least amending the Ref ID from publication to Custom ID clears the way ahead for use of the publication field for websites/books etc.
regards Kev

Kev wrote:

I think at the moment any entry in AS field Ref ID drops into FH field Publication

It depends how you have chosen to set the options in AS. If you use Tools> Options> Census settings - method 1 you will see that you can opt to include the census reference in the 'Publication Information' field or in the 'Where in Source' field, or neither. In fact I don't include it in either, as I have chosen to include it in the tempate for the Source Title.
AS, like FH, is highly customisable.

Can/should there be an automatic population of the author and repository data for the census inputs?

Bear in mind that the repositories will be different for censuses from England and Wales; Scotland; USA; Canada; Australia....

Yes, the AS Help says:

Record census reference: You can opt to record the reference id in the publication information field which is part of the source, or in the where in source field in every citation. Using the where in source option will result in the census reference appearing in multiple places in the file which is not really recommended for method 1. So instead either use the publication information field or make sure you include the reference in the title template.

It is quite popular to only include the Ref Id in the Title using the {REF} keyword.
e.g. My template is {YEAR} {REF} {KEYPERSON.SN_GN.CAPS}.
I am not keen on using the Custom Id field.

I think the idea was to record online website agencies where documents had been located and downloaded.
There is an existing Gedcom Source record field which could be used for that ~ Responsible Agency.
Gedcom says its use is (my underline):

The organization, institution, corporation, person, or other entity that has authority or control interests in the associated context. For example, an employer of a person of an associated occupation, or a church that administered rites or events, or an organization responsible for creating and/or archiving records.

By default in FH it is only on the All tab under Data > Agency Responsible but can be customised into the Main tab.
One slight snag is that it cannot be included in the Sources section in Reports.

Currently, AS does not offer an Author field.
I am not sure automatic population of Author and Repository would be particularly beneficial.
Some users would not want those fields populated in that way, or even at all, so would need customisation options.
Bear in mind that when entering several records via AS it offers to retain certain fields from record to record.
It might be possible to include Author (if added) and Repository in the retained set (for all types of record).

The place to post such requests is the Ancestral Sources Forum with a cross-reference back to here.

Lorna, thank you for the info. I've now unticked the In source 'Publication Information' field, so a nice quick fix that will keep the publication field clear for other information. I cannot see an option to put the record reference into the Custom ID box. Maybe something for later.

Regarding the autofill of author and repository, I was thinking of the when we use the drop down boxes for the census country; UK and USA as I believe they are fixed and known. UK 1841/51 author Home Office, 1861-1911 author Registrar General; repository The National Archive: USA 1790-1900 author Census Office, 1910-1940 author Bureau of the Census (source https://www.archives.gov/research/guide ... s/029.html paras 29.2 & 29.3), repository National Archives and Records Administration. Not so sure about Canada and Ireland but happy to look up.

Kevin, there is no need to repeat whole recent postings verbatim ~ just reply to the originator as you did.

See my previous posting that I have updated with some new ideas.

Mike,
A minor quibble with your UK Source Document Repository Directory in the KB:

The table should really be headed England and Wales Source Document Repository Directory , as the Scottish censuses, BMD records etc are held at the National Records of Scotland. See http://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/about-us
Northern Ireland records are also elsewhere, and the situation is complicated by the fact that many data collections hold records dating from prior to the partition of Ireland.

In the paragraph about where to record the online website from which records were downloaded, can I suggest another possibility? Personally I record that information in the Publication Information field, because I regard the role of the websites as literally ‘making public’ the information.

Lorna, thank you for the feedback, I have made some adjustments, but Scotland, Ireland, USA, and other countries may need further revision.
Feel free to correct any errors or omissions.

Thanks Mike,
The Scottish reference numbers for censuses are different from English ones and don't start with HO or RG, so I don't know whether Home Office and Registrar General are correct as Authors, and I haven't been able to find out thus far. (I don't use the Author field for censuses.) It might be best to omit the Author for Scottish censuses until someone can supply a definitive answer.

For Scottish records any occurrences of General Register Office as Author should be replaced with General Register Office for Scotland.

Scottish Wills and Testaments from 1500 to 1925 are held at the National Records of Scotland. (They probably go beyond 1925 but the ScotlandsPeople website only has index and images available up to 1925.)

LornaCraig wrote:... The Scottish reference numbers for censuses are different from English ones and don't start with HO or RG, so I don't know whether Home Office and Registrar General are correct as Authors, and I haven't been able to find out thus far. (I don't use the Author field for censuses.) It might be best to omit the Author for Scottish censuses until someone can supply a definitive answer. ...

See my response on Recording Source Author, Type & Publication Informatio in AS for the Author for Scottish censuses.

Re Scots references for their censuses. I'm doing this from memory but I'm fairly sure that at some point in the history of ScotlandsPeople and Scottish Origins (the precursor to SP from a different supplier), there was a minor change to the format of the references quoted from the web-site. I think it was no more than adding leading zeroes and / or splitting an item into two sub-fields and again, probably not relevant to this discussion. But what it brought home to me was that our familiar RG / HO references are nothing to do with the original creator of the censuses and everything to do with the PRO / TNA. The Registrar General presumably used things like Enumeration District - which seems not dissimilar to the Scottish data - and indeed is terminology used in the USA.

Also probably not too relevant. I would have thought that the usefulness of any reference key depended on (a) whether it can be used to uniquely define your census data from others (which the TNA references can do) and (b) whether someone else can use the same reference to find the same stuff - which the TNA references can do on Ancestry and FMP (though in the latter case you have to know which screen to use).

I have a question on consistency of terminology in research:document_repository_guidelines|> Document Repository Guidelines.

In the England & Wales Source Document Repository Directory under Author there is listed:
Registrar General
General Register Office
To be consistent should these all be Registrar General?

In the Scotland Source Document Repository Directory under Author there is listed:
Registrar General for Scotland
Registrar General
General Register Office for Scotland
To be consistent should these all be Registrar General for Scotland?

In the Ireland Source Document Repository Directory under Author there is listed:
Registrar General
General Register Office
To be consistent should these all be Registrar General?

Also, where there is listed Parish Register should that be Parish Registrar?

An interesting question... I believe that the typical difference referred to (say, between Registrar General and General Register Office) is between an organisation and the senior executive in the organisation. Since it is not the senior executive who authored the stuff in question, but the staff in that organisation, I would suggest the it is the organisational title that should be used. So General Register Office, not Registrar General - in fact, make it General Register Office (England & Wales) to be clear.

The Scottish one should similarly be General Register Office for Scotland. Incidentally, I did a swift check of the NRS web-site and the organisation appears to be General Register Office for Scotland and not General Register Office (Scotland) - but I'm not going to complain if proven wrong!

The author for Ireland (pre-1922) and the Republic appears to be General Register Office (Ireland) because I can find no evidence on its site of it being for Ireland.

Where the Author lists Parish Register, this should end up on the source record as the name of the parish concerned, otherwise it's pointless. Not sure how you write that!

For Wills, we currently have England & Wales National Probate Calender, Principal Registry of the Family Division (Holborn), this is a mix of document and author. I would recommend that the author be Principal Probate Registry (England & Wales)