fhtess65 wrote: ↑08 Aug 2022 00:02
Hi Jeff,
I just read through the Features page and am still not clear on your difference between the Repository (unique item) and Primary Repository. Currently I include both the physical repository where records are held and the online repository where they appear, if this is the case, such as Ancestry or FindMyPast. How does this usage translate to your SC template for non-traditional and census sources?
Thanks
Teresa
Hi Teresa!
I was afraid that might be a bit confusing. Let me try again – if it’s not clear, I’ll keep trying!
Anyway, when I created
Simple Citations, I was concerned (and still am) with the need for others who are examining your data (in whatever format it is presented) to be able to find the same sources again. For the most part, citations that use the “census” and “traditional” templates usually do not need to have anything included in either the “Repository (Unique Item)” or the “Primary Repository” fields (more on those fields in a moment).
Most census records are readily available from multiple sources – either online or from a library or other archive. Therefore, there isn’t a need to record anything pertaining to their location. As an example, here’s the completed template entry for the Bartholomew Crowley Family on the 1870 U.S. Census.
- FH7_001.jpg (285.46 KiB) Viewed 3070 times
The citation that results is:
United States, Census Bureau (8 July 1870). 1870 U.S. Census: Bartholomew Crowley Family. || p. 37. Henry Crowley. Millcreek Township, Erie County, Pennsylvania, United States; dwelling 268, family 279.
When you examine the above example and then the citation, you will notice that nothing was entered for either field - “Repository (Unique Item)” or “Primary Repository.” The reason is that the information provided in that actual citation should be more than sufficient to locate that same census record again (from Ancestry, MyHeritage, FamilySearch, the [United States] National Archives Administration [NARA} etc., etc.).
Now, let's take a look at a citation for a “traditional source” – e.g., book, magazine, periodical, etc. In this case, we’ll look at a book:
- FH7_002.jpg (269.79 KiB) Viewed 3070 times
The citation that results is:
Wright, F. Edward, compiler (1993). Berks County, Pennsylvania Church Records of the 18th Century: Volume 3. Westminster, Maryland: Family Line Publications || p. 91. Simon Riegel. Jefferson, Berks County, Pennsylvania, United States.
Notice that, once again, both the “Repository (Unique Item)” or “Primary Repository” fields are empty. They’re empty for the same reason as the first example – the information for this source (a book) is sufficient to locate it again, if not online, then through libraries (or even interlibrary loans).
For “splitters” who just need to enter something (
Simple Citations, I believe, can’t really be classified as either the “lumper” approach or a “splitter” approach), may enter the repository (physical or other location) of the book in the “Primary Repository” field, but it is NOT required. Another way to make “splitters” happy may be to enter a DOI, ISBN, or call number in the “Misc. Ref. Num” field but again, that is NOT necessary.
The intent of
Simple Citations has always been to provide just enough information to locate the source again.
I hope that’s clear – at least so far (if not, let me know).
Now the following explains the two fields - “Repository (Unique Item)” or “Primary Repository.” These fields are, probably, the only ones that have given me grief over the years.
So, for the first example, let’s look at the traditional template that was created for RootsMagic:
- FH7_003.jpg (142.96 KiB) Viewed 3070 times
The citation that results is:
Unknown (after 26 July 1918). "Obituary.": Unknown Publisher. || Elias S. Reigle. Hancock County, Ohio. Ancestry.com (
http://www.ancestry.com: accessed 29 January 2011).
Note that it was exactly this type of situation that caused me to create
Simple Citations in the first place – how do we cite something that has no identifying information? Anyway, the example is for a newspaper clipping that someone posted on Ancestry.com, they did not state where they obtained it (or from whom), and there is no other identifying information. In order to cite it, something had to be done to allow others a chance in relocate it again. So, this is how I dealt with it:
1. The author/creator cannot be determined; therefore, in such cases,
Simple Citations permits that “Author(s)/Editor(s)” to be listed as “Unknown” as the lead element (as this field is also required – hence, the “*”).
2.
Simple Citations also requires a date to be provided but all that can be determined is that this obituary was created sometime after 26 July 1918 (the date of this individuals’ death, which was determined from other sources).
3. There is no title attached to the obituary, although it’s obvious as to what, exactly, it is so “Obituary” is listed as the “Title.”
4. The name of the newspaper (“Source/Book Title*”) is also a required field but, again,
Simple Citations also permits “Unknown Publisher” to be listed under “Publisher*”).
Now that these problems have been identified and the required fields are completed, we can now look at the “Source Details” section.
Notice that we can complete most fields (none of which are required but which will greatly assist others in trying to find this rather mysterious source again). For the purposes of this discussion, the one we’re interested in is “Repository” (and remember that this is a RootsMagic example). As mentioned above, this “mystery” source was found on Ancestry.com and was posted there by someone else researching Elias S. Reigle. To document this in RootsMagic, we entered “Ancestry.com” into the “Repository” field.
(Continued on the next post in this thread.)