* Which template?

[fhtess65]

I'm trying to be better with my citation in FH, however the templates leave me a bit baffled. Which one would you use for this citation (written by me based on the University of Strathclyde method):

Marriages (PR). Poland. Łomża, Podlaskie, Białystok. 07 Jun 1892. Hilferding, Jan Stanisław, son of Aleksander and Anna (née Paszkiewicz) and Katarzyna, da of Apolinary and Antonina (née Trusikowska); Page: 173; Akt No. 43; citing: Files of civil status of the Roman Catholic Parish in Łomża; State Archives in Białystok, Branch in Łomża. Collection: Marriages - digital image. Metryki.Genealodzy.PL. : acc: 12 Aug 2015

The record is available at the Metryki website, accessed via Geneteka - a Polish record indexing site. The closest I can see is the Church Records Database, Online - but who is the compiler? This is why I prefer to not have a whole bunch of little fields to fill out, rather a couple of basic ones and then an area of free text.

Any thoughts or advice welcome.

Teresa

[ColeValleyGirl]

I think some of your difficulty is that the Advanced Templates are based on Elizabeth Shown Mills' work, not the Strathclyde method (which is the basis for the Essentials templates).

In your case, I think the compiler would be the person or organisation who created the collection/database -- so perhaps Metryki, but that would result in unnecessary duplication in the citation so I'd be tempted on pragmatic grounds to leave it blank.

[AdrianBruce]

At the risk of displaying my inability to understand your citation (and my lack of use of ESM formats) ...

Why go for "Church Records Database, Online" (which seems to be aimed at Derivative sources) rather than "Digitized Online" in Church Records? (That 2nd template name seems a touch vague compared to the 1st, but never mind). I ask, because you mention "Collection: Marriages - digital image" as if the source (when you get to it) is actually an image of the original marriage register.

I appreciate that there's this "accessed via Geneteka - a Polish record indexing site" business, which appears definitely to be using a derivative (index), but in my head that's only(!) the means of accessing the actual source, and I'd always write the Source Record to define the actual source - i.e. the (presumed on my part) image of the original. And then I'd squeeze the access path in *somehow*.

Or have I completely misunderstood what the actual source is?

[fhtess65]

Thanks, Helen - yes, that is the main issue. While I do understand the EE method and have added some of its granularity to my own method, I find the order of elements far more difficult to keep in my head than those of the Strathclyde method.

In RM if I leave fields blank, it looks weird in the finished citation. Is it the same in FH? I had the same thoughts re you about the role Metryki plays.

Thanks,

Teresa

I think some of your difficulty is that the Advanced Templates are based on Elizabeth Shown Mills' work, not the Strathclyde method (which is the basis for the Essentials templates).

In your case, I think the compiler would be the person or organisation who created the collection/database -- so perhaps Metryki, but that would result in unnecessary duplication in the citation so I'd be tempted on pragmatic grounds to leave it blank.

[ColeValleyGirl]

I think you need to try it. It looked OK to me but you may think not.

I would modify the template to put 'citing' before the source of the source.

[fhtess65]

I think you need to try it. It looked OK to me but you may think not.

I would modify the template to put 'citing' before the source of the source.

Thanks, and yes, putting citing in is something I do now - this citation is an old one which I should have updated before posting it here. Would also help if I included Katarzyna's surname, which I do actually know.

Teresa

[fhtess65]

So, in essence, if I want a Strathclyde style template, I'll have to build it myself...

Definitely a learning curve, but when I have some time, I'll give it a go.

Thanks again

Teresa

[fhtess65]

Hi Adrian,

Both those templates seem to indicate the same thing to me, hence my confusion. I clearly read them differently than you did. Your explanation helps clarify things for me - often I get don't see the forest for the trees when it comes to language like this.

The Metryki website is very basic, so it doesn't really give a full collection name. Also, I have to include the bit about Geneteka as it's the easiest way to access this record so others can reproduce my search and find the record. Polish genealogy is a whole other world. Citing records is one of the biggest challenges I have - they need to be layered in order to capture all the relevant details, but figuring out the layers isn't always easy.

Your thoughts have helped me sort a couple of things - thanks!

Teresa

At the risk of displaying my inability to understand your citation (and my lack of use of ESM formats) ...

Why go for "Church Records Database, Online" (which seems to be aimed at Derivative sources) rather than "Digitized Online" in Church Records? (That 2nd template name seems a touch vague compared to the 1st, but never mind). I ask, because you mention "Collection: Marriages - digital image" as if the source (when you get to it) is actually an image of the original marriage register.

I appreciate that there's this "accessed via Geneteka - a Polish record indexing site" business, which appears definitely to be using a derivative (index), but in my head that's only(!) the means of accessing the actual source, and I'd always write the Source Record to define the actual source - i.e. the (presumed on my part) image of the original. And then I'd squeeze the access path in *somehow*.

Or have I completely misunderstood what the actual source is?

[AdrianBruce]

... I have to include the bit about Geneteka as it's the easiest way to access this record so others can reproduce my search and find the record. ...

That sounds sensible. I was thinking that it's not a particularly common configuration - having the images of the original on one site (Metryki) but the index and / or access mechanism on another site (Geneteka). The only similar configuration in my stuff that I can think of at the moment is the Irish Registry of Deeds where there is a partial index site pointing to the images of the originals on the FamilySearch site. But the images on FS are easily accessed via the Film Number and Image Number, so I've just recorded those in my (generic) citation and ignored the index site.

If I were to record the access mechanism via the index site, I suspect I'd just add a phrase about "accessed via ...." to my generic citation. But that's the easy part of still using generic sources - anything and everything can go into them. Easy - possibly too easy, of course!

Incidentally I did manage to use your text above to access the original image on Metryki via Geneteka, so your basis must be on the right track, but I'm afraid that the writing is beyond me - weird how difficult it is to recognise even names when it's hand-writing in another language and style of writing!

[fhtess65]

Thanks for the feedback. Glad my citation was good enough for you to find the record.

The writing is beyond me as well - I've learned to pick out the names, but the Russian is such a pain. At least with Polish, I stand half a chance as I know enough to find the dates and the basics, but that Cyrillic script is so foreign...All records from Russian occupied Poland between 1867 and 1918 are in that language. Incidentally, at school after 1867, children were forbidden to learn Polish and had to speak and write in Russian. My grandmother was fluent in Polish and Russian and knew enough German to get by - little wonder she was able to learn English as well.

Sorry for the digression.

Teresa

[AdrianBruce]

Oh it was Cyrillic was it? I did wonder given that I couldn't recognise anything, but having been baffled by pre-WW1 German script I was quite prepared to believe it was an even more obscure script for "Roman" lettering...

An interesting digression...

[tatewise]

Try using Google Translate to translate any language to English.

[ColeValleyGirl]

It doesn't work well with handwriting, of course.

[fhtess65]

Definitely - I know the first time I came upon it, it confused me as well! Even some of the Polish script is difficult to read - I remember that from my own grandmother's handwriting.

As genealogists we do tend to run into some fascinating challenges. Even so, I've managed to get back to the early 1800s, so am quite chuffed by that fact!

Teresa

Oh it was Cyrillic was it? I did wonder given that I couldn't recognise anything, but having been baffled by pre-WW1 German script I was quite prepared to believe it was an even more obscure script for "Roman" lettering...

An interesting digression...

[fhtess65]

Try using Google Translate to translate any language to English.

Mike - you're correct, and for some records I have used Google translate. The Cyrillic however is particularly difficult as the handwriting, as Helen points out, can be very difficult to interpret. I'm not even sure of the letters, so can't even put them into Google translate. There is a Genealogical Translations group on Facebook, so for key records I do ask for help there.

Teresa

[fhtess65]

It doesn't work well with handwriting, of course.

Indeed - Google Translate isn't good for script. I've tried really hard to pick out the letters, but it's tough going.

Teresa