* Citing Sources from a Transcriptions database

[Little.auk]

I need some advice on the best way to create source citations for transcription records from a database. Specifically, I have a Parish Records Baptisms Transcriptions database produced by Nottinghamshire Family History Society the details of which are attached.

NFHS Baptisms Database s.jpg (26.16 KiB) Viewed 1593 times

I have searched this to find the baptisms for all the children of my g g grandparents, and created the database search report as a single image, also attached.

Children of William and Susannah.jpg (129.28 KiB) Viewed 1593 times

This gives me not only baptism records for all the children, but also, residence and occupation information for their father.

What is the best way to compile the source data for this image and link it all of the people referred to in the transcript.

[ADC65]

I would be tempted to keep it simple. Create a Generic Source called something like "NFHS - Baptism Database Search 2022-02-27". Attach both of the images you have supplied here as media items. Then cite this source for each of the facts that you create from it.

[Little.auk]

Thanks

I like that idea, I think I have been trying to make it too complicated.

There are quite a few other record images I need to add sources for from this database (which is on a flash drive). I think I can simplify it a bit more, and remove the need for NHSF image, if I add the database version and version date to the source title.

e.g. "NFHS - Baptism Database, ver. 8.2, date 01-09-2015"

I use Custom IDs for Individuals and Relationships, so for this extract I can add the Relationship ID for this family to make the citation unique to this image.

e.g. "NFHS - Baptism Database, ver. 8.2, date 01-09-2015 [F0016-00]"

I don't think that the "search" date is important - The transcription image has record date information.

[ADC65]

The only reason I thought about putting the date into the Source title is so that if you make any subsequent searches (or you already have others) it is a way of differentiating the searches you made by having a Source and media image for each. What you say about making the citation unique makes sense as well though. Everyone works differently so whatever works for you and makes sense, and (most importantly for me) as long as you can clearly identify where the source of the fact came from at some point in the future, then there are numerous "correct" ways of doing this.

[ADC65]

Having re-read your reply, I would add that I think it is handy to attach the image as Media to the Source. If you have the database itself, obviously if you cite the parameters correctly you can duplicate the search at a later date and recreate the results. But past experience has taught me that it isn't always as easy as that, and I have been mystified at how I managed to get a certain result! I have found that having an image can save a lot of time rather than going back to the database and having to perform the search again to check results. Just my experience of course, you may not like attaching these images and "your mileage may vary" as they say.

[Little.auk]

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear - I SHALL link the "Database Search Report" media image. It is the first image (with the green logo) with the database version number and date information which is superfluous, provided I add the version data to the Source title as per my example.

Custom IDs will be better differentiators for me than dates, as I already use Custom IDs in a number of places, including Media file titles, so they will create a good reference link from Media - to Source - to Fact.

Also I don't think dates on their own would work, as that assumes I would never do more than one search a day.

Just to clarify, the transcription databases (baptisms, marriages and burials) have been compiled by NFHS and are sold by them on flash drives. So it is not an online database that is constantly updated. The database contents can't change, unless NFHS issue, and I buy, an updated version.

[AdrianBruce]

Just a couple of thoughts from me.

Unless your transcription databases are seriously volatile, I'd be tempted to move the "ver. 8.2, date 01-09-2015" bit from the Source Record's Title into the Publication part. It is the direct equivalent of the edition and publication date of a book and that's where they'd normally go, so you'd presumably gain on consistency. Moving them would free up a bit of space in the Title and save it being cluttered.

Yes, you'd then need to look at the Publication part if you ever want to check up on those values, but how often will you do that? If you had lots of editions of this NFHS data, it might make sense to pull the version and date up into the Title, but I suspect you won't ever be in that situation.

The bit I'm not keen on in your suggestion, is your use of the Custom Id, e.g. "NFHS - Baptism Database, [F0016-00]". If you're the only reader of the citations created, then my objections are irrelevant but if you ever print anything for anyone else, then "[F0016-00]" isn't very meaningful for them. I'd be tempted to have a description of the search criteria, e.g. "NFHS - Baptism Database, baptisms to William and Susannah Rollin (& variants)". That would be more meaningful to someone from outside - but may not be as helpful to you, depending on how you work.

[Mark1834]

I know it wasn't part of the original question, but I've been having a look at the actual records themselves. FMP has a database of Nottinghamshire Baptisms, and all of these records are included (but no others with the same parent names). Although the database is given as Transcriptions copyright Nottinghamshire Family History Society, there are some curious differences between what's recorded on FMP and this image.

• FMP does not include any occupation data
• FMP gives additional details for some entries, such as specifically noting four of the baptisms as being of twins (Susannah/Sarah and one of the Maria/Martha pairs), detail that isn't included here. Without that, you cannot assume that the same baptism date equates to the same birth date, as many families baptised in "batches".

Are they different versions of the same master transcription, each leaving out different bits of data, different transcriptions, or what...? There are clearly multiple families here (and some but not all of the post-1837 births were registered), but I assume you have done the necessary cross-referencing to other sources to validate the postulated family links.

I tend to regard transcriptions such as these (along with things like FreeReg and many of the FamilySearch databases) as just "finding aids" that I will always replace with an original source, with image, when I eventually locate it. As such, my normal practice is to have the transcription (FHS booklet or CD, database name, etc) as the lumped source, and individual citations to that. Too many duplicate citations to the same lumped source can get a bit messy, so it's really a case by case decision of what works best in a particular context.

[Little.auk]

Mark

They are both from the same master transcription. FMP have chosen to exclude occupation and, although search results of the NFHS database include the "Notes" information, the printout report does not!

There are not multiple families. All the entries are for the children of William Rollin and Susannah Whitaker. The name variations are typical of the time. The ROLLIN surname is uncommon and, as many people were illiterate, recorders had to make their own interpretation of the spellings - I have come across variations like HOLLIN and RAWLINGS.

All the births were registered, I have copies of some of the certificates. But here again surname variations come into play. The twins Sarah and Susannah baptisms show ROLLINS, but their births were registered as ROLLING and Henry's as COLLINS.

Henry was born in 1852 and died in 1857, so there are no census records for him, however, all of the others appear on censuses that mirror the movement of the family shown in the baptism records.

COVID has meant that it has not been possible to visit Nottingham Archives to view / copy the Parish Register entries, and I have not found any images on line, so for the moment the transcripts are the best I can do, supported by Birth Index records, some certificates, Census data and the Will of William's father.

I have spent a lot of time researching this family. Both William's and Susannah's ancestry have been hard to trace and most of the online trees on Ancestry, FMP etc. are completely wrong, but that is another (fascinating) story.

[Mark1834]

Interesting - the local FHS and commercial publisher have both produced incomplete but different electronic versions of the same source!

I should have said “appear to be multiple families” rather than “clearly”. The repeat baptisms of Martha and Mary just a few weeks apart in the same parish but with different occupation details is unusual, but speculating why is part of the fun! There may be an explanatory margin note in the original register that’s not been transcribed.

[Little.auk]

Mark

The transcript database was compiled by Nottinghamshire Family History Society (NFHS), and the records are complete transcripts as true to the original as possible, including both Father's Profession and Notes fields, as per the attached screen clip.

NFHS sell copies on flash drive. The database is encrypted and has it's own "search and view" Viewer. The Viewer has a print facility, and it is here where the columns get re-arranged and in the process the Notes field gets lost!

The entries for Maria and Martha are interesting - it appears that they were baptised, at home, immediately after they were born - which usually occurs when a child is not expected to live. Then, just over a month later, they are recorded again with a note that says "Rec. into Church see 28.1" (i.e. see the entry for 28 Jan).

So the twins did not die and a "receiving into church" ceremony took place to publicly confirm their baptism (and to celebrate their survival).

[Mark1834]

Thanks, very clear. Given that context, I would be tempted to use the more complete screen grab as my source media, rather than the incomplete search report.

As someone who is primarily a “splitter”, I would create a single source from this search, then link that single source to the large number of events it supports. I would add a comment to note that FMP has an incomplete copy, but not report the detailed FMP citation, as it doesn’t add any additional value. Each additional search would be a different (but similarly constructed) source.

A “lumper” would probably make the entire database one source, then each search is a separate citation. IMO, that doesn’t fit the FH model very well, particularly when each citation is linked to a large number of events.

[AdrianBruce]

Thanks, very clear. Given that context, I would be tempted to use the more complete screen grab as my source media, rather than the incomplete search report. ...

Agreed - especially as it shows the perfect justification why the two pairs are indeed for the same principals and parents, unlike the search report. And actually, it's not that often in my experience that the "Received into Church" event is made so clear. Usually we just get a second baptism (if any) and we're left to assume that it's a private baptism followed by a reception, so I'd think it nice to record that explicitly. (Now someone will say that comments about "Received" occur all the time in their registers! )

[Mark1834]

I do have quite a lot of “received into Church...” comments, but all of mine are annotations to the original baptism entry, not a completely separate one. Interesting to see a different way of recording it.