Again, please let me be the naysayer.
With some repositories, you can be more specific than just the top level URL.
For instance...
If you copy a FamilySearch record with their copy button, and paste it into a detail citation note, it will include the URL of the record and date the record was accessioned. (Even if those URLs go bad, which I have not seen, most web users will be able to use that to find the record.)
As for Ancestry, I have a bookmarks page with direct links to specific databases within ancestry that I use frequently that I setup 10+ years ago. Those links still work. When I setup a source for, say, the 1900 US census, I use that URL as the Call Number for the repository. I have not tried using a URL to a specific ancestry record.
However, you probably should reference the URL of a specific page in an ancestry tree or WorldConnect tree, if that was your source, as those pages could go away if the tree is removed, but will remain mostly static while tree is present.
I have not done it, but I suspect that you can also use URL of specific Record Collection search pages as Call Numbers also.
--> With ancestry and familysearch, the likelihood of those collection URLs changing is now minimal for their total search product to work.
john.
At 12:26 AM 4/18/2015, Brian L. Lightfoot wrote:
Just one word (or paragraph) of caution about trying to supply specific URLs to these records that are part of a larger database collection. I have seen many such repositories occasionally change their internal file location structure so that while the URL to the home page which typically contains a âsearch the databaseâ utility tends to not change, the specific URLs to the records themselves can and usually does change. In other words, you might be better served if you only reference the URL to the repository itself and let future researchers that want to view a specific record within that repository then use whatever search mechanisms are available to them at that future date. I suppose this can all be summed in in Murphyâs 7th Law of the Universe: two things will change in the future, your looks and Internet URLs.
Brian in CA
From: Barton Lewis [ mailto:bartonle...@optonline.net]
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 5:32 PM
To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] SourceWriter: internet > database
I am finding that the SourceWriter template âinternet > databaseâ is very good for most any internet database collection. However, there is one problem: there is only a url field for the main source, not one for the actual specific record within that collection. For the collection âVirginia, Marriages, 1785-1940â at familysearch, for example, I have multiple marriages I want to cite, but I would like to be able to cite the url for each individual record. Is it reasonable to ask that this source template be revised so as to include a url in the detail?
Barton
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/
Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://support.legacyfamilytree.com
Follow Legacy on Facebook ( http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog ( http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com).
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/
Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://support.legacyfamilytree.com
Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com).
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
