Census - Creating EE-compliant Citations

[History_Hunter]

Has anyone experience with creating fully compliant Evidence Explained citations for the 1841 - 1911 Census of England and Wales? I could use some help vetting and fully understanding the following attempts at creating them for online census images. The book seems a bit unclear about the origin and formatting of some parts of the citations.

Variation #1:

FIRST (FULL) REFERENCE NOTE

1. 1911 census of England, Kent, Tonbridge, Tunbridge Wells, schedule 243 (penned), Frederick Wells; image, “Census, Land & Substitutes,” DC Thompson, Findmypast (https://www.findmypast.com/ : accessed 11 November 2018); citing [The National Archives] “RG 14, piece 2212, RG 78, piece 75, RD 26, SD 2, ED 24, schedule 243.”


SUBSEQUENT (SHORT) NOTE

11. 1911 census of England, Kent, Tonbridge, Tunbridge Wells, schedule 243 (penned), Frederick Wells.


SOURCE LIST ENTRY

England. Kent. 1911 Census. “Census, Land & Substitutes.” Database with images. DC Thomson. Findmpast. https://www.findmypast/ : 2018.


REPOSITORY
Image Library, The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 4DU
Tel: 020 8392 5225
Fax: 020 8392 5266


Variation #2:

FIRST (FULL) REFERENCE NOTE

1. 1901 census of England, Kent, Tonbridge, p. 10 (printed), Frederick William Wells; image, “Advanced Person Search”, QinetiQ Limited under licence from The National Archives (PRO), The 1901 Census Website (https://www.census.pro.gov.uk/ : accessed 2 April 2003); citing Public Record Office, RG 13, piece 760, folio 75, page 10, schedule 71.


SUBSEQUENT (SHORT) NOTE

11. 1901 census of England, Kent, Tonbridge, p. 10 (printed), Frederick William Wells.


SOURCE LIST ENTRY

England. Kent. 1901 Census of England. Database with images. QinetiQ Limited under licence from The National Archives (PRO). The 1901 Census Website. https://www.census.pro.gov.uk/ : 2003


REPOSITORY
Image Library, The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 4DU

[Ed McKie]

I have always been of the opinion that source citation should be just sufficient to identify the source. If you have downloaded and saved an image of a census page then all the identification information is there on the image. Why then would you require a long citation?. If you are using a transcription then the page number etc can be included with it. To include details of the ownership and location of TNA seems superfluous no matter what the source citation police might suggest.

A professional genealogist charging fees to a customer of course will need different criteria for proving the accuracy of the work, but for the rest of us it's a hobby.

Cheers. Ed

[Pam Downes]

I have always been of the opinion that source citation should be just sufficient to identify the source. If you have downloaded and saved an image of a census page then all the identification information is there on the image. Why then would you require a long citation?. If you are using a transcription then the page number etc can be included with it. To include details of the ownership and location of TNA seems superfluous no matter what the source citation police might suggest.

A professional genealogist charging fees to a customer of course will need different criteria for proving the accuracy of the work, but for the rest of us it's a hobby.

Cheers. Ed

Not quite correct, Ed.
Only one in two pages have the folio number printed on them, and the 1911 census images have no reference numbers on them.
Some of the images have the year and piece numbers in a separate 'slip' at the side of the page so you need to make sure you include that in the image you save.

Having said that, I would agree that Gary is perhaps going a little overboard, and in a couple of instances is completely wasting his time. On the other hand, he's in the US, and if I was citing US stuff I would probably go into a little more detail than I do with UK stuff.

Gary -

FIRST (FULL) REFERENCE NOTE

1. 1911 census of England, Kent, Tonbridge, Tunbridge Wells, schedule 243 (penned), Frederick Wells; image, “Census, Land & Substitutes,” DC Thompson, Findmypast (https://www.findmypast.com/ : accessed 11 November 2018); citing [The National Archives] “RG 14, piece 2212, RG 78, piece 75, RD 26, SD 2, ED 24, schedule 243.”


SUBSEQUENT (SHORT) NOTE

11. 1911 census of England, Kent, Tonbridge, Tunbridge Wells, schedule 243 (penned), Frederick Wells.

Each district will have more than one piece number to it. Each piece number is 'designed' to contain a certain number of people so therefore each piece number is likely to have a schedule number 243 in it. There's also every chance that there will be more than one person with the same name in the same registration district, though they will probably be a different age, and with a less than 50% chance of having the same schedule number. On the other hand, never say never. (This is valid in every census year.)

So, IMO, the whole of this short note is a waste of time.

SOURCE LIST ENTRY

England. Kent. 1911 Census. “Census, Land & Substitutes.” Database with images. DC Thomson. Findmpast. https://www.findmypast/ : 2018.


REPOSITORY
Image Library, The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 4DU
Tel: 020 8392 5225
Fax: 020 8392 5266

The 'source list entry' is just repeating what you've already entered in the full reference. Do you really need it twice? (Even if you are in the US. )
Also FMP have more than one site. I think they have Ireland, Australia, and Canada in addition to co.uk

It's a complete waste of time entering phone/fax numbers. Area codes have changed at least twice in the UK in the last thirty or less years, and there's no guarantee that they won't change again.

Variation #2:

FIRST (FULL) REFERENCE NOTE

1. 1901 census of England, Kent, Tonbridge, p. 10 (printed), Frederick William Wells; image, “Advanced Person Search”, QinetiQ Limited under licence from The National Archives (PRO), The 1901 Census Website (https://www.census.pro.gov.uk/ : accessed 2 April 2003); citing Public Record Office, RG 13, piece 760, folio 75, page 10, schedule 71.


SUBSEQUENT (SHORT) NOTE

11. 1901 census of England, Kent, Tonbridge, p. 10 (printed), Frederick William Wells.


SOURCE LIST ENTRY

England. Kent. 1901 Census of England. Database with images. QinetiQ Limited under licence from The National Archives (PRO). The 1901 Census Website. https://www.census.pro.gov.uk/ : 2003


REPOSITORY
Image Library, The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 4DU

The 1901 census website operated by QinetiQ is no longer in existence so I would suggest that you alter your reference to either FMP or Ancestry. (The image will look EXACTLY the same.)
Also the PRO is now TNA, so in future years people are going to scratch their heads over PRO the same way that the vast majority of more recent family historians don't have a clue about Somerset House, St Catherine's House, or the Family Records Centre. (All places where the original GRO registers of BMDs were kept.)

In the short note, the same duplication of page numbers applies to the piece numbers per registration district as schedule numbers in 1911.

I've already covered the failings of the 'Subsequent short note' in my first sentences.

And I've spotted an inconsistency in your 'repository'. No phone/fax number like there is in the 1911 census. Though it's good it's not there, as per reasons given previously.

Pam

[Peter Goodey]

The way to cite a census entry is as follows:

Initial reference: The National Archives [of the UK] (TNA); RG 13/760 f 75 p 10

Subsequent references: TNA; RG 13/760 f 75 p 10

Stuff in square brackets is optional - only include "of the UK" if might otherwise be ambiguous. The folio number defines a sheet, the page number defines the side of the sheet. Most people include the page number but it could be omitted in some cases eg if you're referring to several consecutive documents.

I suppose you could include the title if you thought it was going to help eg "General Register Office: 1901 Census Returns"

For the 1841 census, you must include the book number and it should be shown in the form HO 107/876/18

Standard abbreviations: p=page. f=folio, pp=pages, ff=folios.

Don't try to refer to a specific image provided by Ancestry of FMP or whoever. These companies are not official repositories and can change the way images are served up any time they feel like it.

[History_Hunter]

Thanks to all for the feedback.

I was really just trying to ask if anyone else was using the Evidence Explained citation style and could help me format the existing data correctly.

I use RM7 and Evidence Explained citation style. It's saved me from disaster more than once. I am, now, in the midst of transferring my "ancient" paper copies and printouts to electronic form. I need to get everything into the same format, before I can decide about what to "freshen up" and what to purge. After that, I may decide to tailor my citation style. Right now, I'm more worried about trashing something potentially important. :>)

[arthurk]

I think if you're determined to use Evidence Explained with RootsMagic you might get a more sympathetic and helpful answer on the RootsMagic users' forum and/or mailing list.

My own feeling is similar to others expressed here, that while the EE templates might be needed if you're planning to submit something for publication in a learned US journal, they are completely over the top for the way most of us record our family history. Among my main criteria for sources and citations are that they should be as concise as possible while remaining clear and unambiguous; and while the level of detail required by EE made them unambiguous, they were neither clear nor concise.

Over the time I used RM, there seemed to be an increasing encouragement to use EE methodology, and this was one of the reasons I switched from that to Family Historian (a UK-authored program).

If RM has continued to follow this path, you will no doubt find other users who have tried to squeeze UK-based events and documentation into this kind of mould, and they might be more able to offer suggestions than those of us here who feel it's not a terribly helpful thing to do.

[Ed McKie]

The way to cite a census entry is as follows:


Don't try to refer to a specific image provided by Ancestry of FMP or whoever. These companies are not official repositories and can change the way images are served up any time they feel like it.

Peter, the OP did refer to on line images. I presumed that he was referring to a link so kept my comments to downloaded images. If your caveat is correct that online images or their location could be changed over time, then any citation of such an image would become invalid at the same time,surely?
I am glad I have never had the need add proof of my endeavours by the over use of source citation.

Cheers. Ed

[Peter Goodey]

I seem to recall that Medway Archives (Cityark) changed the presentation of their register images from individual JPEG files (one per page) to large PDF files (one or two per register). This would have nullified any attempt to cite an entry by image number or URL. However, anyone who cited entries simply by using the repository's standard catalogue number would be OK.

[History_Hunter]

I seem to recall that Medway Archives (Cityark) changed the presentation of their register images from individual JPEG files (one per page) to large PDF files (one or two per register). This would have nullified any attempt to cite an entry by image number or URL. However, anyone who cited entries simply by using the repository's standard catalogue number would be OK.

I used to consult the Medway Archives a while ago, but could not locate the register images a few weeks ago. Thanks for a possible explanation, Peter. Is there a good link to start to look for info?

[Peter Goodey]

Peter. Is there a good link to start to look for info?

https://cityark.medway.gov.uk/