* England & Wales census records

[Gary_G]

I was going over my England and Wales census records and wondered about the "Title" used by FindMyPast.

eg.
Record Transcription:
1911 Census For England & Wales
Branksome College New Milton S O Hampshire, Milton, Hampshire, England <==== "Title"

Does FMP consistently use a plain street & address geographical location as their title and the census divisions are expected to be derived from the body of their transcription? Sometimes census divisions etc. have very similar names to standard geographical names and I just want to make sure I get things straight before entering my data.

[AdrianBruce]

My belief is that the title of their transcription is descriptive and therefore I wouldn't expect 100% consistency. Or even close. I've just checked some samples in the 1911 and their content appears a touch idiosyncratic. For instance,

3 Lawtons Court King Street Leigh, Leigh, Lancashire, England

is one example - the positioning of the commas is odd if you ever wanted to parse that transcript title, "Leigh" occurs twice, etc.

My Great Granddad's transcript title is

43 Nantwich Road Crewe, Monks Coppenhall, Cheshire, England

Again, it's an odd concoction. The bit before the first comma is a decent address (and appears to be a copy of what he regarded as his postal address). Crewe and Monks Coppenhall are 2 names for the same area - the latter is one official jurisdiction for census and registration purposes. However, "Monks Coppenhall, Cheshire, England" doesn't match well to the census divisions because the Reg District is Nantwich and the Reg Subdistrict is Crewe. Monks Coppenhall is the civil parish.

In my mind, the only safe way to get the census divisions is to look at the body of the transcript - or the corresponding images, of course.

[Mark1834]

Agree. I ignore the record title assigned by Ancestry, FMP etc. They are neither systematic nor permanent, and could easily change in the future.

I concentrate on the information recorded in the original source, and only use such secondary detail where it genuinely adds value.

[Gary_G]

Thanks, Adrian and Mark.
When I looked at their "Title", I saw inconsistencies and wondered what they were actually trying to convey.
To date, I've been going off the actual records and the information they contain.
So; I should OK for the work I've done.

[fhtess65]

Ditto. Examining the original record for the information is the best course of action. For 1841-1911 censuses, I navigate to the 1st slide on the film and hope that the Enumeration Description page is extant and has been digitized. If it has, I pull my info from there and then download it as well as the page from the enumerators book that includes my household of interest.

Agree. I ignore the record title assigned by Ancestry, FMP etc. They are neither systematic nor permanent, and could easily change in the future.

I concentrate on the information recorded in the original source, and only use such secondary detail where it genuinely adds value.

[Gary_G]

Teresa;

When I ran into the confusion with the "Tile", I automatically went back to my images for solid data.
Because I always download the "header" images as well as the image of the page for the person, I had this option.
It's a bit more to file, but I can always go back and correct things (if needed).
There are also times when the header detail also allows me to find an address on a map, since it describes the Enumeration District.

As a result of the confusion on what the purpose of the "Title" was, I'm now filing my UK census data per filenames similar to the following example:

example

image.png (77.88 KiB) Viewed 1212 times

[Gary_G]

Adrian [Bruce];

I need your help.

I'm still quite frustrated in my efforts at documenting UK census/register records and need to put a stake in the sand.

I while back, I asked about the possible definition of "Jurisdiction" vs. "Civil Division" as it might apply to a UK Census record.
I did this, because the "Evidence Explained" book uses those terms in defining the format of a citation for the UK Census.
While I know it has some flaws, I thought I'd at least try to use it as a guide.
Unfortunately; while it has of some help, the effort has caused me nothing but extreme frustration.

"Jurisdiction" referring to the census jurisdiction (ie. County, Registration District and Subdistrict) in a census reference would make sense. However; including a "Civil Division" (ie. Civil Parish) in the reference seems like mixing apples and oranges. Yes; the census pages do tend to note the Civil Parish, but it is just one of many pieces of information in the image. Including it doesn't significantly help in defining the source that has been imaged and just seems to confuse me.

To add to the confusion; the EE citation examples seem to organize information in references from largest to smallest. That is; they start by identifying the census and end by naming the person of interest. So; having a "Civil Division" stuck in the middle of a stepwise definition of what census page we are viewing seems to make no sense whatsoever. In addition, elements of census jurisdictions and civil divisions can sometimes share a common name. This just makes things more confusing with respect to what type of division one is referencing.

I think that, perhaps, I will keep the layered concept espoused by Evidence Explained. However; I plan to reference census records I used by using census related divisions/sub-division alone. If the database supplies some information that is not on the key image, but is needed to properly define the record referenced, I will include it. I won't ignore it, because it wasn't in the image viewed. Of course; I will also include the TNA (UK) reference as a separate layer in my citation, so there will be no doubt I can find the record on any half-decent website.

Sorry for the bit of a rant, but does this approach make any sense to you? I just need to find a robust paradigm for citing census returns. It needs to make sense and be something I can use for any census.

[Gary_G]

One small question that someone may be able to answer.
Do folio numbers restart with each new Registration District?

Late Note:
Think I found the answer.

Ancestry says that returns were collected by registration districts, which were divided into sub-districts and then assigned consecutive piece numbers. The TNA (UK) says that folio numbers were assigned within pieces. Enumeration districts are a subset of sub-districts. So; folio numbers must restart within each piece/sub-district and span the enumeration districts within the subdistrict.

So; to describe a TNA (UK) reference like "RG 11/765, fo. 54", "Surrey, Chertsey (RD 31), Walton (SD 1A), fo. 54 would seem to suffice.

[Notice that the geo-political information on the census page is not part of the decoded reference. However; I suspect that the stated civil parish description on the census page just might be the description of the numbered enumeration district noted in the preceding header pages.]

[arthurk]

One small question that someone may be able to answer.
Do folio numbers restart with each new Registration District?

Assuming you mean England and Wales, yes - but they also restart within Registration Districts. A census reference typically contains the following (but see further notes on 1841, 1911 and 1921):
Class (HO107, RG9, RG10 etc etc)
Piece (a number of up to 4 digits (5 in 1911 & 1921) - some people use leading zeros to aid sorting)
Folio
Page
Household/Schedule No.

(Going down to Folio number is enough to identify the sheet of paper; I use Page as well to show which side of the sheet, and some include the household/schedule number to identify the individual entry.)

Registration Districts usually include several Pieces, and in each Piece the numbering of Folios starts at 1.

1841: Each Piece is subdivided into smaller parts (or books). I haven't been back to the images to check, but I see that my references include HO107/1291/11 folio 25 and HO107/1291/12 folio 9. From this I deduce that each part has its own run of folio numbers, rather than the piece as a whole.

1911 & 1921: What we generally work with are the household schedules, and the usual reference is Class/Piece/Schedule No. However, for 1921 it was found that Schedule Numbers repeat within a Piece, so for a unique identifier it's necessary to include the Enumeration District (ED) number before the Schedule number.

(Enumeration District numbers are often seen on census forms (descriptions of districts etc) and in TNA's catalogue, but apart from 1921, in my experience they are of little use in identifying entries. Within each Piece they often appear in what seems to be a random order, and I rarely see them in other people's census references, so it's easier just to ignore them.)

[Gary_G]

Arthur;

Ancestry's description was a bit confusing. Thanks for the explanation.

So; each piece captures the records of one registration district?
If so, then I can see why the divisions of sub-districts and below would be irrelevant when describing the reference in words for the purpose of a source title.

So; if I understand correctly, a 1891 TNA (UK) reference like "RG 11/765, fo. 54" could be described as simply "Census, England, 1891, Surrey, Chertsey, fo. 54". And as you noted; the page and schedule could be added.

[AdrianBruce]

When I looked at Evidence Explained for English & Welsh censuses, my initial reaction was "But we don't do it like that!" I, like many English & Welsh genealogists, simply use the TNA References down as far as "folio" at least. In theory we're supposed to put "folio X front" or "folio X rear" - I tend to add the page number as it dictates which side of the sheet of paper we're looking at, plus the household schedule. So:
1841 -
Class: HO107; Piece: 129; Book: 8; Folio: 6; Page: 7

1851 to 1901 -
TNA reference Class: RG?; Piece: ????; Folio: ??; Page: ??; Schedule ??
Exception - the 1851 is HO 107. Although this duplicates the 1841 class, I include a collection name showing the reader whether it's the 1841 or 51.

1911 -
TNA Reference RG 14, Piece 99999, schedule 999
(No folios any more - the schedule number carries out the same function)

1921 -
TNA Reference RG 15, Piece 99999, Enum Dist 9, schedule 999
ED has to appear because the schedule numbers reset in each ED in 1921 whereas they carried through the Piece in the 1911 (as Arthur says)

each piece captures the records of one registration district?

No. To be absolutely honest, I'm not sure whether there is any consistent logic in what a Piece represents. Remember that Piece and Folio are artefacts of the accession and cataloguing process at TNA and how closely that reflects the arrangement of the Registrar General's enumerators "just depends".

To take the 1901 census as an example:
RG 13/3355 covers Nantwich Reg District, Crewe Sub-Reg-District, EDs 7 thru 13, I think. Folio starts at 1 and goes through that Piece without resetting. Schedules start at 1 in each ED.

RG 13/3356 starts with Nantwich Reg District, Crewe Sub-Reg-District, ED 8, restarting the folio count at 1. Both Pieces are basically part of the town of "Crewe" and I think that in this case the Piece simply made up a convenient physical bundle.

As for mixing Civil Parish in, etc. Yes, it is a mix - I think this Ancestry image from the start of RG 13/3355 conveys it best:

2024-07-20 CHSRG13_3354_3356-0267.jpg (453.77 KiB) Viewed 913 times

Notice that the hierarchy is Reg District, Reg Sub-District, Enumeration District. These 3 define the pages that follow in the book.

The other stuff like Civil Parish, etc, are purely documentary and note that all of them refer to the ED being only part of those areas. Thus ED 7 is just a part of Monks Coppenhall.

I would therefore suggest that, if I follow your desires correctly, your referencing should consist of Reg District, Reg Sub-District, Enumeration District, Folio, Page (optional), Schedule. In addition, add in the TNA Piece Reference RG 13/3355, and also add in any geographical placename for information purposes. The placename is "for info" and isn't a definition. In this case, I'd add "Crewe" or maybe "Crewe Municipal Borough" but it's really just personal preference why I add that and not the Civil Parish. Note that the placename of Crewe probably does not match the Reg Sub-District of Crewe.

[arthurk]

So; each piece captures the records of one registration district?
If so, then I can see why the divisions of sub-districts and below would be irrelevant when describing the reference in words for the purpose of a source title.

As far as I am aware, no Piece will include parts of more than one Registration District; and RDs will almost always include several Pieces.

So; if I understand correctly, a 1891 TNA (UK) reference like "RG 11/765, fo. 54" could be described as simply "Census, England, 1891, Surrey, Chertsey, fo. 54". And as you noted; the page and schedule could be added.

One problem with that is that it might not be unique. Many towns are big enough to have more than one Piece, and sooner or later you're going to come across one where you need the Piece number to distinguish between them. So if you're looking for consistency in your references, this would be a format to avoid. (Also, I've never seen it like that; see below too for a further thought on this.)

My earlier post risked getting too long, but Adrian has touched on something that crossed my mind while I was writing it:

Remember that Piece and Folio are artefacts of the accession and cataloguing process at TNA and how closely that reflects the arrangement of the Registrar General's enumerators "just depends".

A lot of the handwritten references on census forms reflect the structure of the registration service, which was responsible for the census, so there are references to Registration Districts and Sub-districts. Next level is Enumeration Districts - the division into smaller areas to be enumerated by an individual. However, at some point after the census was taken, the enumeration books were reorganised into Classes and Pieces (I don't know who did this or when), giving rise to the references we now use (HO107/...., RG9/.... etc). At the same time, Folio numbers would have been stamped on the pages. (They're not part of the original print; I've come across pages where the folio number has been changed, and one place where they've been omitted completely.)

It would certainly be possible to define a census entry in terms of its Registration District, Sub-district, etc and arrive at a unique description for it - the trouble is that that isn't how it's now arranged, so it would merely confuse anyone who tried to use that definition to find the entry in future. Instead, the accepted way to give a unique reference is to follow the arrangement used now by TNA, with the numeric reference at least as far as Folio, and beyond if desired.

So the other problem that I have with "Census, England, 1891, Surrey, Chertsey, fo. 54" is that it's a mixture of the two different arrangements: "Surrey, Chertsey" seems to be following the verbose format of Registration District...etc (and if Chertsey isn't/wasn't an RD, you might wish to include the RD name somewhere too), but "fo. 54" is part of the numeric format. Taking one bit from one format and another bit from the other one just doesn't work.

I don't use "Evidence Explained", though I've occasionally looked at the website and seen examples of the output. I suspect for absolute completeness some EE purists might wish to include the details of the registration district etc, but as I've pointed out, it doesn't help anyone else find the entry. TNA's reference is perfectly adequate for that, so why complicate it?

[Gary_G]

Adrian and Arthur;

Thank you, both, for taking the time to explain.

I, too, have some serious doubts as to whether Evidence Explained is valid outside the United States. Even in Canada, Evidence Explained is somewhat less than a perfect fit. It seems like the book was written to document U.S. sources, then sources from everything else were "forced" to fit. Sort of like someone taking scissors to a puzzle-piece when it doesn't seem to fit.

So; you will not hear me singing praises of the book, but I do think the "layer" concept has some merits for online research citations. That doesn't mean that I like the content of what the layers contain. I think they sometimes make citation a futile effort.

In the case of a UK census, the "EE" style falls flat, because the individual page images don't contain anything fully identify their "location" in the organizational structure of the census. Yes; there are a few lead-in pages for various Enumeration Districts, but these are not always present or intact. Since the purpose of the first EE layer is to extract this information from the viewed image to locate it within the census hierarchy, one ends up with something that doesn't pass muster.

In the case of a UK census, as with a French one, I feel there might be more benefit in using the first layer to extract the person(s) of interest, their address and location. The second layer would still identify the collection and website containing the source. The third layer would contain the source-of-the-source and archival reference to precisely relocate the imaged page. This should also work for a French census, which is typically based on a city or town and has no districts or subdistricts at all.

This would look something like;

Census, England, 1881, Surrey, Walton on Thames, 7 Broughton Villas, Arthur Colborne (p. 13-14, sch. 68); image, "1881 England, Wales & Scotland Census", database with images, FindMyPast (https://search.findmypast.co.uk/search- ... and-census : accessed 25 Feb 2020); citing The National Archives of the UK (TNA): RG 11/765, fo. 54.

How do you both feel about this approach?
[This approach keeps the data from the imaged page in the first layer, which is stylistically "EE-ish". As the first layer is also used as the basis for the subsequent footnote and the source title, it should be easier to eliminate the on-page reference info from those items.]

P.S. Arthur; it was FMP and the TNA catalogue that stated that this page was from "Chertsey" RD.

[Gary_G]

Here is a full-up example:

Source Name
Census, England, 1881, Surrey, Walton on Thames, 7 Broughton Villas, Arthur Colborne

Filenames
1. Census, England, 1881, Surrey, Walton on Thames, 7 Broughton Villas, Arthur Colborne (p. 13, sch. 68).jpg
2. Census, England, 1881, Surrey, Walton on Thames, 7 Broughton Villas, Arthur Colborne (p. 14, sch. 68).jpg

Footnote
Census, England, 1881, Surrey, Walton on Thames, 7 Broughton Villas, Arthur Colborne (p. 13-14, sch. 68); image, "1881 England, Wales & Scotland Census", database with images, FindMyPast (https://search.findmypast.co.uk/search- ... and-census : accessed 25 Feb 2020); citing The National Archives of the UK (TNA): RG 11/765, fo. 54.

Short Footnote
Census, England, 1881, Surrey, Walton on Thames, 7 Broughton Villas, Arthur Colborne.

Bibliography
CENSUS: England. 1881. Surrey, Walton on Thames. "1881 England, Wales & Scotland Census". Database with images. FindMyPast. https://www.findmypast.co.uk : 2020.

[fhtess65]

I long ago gave up on EE style, having come to the conclusion that outside of the US, the process breaks down. My own style is a modified Strathclyde one, which almost always includes layers. It took me years to fully understand genealogical citation and feel comfortable with developing a method that works for me.

Below is a citation for my 2nd great-aunt, based on household census return entered using AS:

1871 England census, 16 New Compton Street, St Giles in the Fields, Middlesex, England; Head of Household: Thomas Taylor; Person of interest: Emma Taylor (age 8, line 21); citing: The National Archives, UK; Kew, Surrey, England; "1871 Census Returns"; Reference: RG10; Piece: 173; Folio: 7; Page: 11; GSU roll: 542586; Enumeration District: 1; Schedule: 75; Lines: 15-21. Collection: "1871 England Census" - digital images. Ancestry. acc: 3 April 2016. Note: Thomas and Louisa still have all but their eldest child (Thomas) living at home with them. Also still at the same address are Thomas's sister, Sarah (now a widow), and his nephew, George.

Moving my database to FH from RM allowed me the freedom to apply everything I'd learned about citing genealogical sources and I'm so grateful to Nick for Ancestral Sources.

My method won't work for everyone and I'm sure there are holes that can be poked in it, but I'm comfortable knowing it's consistent and fairly complete. I'm gradually working through my main line and important collaterals, updating their sources, and, of course, using it for all new entries.

[Gary_G]

Thanks for the example Teresa.

I note that you use Ancestry and I use FindMyPast. Ancestry provides some data that FMP does not. eg. "GSU roll: 542586; Enumeration District: 1", so I don't have that part. However; we both seem to have all the elements of a full TNA (UK) reference that will get us to the correct folio, plus the page and schedule data to find the person given the folio images. I notice that you also have both the head and person of interest. I usually just cite the head of the house (my personal convention), unless the person of interest is unrelated to the head. In that case I cite them specifically.

The nice thing about either approach is that it can be templated in such a way as to make good use of A.S.

[Gary_G]

I tried making a template to create my posted example census citation. It was VERY easy to code and only took about 15-20 minutes to create. Due to the changes from what I was using to generate pure EE-style, it was FAR easier code than expected. I plan to "throw rocks at it" and then try to see how it works "in production".

Subsequent Note:
I tried it with A.S. Because I chose the correct field-names, the template auto-mapped most fields. The results were exactly as expected.
Only wish that A.S. had a place to enter the access date, but flipping to the template fields and entering it wasn't all that much of an issue.

[arthurk]

In the case of a UK census, as with a French one, I feel there might be more benefit in using the first layer to extract the person(s) of interest, their address and location. The second layer would still identify the collection and website containing the source. The third layer would contain the source-of-the-source and archival reference to precisely relocate the imaged page. This should also work for a French census, which is typically based on a city or town and has no districts or subdistricts at all.

This would look something like;

Census, England, 1881, Surrey, Walton on Thames, 7 Broughton Villas, Arthur Colborne (p. 13-14, sch. 68); image, "1881 England, Wales & Scotland Census", database with images, FindMyPast (https://search.findmypast.co.uk/search- ... and-census : accessed 25 Feb 2020); citing The National Archives of the UK (TNA): RG 11/765, fo. 54.

How do you both feel about this approach?
[This approach keeps the data from the imaged page in the first layer, which is stylistically "EE-ish". As the first layer is also used as the basis for the subsequent footnote and the source title, it should be easier to eliminate the on-page reference info from those items.]

Teresa may have given as much of an answer as you need, but since you asked, here's my take on this. Bear in mind that I like to keep things as short and simple as possible - just enough to be a unique reference that enables me or others to find the source again.

Layers are a new concept to me, but I can see where your suggestion is coming from, in that the page and schedule number from the original are separated from the TNA reference which was created later. However, it raises a couple of issues for me:

(a) Walton on Thames is, I think, a large enough place to have several enumeration districts, and therefore several page 13-14's. So even though you give the unique address, I think you'd need to include the ED number. Just like the page numbers, this is part of the original arrangement of the census. (Teresa's example deals with this.)
(b) Because I'm used to giving census references as a single entity going from TNA class down to the page number, it seems strange to me to separate the page (and schedule) number from the folio number. However, if you're formatting the citation in clear layers I can see the logic behind it.

That said, I'm not really the best person to advise on the details of how you write your sources/citations. I don't use EE, I don't use AS, and my sources are generic rather than templated. And after many years of 'lumping', it's only relatively recently that I've split my census sources and started adding transcripts and images. However, for my purposes I simply don't need the level of detail you're including. Here's an example of one of my sources - it's not perfect and I know it doesn't meet what you're trying to achieve, but it works for me:

Footnote
1881 Census: Leeds, WRY; Craven, John Bilton (head), (RG11/4522 fo64 p18).

Short Footnote
1881 Census: Craven, John Bilton; RG11/4522 fo64 p18.

Bibliography
1881 Census: Leeds, WRY; Craven, John Bilton (head), (RG11/4522 fo64 p18).

[Gary_G]

Thanks for the feedback, Arthur. I appreciate you taking the time to try and translate your thoughts from the way you do things to layered template approach.

Wrt. to the following...

(a) Walton on Thames is, I think, a large enough place to have several enumeration districts, and therefore several page 13-14's. So even though you give the unique address, I think you'd need to include the ED number. Just like the page numbers, this is part of the original arrangement of the census.

The ED number is not shown on the actual census page and is only sometimes available in the preceding "header" page images on FMP. It is also not documented on the FMP database content page (I always save a copy; just in case I need it). Hence my comment to Teresa about ED typically only being available on Ancestry, but not in FMP "Record Transcription". So; I really couldn't include it, as 99% of my records are from FMP. Thankfully; as you noted, the chance of having a person of the same name in the Parish, with the same page number, schedule number and address, seems vanishingly small.

[AdrianBruce]

...
Census, England, 1881, Surrey, Walton on Thames, 7 Broughton Villas, Arthur Colborne (p. 13-14, sch. 68); image, "1881 England, Wales & Scotland Census", database with images, FindMyPast (https://search.findmypast.co.uk/search- ... and-census : accessed 25 Feb 2020); citing The National Archives of the UK (TNA): RG 11/765, fo. 54.
...

I think this is pretty close to the way I do things. Bearing in mind that I use generic sources, here's one of my latest:

General Register Office (England & Wales), schedule for Henry Stubbs, agricultural labourer in household of John & Elizabeth Bourne, Heath Side Farm, Weston, 1871 Census, (digital image of original published in Ancestry "1871 England Census" [database on-line], citing TNA reference Class: RG 10; Piece: 3711; Folios: 107, 108; Page: 2, 3; Schedule 8), Cit Date 2 April 1871

Comments:

• I always start with the Author - I have a fairly generous view of what an Author is;
• Then, like you, I have the person of interest and physical address;
• "Henry Stubbs, agricultural labourer in household of ..." is an unusual preamble because I'm only interested in Henry, who's working on a farm run by people who I'm not interested in;
• I only record the access date when it's a text that can change. An image "can't" change, so I use the date effective for the original.

So basically we've got the bits in a different order but, as you see, I don't use the RD, SubRD and ED for this census because I've got the TNA reference for uniqueness and the real world, physical address for explanation.

[AdrianBruce]

Caveat: Scottish censuses are different again because they're not held by the TNA at Kew. They are published via ScotlandsPeople and I use the General Register Office for Scotland (GROS) reference, e.g. (just looking at the reference bit):

Digital image of original published in ScotlandsPeople 1881 Census, citing reference Census 282/3 25/ 17 (p.17 of 42), schedule 115

Just don't ask me what the GROS Reference means after the 282/3! (I think that the Reg District and Enumeration District are in there somewhere)

[Gary_G]

Good to see that you do about the same.
If it works for you, it'll likely work for me.
Thank you, so much.

Re: the Scottish Census
For the 1881 Census of Scotland, "282/3 25/ 17 (p.17 of 42), schedule 115" means...

"282/3" appears to be the old RD designation (1868 1918) for St.Clement, Dundee.
(This is from the NLS "parishes-and-registration-districts-by-number.pdf")
"25" is book number
"17" is the page number
"schedule 115" has the same meaning as in England.

Be careful. When one downloads an image, the filename includes the image number, not the page number.
Thankfully; what one needs is all nicely printed at the top of the image.

[Gary_G]

Adrian;

This approach and the associated template can still work for Scotland.
ScotlandsPeople is an odd site, since it gives one the GROS reference after having had to search for the record by RD and County.
As such; I've simply added a clarification as to what the GROS reference means. That way the search can easily be re-executed.
The added discursive note is for my own benefit, so I can easily set up an address that will geolocate when using a current database.
I probably shouldn't include the postal code, as it won't help.

eg.

Footnote
Census, Scotland, 1911, Aberdeen, Peterhead, 48 Queen Street, Charles Murison (p. 6, sch. 48, ln. 28); image, "Census", database with images, ScotlandsPeople (https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/adva ... ecord-type : accessed 25 Feb 2020); citing The General Register Office Scotland (GROS): Census 232/1 7/ 6 [Co. Aberdeen, RD Peterhead, bk. 7, p.6]. In 2024 the postal address would be; 48 Queen Street, Peterhead, AB42 1TQ, United Kingdom.

Short Footnote
Census, Scotland, 1911, Aberdeen, Peterhead, 48 Queen Street, Charles Murison

Bibliography
CENSUS: Scotland. 1911. Aberdeen, Peterhead. "Census". Database with images. ScotlandsPeople. https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk : 2020.

[Gary_G]

I tried to take into account that some feel census info like RD, SD and ED etc. should be part of the citation and that you asked the meaning of some parts of the GROS reference. A.S. poses some limitations on what I could do, since one has only two fields over which the user has much discretion wrt. content. So; I tried adding the info as as a clarification of the archival reference number of the third clause. This adheres to the purpose of each layer and yet includes the desired information. I believe I could use the same idea for records from the rest of the UK and France.

eg.

Footnote
1901 census of Scotland, Perth, Alyth, Shanzie, Charles Murison (p. 5, sch. 18); image, ""Census"", database with images, ScotlandsPeople (https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/adva ... ecord-type : accessed 10 Jun 2024); citing General Registry Office Of Scotland (GROS): 328/A 7/ 5 [Co. of Perth, Dist. of Alyth, bk. 7, p. 5].

[fhtess65]

Yes - that's what I love about AS - it's very adaptable. Occasionally I do have FMP census images, but my template allows for the lack of a GSU roll number.

As for head of household and person of interest - that's the cataloguer in me - I'm used to being very specific while capturing/recording all relevant details.

While I like FMP for many aspects of its UI, I really don't like the way they handle the filmstrip, chopping it into little bits so you can't easily reach the beginning of the roll. Half the time, there aren't even image numbers for easy navigation. The inconsistency is quite frustrating. As is its habit of sometimes recording ED numbers and sometimes not. In the 1861 census for my 2nd great grandparents, Daniel Spong and Elizabeth Hannah Sinkins, there's no ED transcribed, yet in 1891, I find their son George's ED number has been included (note - these citations captured using the WikiTree Sourcer, so EE style):

* "1861 England, Wales & Scotland Census", database with images, Reference: RG09; Piece number: 173; Folio: 29; Page: 57; Schedule: 403, [https://search.findmypast.com/record?id ... 0001105785 FindMyPast Image] - [https://www.findmypast.com/transcript?i ... 5&tab=this FindMyPast Transcription] (accessed 21 July 2024), Daniel Spange (35), married, Grocer, head of household at 10, Little Earl Street in St Giles registration district in London & Middlesex, England.

* "1891 England, Wales & Scotland Census", database with images, Reference: RG12; Piece number: 430; Enumeration District: 08 Folio: 48; Page: 31; Schedule: 188, [https://search.findmypast.co.uk/record? ... 0003642996 FindMyPast Image] - [https://www.findmypast.co.uk/transcript ... 6&tab=this FindMyPast Transcription] (accessed 21 July 2024), George Spong (32), married, Coach lamp maker, head of household at 16, Green Lane, Battersea in Wandsworth registration district in London & Surrey, England. Born in England.

I did have to add the ED number for the second one manually, as the Sourcer didn't included it, so it must be coded differently.

In general, Ancestry is more consistent in its metadata, which is why I prefer it for census records, among others.

Thanks for the example Teresa.

I note that you use Ancestry and I use FindMyPast. Ancestry provides some data that FMP does not. eg. "GSU roll: 542586; Enumeration District: 1", so I don't have that part. However; we both seem to have all the elements of a full TNA (UK) reference that will get us to the correct folio, plus the page and schedule data to find the person given the folio images. I notice that you also have both the head and person of interest. I usually just cite the head of the house (my personal convention), unless the person of interest is unrelated to the head. In that case I cite them specifically.

The nice thing about either approach is that it can be templated in such a way as to make good use of A.S.