U.S. Census page ID missing

David, you've just provided a very good example of why, when citing census pages, it is often wise to add a parenthetical word or two to describe exactly which set of numbers we're referring to.

We'll assume, as a foundation, that you've already discovered section 6.8 in the census chapter: "Citing Page, Folio, or Sheet Numbers." Different years have different practices, which require us to make different choices. The section on "Folio" numbers addresses one of the items you’ve discovered: that a stamped number may appear on one side of a piece of paper but not the backside.

(Incidentally, since you're new to EE, I'll add a general how-to here: The first two chapters have foundational advice that applies to all types of records. Then, each individual record-type chapter begins with special instruction for that record type. The first gray page that introduces each chapter also offers, on its backside, a list of special issues involved with that type of record and the section no. where that issue is discussed. While no one, surely, sits down and reads EE from cover-to-cover, taking the time to review this basic instruction at the start of the book and the start of each chapter will make it easier to understand all the problems involved in citing original documents.)

In scanning the census chapter, you'll also see several variants in our models:

• At 6.19 (p. 266) we merely say “p. 11,” because there’s only one page number evident on that sheet; we also add “col.” number because that one page has multiple columns.
• At 6.19 (p. 267), we say “p. 492 (penned),” because there are multiple numbering schemes going on for that census, both penned and stamped numbers.
• At 6.20 (p. 272), we say “p. 741 (penned at bottom right),” because there are multiple sets of penned numbers and we have to give some direction as to which set we used.
• At 6.22 (p. 273), we say “p. 68 (typed tag).” 
• At 6.25 (p. 276) in the Wyatt Earp example that you mentioned, we say “p. 290 (stamped).”

Beginning with the 1880 census, things become even more complicated because we not only have the page/folio numbers created by the census bureau (the stamped ones), and the numbers created by the district marshal, who collated returns from all the individual enumerators under him (the penned numbers), but also additional number sets used by the enumerator within a specific enumeration district.  For example:

• A preprinted number-letter combo, which results from the individual enumerators using, say, 4- or 8-page folios—i.e., large sheets of paper folded to create smaller pages. Each folio is sometimes preprinted with a number, then each individual page (or side of a page) in the folio is preprinted with a letter. 

Or

• A cluster of blanks prefaced by words saying what should go in those blanks? Supervisor’s District (SD)____; Enumerator’s District (ED); Sheet No. ____.

Your 1920 example uses the last of these systems. As per the 1910-1930 examples at 6.31, you would first cite the ED number, then the sheet number. In your case, it’s ED 569 and sheet no. 15B.   

(Incidentally, this particular enumeration district also confuses the issue by carrying two numbers in the blank for “sheet” on each page. If you study the whole ED to analyze how it's constructed, you’ll see, for example:  “Sheet No. 6 14B,” “Sheet No. 7 15A,” “Sheet No. (7) 15B.”  “Sheet No. 8 16A.”  What has happened here is that the ED enumerator numbered the sheets in a way that did not conform to his instructions and so his supervisor struck out the wrong sheet numbers and added corrections.

All of which goes to make well the point of today’s blog posting—that we often need to study the context of our one record entry in order to understand what it is we have and how to cite it!

You're most welcome, David.  We were all beginners at citation, once upon a time. :)