Forums
It has become my understanding that the hyphenated enumeration district numbers in the 1940 U.S. census are comprised of a county code (before the hyphen) and the actual enumeration district number (after the hyphen). Supposedly, the pre-hyphen county code is the same throughout the county.
When citing these ED numbers, is the county name and the county code unecessarily redundant? Put another way, is it necessary to include the county code number in the ED number? I believe that my main motivation in asking this question is merely that I don't like the hyphens in my ED numbers.
Best,
Paul
Paul, let's approach this
Paul, let's approach this from the issue of clarity. If the census page says "ED 102-24" and we cite "ED 24," how many people who use our citation to find the record for themselves will be frustrated when they can't find an ED 24?
There are always situations when people who are "in the know" will know that this-or-that could be omitted. But what's more important: (a) showing that we are one of those "in the know" people; or (b) clarity?
Paul,
Paul,
Did you look at the Census Image itself and what did it say?
The one's I have looked at contain a Supervisory District (SD). That may or may NOT be a county, but could be part of a county.
I am not addressing a citation format, but the information about a SD and an ED. The importance for recording BOTH is to help find that same location in a different census year. For example, I knew from the 1930 Census were my folks were, based on SD and ED. The http://www.stevemorse.org/ One-Step Website helped me locate those same places in the 1940 Census. That was BEFORE they were indexed by anyone. I had my 20+ household located in the 1940 Census within a day, because I knew where that ED was in 1940. In my cases, the SD didn't change, but the ED did.
They both are important to me, as they can give me a better understanding of the "Neighbors" in the F.A.N. club
Russ
Hi, Russ,
Hi, Russ,
I wasn't referring to the Supervisor's District number, which is generally not a part of anyone's recommended citation format. However, each of us can certainly do MORE than the standard if it improves our clarity. For example, when available, I use line numbers in every darn census citation ever since I came upon a household in the 1900 census that included three (3) Mary E. Ward(s).
What I was questioning is based on the following excerpt from the Family Search web site:
1940 Enumeration Districts
In each state, an enumeration district is given a unique number including two different numbers separated by a dash (i.e. 15-1). The first number is the assigned number for the county and the second number is for each E.D. within the county.
Since the first number is a county code and the name of the county is included in the citation, there is a redundancy for those "in the know." Additionally, I have a coding system for my source documents, which in the case of census records is the PAGE, that uses hyphens to delineate portions of the source identifier, and additional hyphens within an element reduce clarity in my system.
U CenS-NE-FUR-1880-0017-002
This is a page from a US Federal census (the space designates the level at which the record was created), state of Nebraska, Furnas County, year 1880, ED 17, page 2.
1940 US census:
U CenS-NY-DUT-1940-14-43-014B
So, when it comes to the 1940 census, I'm not so crazy about the hyphenated EDs. As mentioned in my original post, I could eliminate the redundant county code:
U CenS-NY-DUT-1940-0043-014B
or I could use another delimiter:
U CenS-NY-DUT-1940-14.43-014B
I'm all for clarity. I'm all for being in the know. I guess I was asking about this more for my own filing system than for the actual citation. Of course, I will site the full hypenated number in the acual citation, but I'm free to use whatever internal filing system that makes sense to me. Within my own 'system' the 1940 census may require a note of explanation.
No further questions, your honor.
Best,
Paul