Clarification of census citation format for United Kingdom

By History-Hunter on Wed, 10/09/2024 - 10:38

Forums

On page 305 (section 6.51) of Evidence Explained, 3rd. edition revised, the First reference example for a Welsh census from FindMyPast is: 

First Reference Note  

1. 1901 census of Wales, Monmouthshire, Bedwelty, p. 5 (stamped),  Moses Frame; image, “Census, Land & Substitutes,” DC Thompson,  Findmypast (http://www.findmypast.com: accessed 1 April 2015);  citing [The National Archives] “Series RG13, piece 4943, folio 5, p. 1.”

To which Is "Wales, Monmouthshire, Bedwelty" referring;
Country, County, Parish, or 
Country, County, Registration District

This is important, since the Parish and Registration District are not always the same. It is impossible to infer the answer from the example, but I suspect that, Country, County, Registration District, is the correct interpretation. That is; the whole reference consistently refers to census-related elements. If that is so, then I can extend this to other citations; whether British or otherwise.

Submitted byEEon Thu, 10/10/2024 - 10:06

History-Hunter, I agree that geographic distinctions are important. EE, as a rule, uses the essential geo identifiers as shown on each specific source. However, I cannot review that record now without resubscribing to FindMyPast. (Maintaining permanent subscriptions to all providers used for EE examples, given the book's scope, would be a prohibitive expense; my personal research and relevant subscriptions are currently focused on other areas.)

Incidentally, EE is now in the 4th edition. Its example for the 1901 census of Wales cites Ancestry and its access structure as of 2023, rather than FindMyPast.  FMP is cited for other examples, again using 2023 structure and provider details as opposed to the 2015 example you are working from.

Submitted byHistory-Hunteron Fri, 10/11/2024 - 14:17

Thank you for the clarification. 

I will consider sourcing the more recent book, but at least I now have an unambiguous understanding of what was intended in the previous edition. This is important as I doubt that I will rewrite all my previous FMP citations, but I will likely verify that they use the geographic identifiers from the image.

Submitted byEEon Sat, 10/12/2024 - 09:47

History-Hunter, you wrote: "I doubt that I will rewrite all my previous FMP citations, but I will likely verify that they use the geographic identifiers from the image."

The issue here, of course, is that websites too-often change their structure. The only way to verify the identifiers used ten years ago, when that edition of EE was created, would be for one of us to have preserved an image of the page and the provider's description as it existed then.  At every revision of EE, at least 60 percent of the online citations have to be revised because of website changes—and the major providers have been the worst "offenders."

As for rewriting all citations every time a website structure changes, paths change, or database titles change, EE does not recommend that. If we did so for long-term projects, we'd be constantly rechecking and revising. Most researchers make those alterations when or if they prepare their work for publication. At that point, all cited websites must be revisited to verify or revise citations.