1900 Census of Norway at Ancestry

Hello, Kristina,

No. EE does not have an example for citing a Norwegian census (only Sweden, among the Scandianavian countries). However, the format is the same regardless of locale. If you have not yet discovered it, you might want to bookmark FamilySearch’s “Norwegian Genealogical Word List” at (https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Norwegian_Genealogical_Word_List).

As you’ll notice, that list’s discussion of bruk and gård tells us that “one farm could be subdivided into several parcels called bruk.” This is the context in which the words appear on the census' cover sheet (at image 36), whereon the spellings are “Gaards No. ___ Brugs No. ___.”

For the census you’ve used, the standard format when reporting research in the English language, with translations for clarity, would be this:

1900 census of Norway, Oppland County, schema [schedule] 1, person list 48, district of Vestre Toten, taellingskreds [enumeration district] 14b, gård [farm] 259, brugs [parcel no.] 3, Bostedets Navn [residence name] Bonderudtajet, entry for Helmer H. Bonderudtajet b. 1884; imaged in “1900 Norway Census,” database with images Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/interactive/60604/48256_b389579-00234 : accessed 9 July 2019) > Oppland > Vestre Toten > 014b > images 36-37; citing National Archives of Norway.

You’ll note a few differences:

1. I eliminated some of the duplication and standardized the punctuation. Your draft opened with “1900 census of Norway - Folketelling for Norge” (or vice-versa). Someone who is not familiar with the Norwegian language would likely be confused, not knowing that one is a translation of the other. The standard approach for translating words, as you’ve done yourself in some spots, is to put the translation in square editorial brackets, i.e.: 1900 census of Norway [Folketelling for Norge].  The use of the tiny hyphen between the two phrases in lieu of editorial brackets also muddies your intent. (You might want to check EE 2.65 for the discussion of what hyphens and dashes signify.)
2. In citing the subdivisions, I retained the original order: schema, personliste, [location], taellingskreds, gaards, brugs,
3. I switched layers 2 and 3 of your citation.
   • In layer 1, you are citing what you are eyeballing: the census.
   • In layer 2, you are telling us where you viewed this census—i.e., via an image at Ancestry.
   • In layer 3, you are telling us what Ancestry is citing. The placement of “citing ….” Immediately after your identification of the census implies that the census itself is citing the National Archives.
4. I’ve included the actual URL at Ancestry, as well as the path, to help with navigation. U.S. researchers using U.S. censuses don’t normally cite the path, the exact URL, and image numbers; but when we’re working with foreign-language censuses, it can help other researchers who are not familiar with the language of the record.