United States Census[]

The page United States Census was added to this site about two months before the "by location category scheme" was. So were the related pages United States Census, 1790 and United States Census, 1840, with latent links to about 20 similarly-named pages. Nobody had queried the word order in the name - either on its talk page or in Forum:Census pages - until I tried to make subcategories with corresponding names. Phlox was a little harsh but technically correct in complaining that the name violates the category scheme that has just been put up here. The scheme is still a "Proposed Policy" on Commons, and I regard it as a proposed policy here until there's a bit more comment on it.

In principle I like the category scheme and am willing to spend some time taking part in eradicating violations. I wonder whether anyone thinks "United States Census" is one of the "Fossilized expressions" that can be excluded. If not, we should seemingly be:

  • renaming it "Census of the United States"
  • renaming related pages to match as closely as possible. Does that mean putting the date at the start, eg "1790 census of the United States"? (I'm happy with that - someone looking for a 20th century ancestor can instantly see that a name starting with "1790" is not worth studying.)

Then what about pages (including categories) covering a single state's census details? Subpages?

Robin Patterson 05:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean a single state census like some of the censuses in the 1700's for Virginia and other states?
  • 1750 census of Virginia for Isle of Wight county
I propose that the by location Scheme be modified to allow lists of subdivisions of locations be postpended separated by commas rather than prepositions. So, for example if you meant the single state data for a federal census it would be:
  • 1880 census of the US for Texas, Rusk county, district2
As far as time constraints, it will take zero time for a Bot to correct. The hard part is sometimes on agreeing what the convention should be.
Now on "United States" and "United Kingdom", I think general practice is now to abbreviate them as US and UK- otherwise you get some torturously long cat names.

As for being abrasive in my manner of presenting material, I apologize. There is no reason that being bold means being obnoxious. I will be the first to admit that is one of my weaknesses. Oftentimes I can't find a way to communicate the good will that is the foundation of what I am trying to contribute. Of course if others don't agree that it is for the better, then certainly we should not proceed on some course or other that I may favor. We all want this wikia to be great or we wouldn't be working on it. That's a huge area of common ground to work from. ~ Phlox 06:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! (Not harsh enough to be abrasive!!) Robin Patterson 02:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Pages for subdivisions of US and other countries[]

Yes, I do include those isolated censuses Phlox mentioned, but more particularly any page for a state part of a federal decennial, and subdivisions of any country where there are enough images or text for a particular region to have its own page. Example page names from another wiki include "Source:1920, 14th United States census, Saline County, Illinois", "Source:1920 federal census, Dickenson County, VA", and "Source:1920 federal census of Ozark County, Missouri". As I said when noting those elsewhere, we want to be more standardised. You and I agree on that principle; so do Bill and Aabh and probably most other significantly noticeable contributors here.

Example from my personal research: The Tay Valley Historical Society (based in Dundee, Angus, Scotland) publishes separate booklets of census indexes/transcriptions for individual parishes for particular census years, all part of the countrywide census. The one I borrowed from the NZSG library tabulated all 1,700+ people in the 1851 census of Kirkden. That sort of thing could be listed on a page such as 1851 census of Scotland/Angus or even reproduced (if licensed, which that one would probably not be; whereas an individual could easily gift personally transcribed material under the GFDL) on a page such as 1851 census of Scotland/Angus/Kirkden.

I suggest slashes instead of commas so that there's a subpage structure with its automatic links back to the higher levels. Phlox's example would then be shortened to 1880 census of the US/Texas/Rusk county/district2 or 1880 census of the US/Texas/Rusk county/district 2.

Robin Patterson 02:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

People associated with more than one place[]

Robin suggested this change: "4. With people, replace "of" or "in" with "from" (so as to to allow people to be classified under more than one relevant place, e.g. birthplace)."

I don't understand what is being proposed. This reads like you are proposing folks always use "from". If a Kiwi Bloke Patterson lived in the US for 10 years. Would we put Robin Patterson, [[Category:People from Mendocino County, California]]? In the domain of genealogy, Wills, patents, deeds refer to the legal residence of an individual and use "of". It seems to me that WP uses "People of" precisely because it allows multiple places. Someone can be a person "of London", but also "of Bombay", and there is no nationalism crap because there is no quibbling whether they are honestly in their heart of hearts "British" (whatever that is), or "Indian" (whatever that is). They are "of the UK" and "of India". If their point of origin was one place, then they could use "From". ~ Phlox 07:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not proposing a change to anything except the summary. The scheme says use "from" for people. WP may well use "People of", though the Australian examples I saw last night used "from" - see wikipedia:Steve Irwin. Commons recommends "from", though it's buried in a subheading. Robin Patterson 02:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Right. How about this: "With People, use 'from' for birthplace, and 'of' for residences.' ~ Phlox 05:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)