Do Census Data Boxes Belong in Biographies? [closed]

Question

I thought this question had been asked before in G2G but I was not able to locate it with the G2G search box so advance apologies for covering perhaps previously answered territory.

I noticed a very active member who on every profile created is inserting a data box for every single US Census record cited. The profile biographies themselves contain very little information beyond points in time with geographical location but are exceedingly long for the content due to the space being taken by these info boxes which, at least in the examples I see, are not providing substantively useful or beneficial information.

Are the boxes being created by an app?

I suppose it is fine if someone wants to present the entirety of a census record even when it's not pointing out some part of the narrative or helping to untangle a genealogical question, but isn't this information better shown within Sources with the inline citation?

Comments

There was a previous discussion about it here. It was not particularly productive due conflating many issues/questions.

There is another simple thread about household tables here.

---

A couple more:

• Borderless Census Tables
• Are Tables desirable on WT?
• How do I add census tables to a biography?

---

Thanks for posting those links, Rob. The thread started by Jef Treece was the one I had recalled but had been unable to find.

Answer 1

I think it is down to the taste of the person doing the adding.  If there is not much information to be had for a profile, then I feel that 'bulking it up' with census tables looks better ('tables', rather than 'boxes' can be searched for in G2G).  Myself, I prefer a table to a list (both can be created by the Sourcer extension).  Sourcer can be configured so that tables are borderless, which some people prefer.

Information presented in tables is beneficial to screen readers for those WT members who need a little help visually. On the other hand, the Profile Improvement Project prefers tables to go in the Sources section.  Some projects don't like tables at all (doesn't matter where you put them).

Answer 2

I am one that is adding the boxes.

I will be happy to move those boxes as I do clean up since the thon. I will move them to be under sources.

For me it helps me know who needs adding. 

Yes, The profile biographies themselves contain very little information beyond points in time with geographical location but are exceedingly long for the content due to the space being taken by these info boxes which, at least in the examples I see, 

Sometimes what I put in the profile is little information.  It is just a start for a profile giving the full name, birthday, and parents.  It may give me a marriage date and location. Then it helps give me a death date, and possibly a memorial location.

I then go back and then start adding the sources, readjusting the biography.

Hopefully either myself or someone else can add to that profile with more history or detail.

Comments

Alice, thank you, but I was not referring to you in the question.

---

You are welcome. I know I do add the boxes. Glad to know I am not the one. Again thank you.

---

I like your boxes, Alice.  I've seen others add them.  I think they look neat and professional and are handy when you don't have much more than a few census records. Another way to jazz up the profile are the stickers which are attractive too. I try to add bios even if they are barely more than the facts as we know them.  For some people that's all we can do until a closer relative comes along with more info.

Answer 3

There is no specific overall guidance for using census household tables (i.e., boxes). Some projects have guidance that tables should not be used or that they should go in the Sources section.

One Profile Improvement Project goal is "The text portion of the profile should be structured in a way that makes it easy to read and easy to find information, as well as visually appealing". Members who take the Profile Improvement Project Voyage learn about using the Sourcer to describe the household using a table, a list, or a narrative sentence.

Comments

Thanks, Kay, for that info on the PIP. For me, tables or boxes are not visually appealing and detract from the biographical narrative though I think exceptions would be their use in discussing points of disagreement or establishing facts contrary to those commonly seen.

I think the projects I lead or co-lead will discuss discouraging the use of the tables or boxes within the biographical narrative (if used, place them in Sources with the appropriate citation).

---

I agree with you that the tables in the biography detract from the narrative, but I think the table also breaks up the Sources section.  I use the 'list' format in the sources section, which is an option in the Sourcer app, on what format you want to be used, list vs table vs narrative, as well as where you want it, in bio or in sources section.

I find the list very helpful in determining when children come and go in a family, for death or moving out, as well as if other relatives or generations are living together which helps to determine correct connections after marriage.

Answer 4

Do Census Data Boxes Belong in Biographies?

• Yes (as opposed to the Sources section)

The Sources section should be kept for sources.  If data is being put in the sources section, I think we have lost our focus on what the sources section is for.

Comments

Do you believe they should be in a bio narrative when they are not of any substantive relevance to that narrative? Or would you agree with Linda Peterson above (posted about the same time as your response so don't know if you saw it) regarding list form use in Sources?

---

If you think about the meaning:

• Biography
• Source

Than you can realize that census data content is more source than biography. You have to retrieve the information from the census data to use it on the profile.

Maybe one can sort the census data to another section between Biography and Sources.

I personally feel repelled by a biography consisting of census data.

---

I think if the "Sources" section is being used properly, it is going to tell me where the data (that should be in the "Biography" section) came from. I would not expect to find data in the "Sources" section.

---

@Siegfried - I am afraid I do not agree.  Each of these tables is composed of two parts: the census data (however presented) plus the source from whence it came.
Data: Belongs in the Biography section.  
Source:  Belongs in the Sources section.

The data does not belong in the Sources section (which is what happens if you put the table in there); the source does.  If you wanted (which I have seen done) the Biography has a little subsection of its own: ===Census===.

---

If Tommy and Ros read my comment again, I didn't say to put the census data into the sources. I thought about a special section for census data between Biography and Sources, maybe 2nd level, or as you mentioned 3rd level.

But census data spread out over the whole biography is awful in my eyes.

Edit: The solution mentioned by Peggy, Jonathan and Tommy to use the Research Notes section seems to be a good compromise between all the meanings here.

Then the focus of the biography can be the biography and the focus of the sources can be sharp and exact without too many stuff.

---

I would agree with Siegfried (and others): The solution mentioned by Peggy, Jonathan and Tommy to use the Research Notes section [or a Census section as Ros mentions] seems to be a good compromise between all the meanings here.

---

Ros, I’m one who prefers to have a Census section to see where the family has lived over time or who was in their household at a particular time.

---

=== Census === is a reasonable solution. But == Census == is forbidden by

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Biographies#Proper_order

which says

Any other elements or subsections should go below one of the recommended sections described above.

---

I agree with Tommy. What I'm looking for in the "Sources" section is citations.

I will often add a list of the censuses at the end of the Biography, but I don't extract census data into tables in the list.

If specific information from the census contributes to the biography in some way, I'll mention that in a narrative style that is consistent with the biography. If there's information that contributes to an analysis or proof, I'll just work it into the bio, if it's brief. If the analysis is longer, then I'll put that discussion in a Research Notes section. Either way, I've never had any reason to extract an entire census record into a table.

I think they're more distracting than useful in a well-written profile. But if someone was compelled, I'd say put it in the Research Notes where there would be space to offer analysis of it.

Answer 5

I love the way tables present information. When I first discovered how to make them, I placed them in the biography section. But, over time, I decided I preferred to have them available in the sources section instead so that the biography section was mostly complete narrative sentences, some of those sentences summarizing the information in the census. I am reformatting the profiles I manage to my preferred style each day.

Each WikiTreer has their own preferences as to style. Thankfully, WikiTree accommodates our preferences, within reason. I don't try to impose my own style preferences on others and I hope they will give me the same courtesy.

Answer 6

I like to see the other people living in the household,  occupations, state of birth, age, etc.  All seems relevant data for the person and it takes more time to write out all the information,  plus you can quickly visually see from census to census.   For me, I like the tables.  I guess it's a personal preference unless specified for a project.

Comments

I’m the same.  I don’t mind them and I like being able to quickly scan for information that I might be looking for.

---

I'm the same, I find the visual display in the table is a much easier way to absorb the information in the census and it's much easier to compare household members in different census years when in table form rather than in list form and especially long narrative.

 I remain bemused at the concept that converting a table to a long narrative form enhances readability, to me it does the opposite.

Answer 7

I found tables added to a profile I manage. For each year there were two. One is the vertical list that shows the head of household with his/her information followed by the names of all the household members. The second was a horizontal list of all the household members, their ages, and relationship. That seems a little redundant, especially since (hopefully) the spouse & children are in the upper section already.

In my opinion, tables do not add to a nice narrative biography, they just fill up space. I do recognize that not everyone using WikiTree can follow links to sources and the table may be useful to them and that tables do save information to develop profiles for family members.

Perhaps there could be a section below sources where tables can be located.

Comments

Thinking about my comment above, I tried to recall the profile that had been amended with several tables. I do not remember, so I think it was not a profile that I had watched closely. If it had been a ʻcloseʻ profile I would have edited it to use my preferred formatting.

For myself, I would like folks who are improving profiles to check with active PMs for their preference prior to adding tables that substantially change the format chosen by the PM.

---

I will add table format census to profiles if they are unsourced, or inadaquately sourced, but if the profile manager is active and using a different format I send them a message apologising for the different format and explaining that I've done it that way because that's how my Sourcer defaults are set.

 So far no-one has objected, some have thanked me and others asked where to find Sourcer.
 If I think it messes with someone else's long form narrative I'll post the Sourcer generated material as a comment and leave it up to the PM to put it in the profile.

---

Perfect approach, Gary.

Answer 8

I prefer putting census tables into the Research Notes section.  I put them there originally, but finally decided my time is better spent doing other things, so now I leave the tables that Sourcer and BEE create in Sources.  I want the tables available to compare when reading a profile, so please don't delete them.

Comments

This is also my preference. Biography should be narrative. Sources should be for citations. Research Notes is where I would put additional information like this if I need to add supporting evidence for the familial relationships without cluttering the other two sections.

---

I think a section under Research Notes is probably the best place for the tables.

Answer 9

My preference is to not clutter the Biography or Sources section with things like tables, so I prefer putting things like census information and other research in the Research Notes section.

In addition to keeping the narrative and citations clean, it also breaks it into another sub-header of the profile. Eventually, pending the site redesign, this could allow people to collapse and expand the entire section if they wish not to see it, similar to how this can be done on the Sources section today with the Readability Options feature of the WikiTree Browser Extension.

But, people have different opinions, so if tables really bother you, there is already a way to hide all tables from the profile under the Readability Options.

Comments

Again, everyone does not use the extensions, so it is 'not' an option for everyone.  'Everyone' may not review all the options as they are added to the extensions, also.

Answer 10

I think the question being posed here is really the inverse of what's in the subject line: "Should we restrict or disallow the usage of census data boxes in biographies?"

For me, that answer is a resounding "no, we shouldn't restrict their use." If census tables are taking up too much of the page, it generally indicates that more explanatory prose could fill the gaps.

For a good example of the use of census tables, see Carver-5359.

Comments

I have to agree with you, Jeff.  Abigail has done an excellent job on this profile and use of tables.  

For me personally, I feel Census' contain information that fit into the Biography, so it always feels odd for me to see the tables in the Source section.  But I understand that each person has their own distinct way of doing things.

There is always lots of data in them, either way, so I would never touch what the PM has chosen to do. :)

---

I've never seen the use of data boxes to provide contextual information, it's a nice feature that rounds out the profile.
 Very tidy and informative profile

Answer 11

Personally I like to have the household tables in the biography. For me, the biography section is a chronological narrative of birth, marriages, residences, death etc. For most people this is built from the public records available and census records are one of the most informative. I find all the info such as occupation and marital status very relevant to the biography and find that a table is a much more readable form for this that trying to spell it all out in sentences.

Often, there are several households at the same address and that can be helpful to see in the biography also. So I have spent time putting together tables for these multiple households.

This profile of my 1x cousin 2x removed is an example of how I currently like to use the tables.

Comments

Nicely done! I like that format.

---

I am of the same view, but I admire your much more elegant biography on that profile.
 I really like the linked freespace page with the intermarriages, and given all the double 2nd and 3rd cousins I have (and some who are 1st cousin and 3C1R) I'm curious as to how you created that chart.

---

Thanks Lynette and Gary,

Gary - I created that diagram with the free online Google Drawings. It is not a perfect tool but better that my previous use of Mac Preview - which let me edit the image but once I saved it I could not edit it any more. Goggle Drawings would also allow me to share a link to the drawing on my Google Drive if I wanted to. I have been meaning to try Google Slides as well. I the past I have made diagrams like this in Powerpoint so I'm wondering how Slides would compare.

---

Thanks for that info Rob, I'll have a look at that program, If I still had my flowcharting templates I could do it manually.
 If we have  a wet, gloomy winter as I expect, I'll have a fair bit of time inside this winter, over the next few months.

Answer 12

There won't ever be a consensus on this. A lot also depends on what type of biography is being presented. A narrative biography about a person's life or a research report. Tables in the biography itself turn it into a research report and is mostly about the research and the researcher and the person is then secondary. In terms of a person's life, a census is a relatively insignificant event that happens to capture some very useful information. It is a matter of focus. Narratives can be interesting to non-genealogists. Research reports are focused on other researchers.

Comments

I don't understand your conclusion, I cannot see how the style of presenting the same information changes the focus away from the person being profiled, a long form narrative, a list or a table present exactly the same data.
 Is not substance more important than form?

---

Records record a process. That process says what the researcher did. For a biography, adding the records into the narrative inserts the researcher into that narrative because process has been introduced. I've heard this type of biography referred to a a travelog through the sources rather than a biography.

So, think of each insertion of a record as the researcher saying "look at what I found." Not quite that bad but it does pull the reader outside the story of the person's life and into the research. Most of our ancestors wouldn't know what was in a census record and the handful of minutes it took to inform the census taker would be quickly forgotten. It was a non-event in their lives. Inserting it into the biography makes it appear as a major event.

If the intent is a research report rather than a biography, then the research takes front and center and it is usually left to the reader to sort it out.

It really comes down to who you want to write for. If you want non-genealogists to be interested, stay away from research reports. Most go running from the technical stuff but a biography could engage them. If you write for other genealogists, then a research report makes sense.

---

I see what you are saying about telling a story about the person vs saying what information has been found about the person. But I think there is a spectrum rather than a clear cutoff between a biography and a research project. Even if you read a professional, published, biography of a famous person they are often talking about what the person said in a letter or that a person appears to have separated from their wife by a certain date based on some record or other. If one was writing a historical novel based on a real person then, yes, you wouldn't mention records. But when a biography is based on limited records that still exist it is difficult to avoid acknowledging that and referring to records in the narrative.

It is something that I go back and forth on though. I like to put the census tables in the biography. But at the same time I try to keep them as an accurate transcription of the census image (possibly with corrections in brackets). So does transcription belong in the biography or in the source? I think there are differing opinions. Certainly many professional biographies put transcriptions of parts of letters in the biography itself.

---

There is a spectrum but there is a big difference in types of records. Transcriptions of parts of letters or an image of that part of a letter make sense in that they are small and an intimate part of the person's life. Something like a full transcript of a census record doesn't. Worse are transcriptions that include cryptic fields with no explanation which I see a lot with census transcriptions.

In genealogical publications it depends a lot on the focus of the publication.  Some are research report or methodology oriented and others are biographical.

Transcripts should never be in the source citation. If Wikitree did footnotes they might go in a footnote. I haven't found any citation style that would put a transcript into a citation and I've had to use a lot of different styles over the years.

Perhaps putting them in the Research Notes section would work. I find it just as easy to build a narrative from the data and not cause non-genealogists to run away.

Again, it is personal choice except where a Project wants Managed Profiles to be done the same way.

---

I try to write a narrative bio, a couple of times I've had a census table added to the bio. I make it into a citation.

 When I started on wikitree, I   used very simple  citations stating little more than the  original archival references for censuses and  for parish registers.  (Many of my earlier profiles were originally researched using original parish registers in local archives or using microfilms of censuses in the public record office in London ).  I found that many people didn't understand these references and  wanted directions or links  to online versions. Moreover, if  an online reposititory was behind a paywall, there were frequent complaints on G2 .Sorry folks, but if I can, I'll use an image rather than an index or partial transcript on a free to view site. There are no images of UK censuses on free to view sites.

One solution to that problem  is to add a relevant  transcript to the reference.  I now commonly add  transcripts of parish register entries. Sometimes I add  quotes from wills or from longer documents and occasionally I've added transcripts from a census   (not mastered boxes and looking back some of my earlier attempts need better formatting).

Re footnotes I've certainly   found that on more complex profiles  I've  ended up  using  the sources section to include  what might be termed footnotes.

---

I totally agree with you, Doug, but you know that already. 

If the profile is a research report, it has all the researcher's "findings" and my preference is a true narrative biography focused on the person, such as what is usually found in a quality journal article. There, one seldom sees any sort of "chart," perhaps an occasional listing of pertinent parish record entries to help illustrate a family grouping. To me, a profile is a person's life story, told in prose. 

To each their own, and WikiTree allows for lots of variations. I would not change  a profile that someone else manages, but I would remove chart-type data from profiles that I manage, or one of the projects I work with to conform to Project preferences.

Answer 13

The discussion seems to focus more on where tables belong (biography or sources) than on whether they belong.  They are really two separate issues.

1. Do tables belong in profiles?  This seems to come down to personal preference.
2. If used, where should tables be placed?  Again, this is a personal preference, but some guidelines can be developed from the responses in this and the other threads that Rob Pavey mentioned.

• Use census tables sparingly in the biography.  For example, adding one census table that shows all of the siblings in a large family before a subject's marriage can add useful information, especially if all siblings do not yet have profiles.
• Avoid using census tables where they do not contribute unique, meaningful information to a profile.  For example, a table that lists a couple with one or two children can usually be eliminated.
• Census tables may be useful in draft profile biographies to help trace the movements of the individual members of large families.  In addition, many census tables show when and where each person was born, which can be useful for tracking the movements of nomadic families.  Most (or all) of the tables can be deleted once all of the family's profiles have been entered and checked.
• Sources like a census or draft registration may also have occupation and industry information that can enhance a biography.  While a table concisely shows this data for a family, my personal preference is to extract that data and record it in a narrative sentence, especially since census transcriptions are often fraught with misspellings. 
• Most if not all census tables placed in Sources can be deleted without any adverse impact on the profile overall.  As many respondents point out, the census tables are data, not source references.

This isn't intended to be a complete analysis (that's above my pay grade).  Please add other guidelines that come to mind.  Ta.

Answer 14

Yes I add the boxes too, I like the look for one and two often there is that snippet of information, niece, mother in law, birth place etc that just adds a little bit.

I know I prefer to see the census boxes on a profile all I can rather than having to go via a link to say family search, sign in. 

To each his own and that is what absolutely great about the WikiTree profiles, you can do things your own way.  (within guidelines, we hope).

We will never agree on all things, for example I disagree with the colony stated without the Country despite the time frame. Solely for location clarity purposes.

The only thing we seem to agree on is to ensure reliable sources please.

Answer 15

I always add a === Residence === section and add the census information below there along with any other residences I can find, in chronological order. This keeps track of the people that were living in the home over the years, where they were living, etc. all in one area without interfering with the biography section. I add it below the Biography so after reading about the person, you scroll down and it's almost like being able to see pictures of their life.

I wouldn't add this in between the biography as that would make it choppy and hard to read and I wouldn't add tables to the sources area.

Answer 16

They both can co-exist in the biography. If you want to write a story then, you still can and add it at the top just below the biography with a timline (or tables) below. In some of my biographies I added a sub-header titled ===TimeLine===, but if a timeline is all you have I don't see the point of adding another section.

Answer 17

I list the people in the household, usually in a === Census Records === section in the Biography.

In light of this discussion, I did not do so on an existing profile that had used narrative to provide census information from the 1870 census (see the profile for Thomas Gilley Watkins). I found it less than useful, but left it alone and did not add lists of the two additional Watkins households that I found on the same census page.

Since I thought that the heads of the three households (Thomas, Charles, and William) might be brothers, I went to the father's profile, which had not been developed, and added census info under Research Notes... and discovered that they couldn't have been brothers, if Thomas was the son, because William's household matched that of William Watkins, son of Henry N. Watkins, as shown by previous census records (1850 and 1860).

If I had not added the lists to the father's profile, or had not previously added lists to Henry N.'s profile, I would not have realized that.

So yes, I think that lists/tables are useful and helpful in the pursuit of genealogical connections.

And I think it would be unfortunate for a WikiTree project to have guidance forbidding their use.

Answer 18

IMO I find that the tables present a trove of information (family, occupation, etc. at a specific time and place) at a glance, while the prose can offer a deeper dive for the reader.

Location:

I think Ros put it very well: "Each of these tables is composed of two parts: the census data (however presented) plus the source from whence it came.
Data: Belongs in the Biography section.  
Source:  Belongs in the Sources section.

The data does not belong in the Sources section (which is what happens if you put the table in there); the source does."

Format:

I see each table as a figure illustrating the accompanying biography prose, like any illustration or table in a book. The table borders neatly separate the census data from the prose, and can easily be skipped over by the reader if they want. But I don't mind a separate "Residences" or "Censuses" subsection in the Biography either.

I don't think the tables normally belong in Research Notes, which to me is more for presenting arguments for or against certain conclusions, or floating unconfirmed possibilities or research avenues, or debunking common errors.