Talk:Kent Census

See Talk:Sussex Census as the catalogue for these entries requires further technical work. It is suggested that until the FamilySearch presentation of microfilm numbers is completed that linkage to wiki pages is not advisable. Crescunt 14:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Staplegate, Kent contains a broken link to an extra parochial area of Canterbury for which FamilySearch does not have a search capability in its collection. Crescunt 16:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Frant, Sussex explains the misapprehension that this Diocese of Chichester parish a portion of which was in the county of Kent is a Kent parish.The census returns for Frant 1841-1891 are contained in the Frant, Sussex page. Penshurst 14:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Ide Hill, Kent broken link- it is necessary to refer to Sundridge, Kent Crescunt 09:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Mark Beech, Kent has no census return microfilm capable of search; Woodlands, Kent and others are similar. The current presentation of microfilm numbers for towns is unsatisfactory; the search for census film numbers for Medway towns in the Rochester area cannot be refined to civil or ecclesiastical level parish level. Similar issues encountered for all towns in the county. Ps1964 23:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that there are many errors in the catalogue of census returns for Kent; occasionally there are complete omissions such as Broadstairs and in the case of Ramsgate we see Census returns for Ramsgate 1841-1891

Census returns for St. Peters-Ramsgate, 1841-1891

The difficulty as a contributor is to establish which of the two versions of search for census microfilm i.e. the "classic" site for FamilySearch or the offering which this page links to. As with much of the "work in progress" look and feel to FamilySearch one part of the site invites contributions to Family Search wiki others fail to provide the material to contribute. Since contributors for several English counties have drawn attention to the deficiencies hopefully someone in FamilySearch is listening although there is no response in Wiki talk pages to any of the problems raised. The Sussex cases made to FamilySearch support do not inspire confidence due to failure to respond to issues identified and personally I prefer to contribute to parish pages here than enter into protracted email correspondence. In many of these cases a search of microfilm holdings at the Family History Library is needed both to ensure that the content of the wiki page and more importantly the catalogue for the locality is accurate. The value of including microfilm for English census is debatable; the coverage does not include 1901 and 1911 and the purpose seems to be solely for users of the Family History Library stock of films. The much larger audience of researchers worldwide will search online. Hostelry 10:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Herne Bay Christ Church, Kent would be found in Census returns for Herne 1841-1891

references to this page have been removed from the parish page as the link returns no census returns in the current presentation. Ps1964 16:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC) I note we have further technical problems with servers today.

An example of the problem of entering microfilm census returns is Hamstreet in Kent. It is relatively simple to conduct an online census search for Hamstreet within seconds. The old fashioned microfilm search for a village in two ecclesiastical parishes Orlestone, Kent and Warehorne, Kent and the civil parish of Orlestone and Warehorne is a lengthy business. Which begs the question why does FamilySearch request that microfilm census be included in each page? In this case who would attempt a microfilm census search when images can be examined online either through the FHC Portal in an LDS Family History Centre or by subscription to an online provider. Each wiki page requests microfilm inclusion; why? Microfilm/fiche ordering has surely been overcome by online searching so why are we asked to include microfilm collections which are unlikely to be used? Penshurst 10:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)