Talk:2011 United Kingdom census

Metal?

Should we have a small section about the fact that more than 20,000people are planning to write down "Heavy Metal" as their religion? 88.104.8.240 (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The obvious one is the Jedi thing. Nearly 400,000 people in the UK wrote it as heir religion in the 2001 census. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.159.185 (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Controversy?

Yikes, frightening stuff! Oh hang on, surely counting the number of bedrooms is, er pretty basic housing information, and asking the age and sex of people staying overnight sounds eerily reminiscent of 'Persons Present'. Have I missed something, or would this just be a squalid little article trying for a bit of rabble rousing, and not in any way resembling a reputable reference? Pterre (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Balance of article

With the census just 3 weeks away I was expecting to find a better article. Don't get me wrong what is written is very good and interesting but the article definitely needs expanded to include details of the Scottish and Northern Irish censuses (sp?). Also if there's going to be the logo at the top shouldn't we have all 3? And a paragraph on some of the notable differences (if there are any) would be very interesting. Scroggie (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Boycott section is inaccurate

The section on groups boycotting the census seems inaccurate. Neither Stop the War Coalition nor Ekklesia is in fact promoting a boycott. See my blog post about this: http://www.gentlewisdom.org.uk/3017/who-is-boycotting-the-uk-census/ Peterkirk (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

British Humanist Association

There should be a section in here addressing this campaign [1] Luconst 01:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I have twice reverted an edit which is about the British Humanist's Associations complaint about the format of the 'religion questions' in the 2011 census. The statements are suported by a citation from BHA's own website [www.campaign.org here] which is the website of the BHA and as such is a primary source and does not lead the requirements of WP:RS. I am sure there will be at least one secondary source about the issue raised by the BHA but the slant of the edit will need to be written from a neutral perspective as per WP:NPOV without the reference to the BHA site. I will not revert again as this would breach WP:3RR but would hope instead it is amended to meet Wikipedia requirements.Tmol42 (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I see a cite from the BBC has now been added but if you check this out it does not support what the edit says. Yes its easy to Google a cite but any old site about the BHA and the Census will not do it needs to be one that supports wat is said The cite from the campaign site of BHA has been left in. If nobody else wants to put this right I will rephrase in due course.Tmol42 (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Results

When are the results due out? As of February 2012 this article still has no reference to the results of the 2011 census, and UK geographic articles still quote population information from the 2001 census. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.18.228.167 (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just updated the article with the latest release dates.  —SMALLJIM  20:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Broad brush results have started coming out today, as scheduled. [2] Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin

It seems odd that there is no mention of the huge public opposition to the involvement of Lockheed Martin having a role in the census. Or the fact that many ciizens refused to complete it - or completed it in a way that meant Lockheed Martin's computers couldn't read it, with the intention of reducing their profits by forcing them to pay people to read the responses..? 193.113.57.161 (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, firstly the Lockheed Martin contract award issues are included under Production heading and secondly the opposition was not huge, nor it turns out did any more than a handful or so of people refuse to complete the forms or do so in a way to cause any admin difficulties.Tmol42 (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Number ?

So is there a Number of how many people live in the UK, that has been postet in June or July 2012? No further details, only the number?!

Greetings from Germany, Berlin -- Kilon22 (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The first release says "On census night the population in England and Wales was 56.1 million, 53.0 million in England and 3.1 million in Wales". Scotland is counted separately - I haven't seen numbers for Scotland yet. bobrayner (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Local authority data

Quick question, does the United Kingdom not count local authority populations? I keep seeing references being made to "estimates". I guess I'm just a bit confused as to what exactly was released on July 16. I know that even counts are technically estimates, but is the ONS data released on July 16 a count or a formulated estimate? --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Census data -> Wikipedia

Now that the main data release has happened, we're trying to figure out how to incorporate it into Wikipedia at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography FlagSteward (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Misleading parish 'boundaries'

The Office of national statistics has the 2011 census data presented in a different way to the 2001 census.

I wrote them the following email:

Here is a queer thing.

The map at http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadDomainList.do?a=7&b=11120794&c=bitchfield&d=16&g=6482018&i=1001x1003&m=0&r=1&s=1366828291601&enc=1&domainId=58&census=true
clearly shows Boothby Pagnell inside the parish of Bitchfield and Bassingthorne.

But according to SKDC, they are separate:
http://moderngov.southkesteven.gov.uk/mgParishCouncilDetails.aspx?ID=411
http://moderngov.southkesteven.gov.uk/mgParishCouncilDetails.aspx?ID=410

Your own site gives them separate in 2001
http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/viewFullDataset.do;jsessionid=0JhQR4dTql4Lx8ZQGGgnvXm4g6YvnyJ4B7rC7ZylPq13m9n249J4!-1346669638!13668262

59859?instanceSelection=03070&productId=779&$ph=60_61&datasetInstanceId=3070&startColumn=1&numberOfColumns=4&containerAreaId=790460&nsjs=true&nsck=true&nssvg=fa

lse&nswid=1024
So is it your map that is wrong?

The reply I got back was

The parish guidance at

http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/Info.do?page=census2011onness/geography/parishes/parishes-and-communities.htm provides an example of a similar instance that you report under the '...The boundaries for my parish/community don't look right compared to previous versions..' sub-heading.

Producing data for small areas, such as villages, can be problematic, not least due to the small populations often living in a village there is the risk of disclosure. In addition a villages can vary immensely in nature across the country so are difficult to define statistically.

To address the issue of disseminating data at small area level, the concept of Super Output Areas (SOAs) was devised. Details of SOAs and their rationale can be found here

http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/Info.do?page=aboutneighbourhood/geography/superoutputareas/soafaq/soa-faq.htm
http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/Info.do?page=nessgeography/superoutputareasexplained/output-areas-explained.htm

While the intention was that SOA geographies were meant to be stable, population changes arising from the 2011 Census meant that some new geographic entities had to be created and some existing ones merged, please see the PDF report at http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/geography/products/census/report--changes-to-output-areas-and-super-output-areas-in-england-and-wales--2001-to-2011.pdf for more details.

For 2001 Boothby Pagnell parish was associated with the Output Area (OA) E00133659, for 2011 due to the changes in the above report it was now associated with a new OA E00169422 this has changed how Boothby Pagnall is represented statistically. The maps within Neighbourhood Statistics are to show statistical dissemination only, they are not intended to provide a definitive geographic representation of a particular area.

The parish guidance at http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/Info.do?page=census2011onness/geography/parishes/parishes-and-communities.htm provides an example of a similar instance that you report

I hope this helps, apologies for all the links, unfortunately it is quite a complex subject that does not fit easily into a single email.

What I took to be 'Parish' data, under the 'Parish' selection button, is really 'Our own things a bit like Parishes, but really SOA groups. We name them after actual parishes..--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United Kingdom Census 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527044844/http://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/en/ to http://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/en/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527044844/http://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/en/ to http://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/en/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 25 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved and move associated pages at Category:Censuses in the United Kingdom (non-admin closure) comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

---

United Kingdom census, 2011 → 2011 United Kingdom census – This was moved to match election style, which has since then changed to have the year first. Unreal7 (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Support per nom. Year first is less awkward phrasing regardless. Lazz_R 12:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Support, not sure I agree with the rationale but I agree about the end result. However, per Category:Censuses in the United Kingdom, this should not be a standalone move. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support as to this and all comparable titles. bd2412 T 18:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

@BD2412 and Zzuuzz: Anyone who can maybe assist with moving associated pages at Category:Censuses in the United Kingdom, possibly with the help of WP:AWB or similar? (Posted at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks) comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I think WP:BOTR would be a good place to ask, too. It's a bit more frequented these days. Killiondude (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)