It seems I've unwittingly stirred up a hornet's nest of those who may
consider that I was attacking their particular recording practices. My
intention, with my usual round the houses method, was to offer what I
consider to be best practice to those list users who had been requesting
assistance and advice. As I clearly stated, that practice doesn't apply to
all my source citations, due to my then inexperience and the limitations of
FTM v3. Whether I'll eventually get round to revisiting those source
records to enhance the citations is a moot point.
My dictionary includes in the definition of a source "a person
document etc. providing evidence"
Geoffers, I wouldn't argue with that,
but in relation to genealogy most
source material is actually held in some repository (some closed and some
open) which need to be referred to, so that source can be checked/verified
by someone else, if required.
the entire census is not my source of information
I beg to
differ, it does not come in clearly defined volumes, which can be
referred to such as vol 1 London, vol 2 Birmingham etc, but as one issue per
Census year - the numbering system does not sufficiently distinguish between
one area and another to permit such categorisation.
Within each citation you would fill in the "Where within
presumably > fill in the household census record in the
"text from source"
Nick, I may occasionally be daft, but hopefully not stupid. I have always
recorded information in Notes for the individual, this will include a single
record of the family from a Census in the individual that is shown as the
Head of Household.
In database terms this causes the twin sins of redundancy of data
of disk > storage/memory)
Irrelevant in reasonably modern PCs (which have plenty of memory/HDD space),
but if a database duplicates the recording of the same citation details,
rather than having a number of pointers to a single reference, then the
database standard, in this case Gedcom, is flawed.
and also possible inconsistency
An error that is in, say 10
citations, can easily be corrected as a single
action via find and replace in any decent text editor. That is one of the
beauties of Gedcom.
The source of this information was the certificate that I have in an
All the certificates that I have say something like
'this is a copy of the
register for...' which means they are an extract from the register! They
may contain source information, but they are not the source.
Births are recorded not just at the local register office but also at
General Register Office.
Debbie, true but not totally accurate. The GRO records
should always be a
copy of the registrations recorded at the local registry offices.
Unfortunately there appear to be registrations which never made it to the
GRO, possibly in the thousands.
Marriages are also recorded in the church registers
but there are two registers for all churches licensed to perform
marriages, one held by the local registry office (although some have donated
them to their local record office) and the second usually held by the PRO
(the oldest ones), the local record office or local history library, with
some still jealously held by the churches themselves (usually in insecure
cupboards etc). The better registry offices present you with cert that
contains a facsimile of the registration entry of marriage, which gives you
an actual example of your ancestors' handwriting in their signatures.
To my mind recording the source as Registration of Birth, Broughton,
Salford, is > not very helpful
May I suggest you re-read what I wrote, as I did actually refer to a
repository - Salford Registry Office, a source - Registration of Birth,
Broughton, Salford (Salford must have had four registry offices at one time,
each with their own register, so Broughton is essential information for
obtaining a certificate!) and a citation - Registration of Birth -
Broughton, Salford - No.453 14 Oct 1880 (which gives district, date and
I also include a second source which is either GRO indexes or FreeBMD
The St Cath's House Index is useful (and in all honesty, I have it as a
source for those I haven't or don't wish to obtain certs for at this time),
but it must be regarded as flawed - entries missing completely, some
marriages do not have both sides recorded - and of course, if you obtain
your certs as I do, from local registry offices, then the reference found is
useless as registry office use their own indexing system. FreeBMD can save
hours of looking, but it must be remembered that it is a transcription of
the St Cath's Index and transcriptions, no matter how carefully done are
prone to the introduction of error.
To re-iterate, I was trying to suggest best practice, on the basis that once
you start following particular habits, you tend to maintain them through
thick and thin. At the end of the day, we are all individuals with our own
views and we will tend to follow our own inclinations and preferences as how
to record information.
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com
Version: 6.0.634 / Virus Database: 406 - Release Date: 18/3/04