>Just curious - why don't you put the "full GRO index" under "page" in >the source page, rather than the comment field? Short answer is -- I never thought about doing it. I have used BK since 1995 and it has been a labour of love to use BK to achieve what I want to achieve. I have made many mistakes over the years in creating and using my sources and spent many hours in correcting those mistakes to achieve consistency in recording my sources. The mistakes and inconsistencies only really came to light when I began printing reports and using Group Sheets to upload to my website. For my sources I give them a name in the "Actual Text" box and I check that so it prints; I put a comment in the "Comments" box and check that so it prints -- this is a global comment for all of that source; then I put specific information about the individual source in the "Comments for this citation" box and check that so it prints. I also use the "Quality of data" box. I have an abbreviation which appears in the index of sources but I do not check the box -- this prevents the abbreviation from printing. So the source for my Great Aunt who died in Q1 1955 prints as "GRO-BMD Index on-line; Personally checked by MFW; March qtr 1955 Vol 2c Page 785 Rotherham aged 82 years". I realise I probably do not use the source page as fully as others might do, but it is very much a case of doing "what works for me". BK is an excellent programme which gives the flexibility to use it to achieve what we want as individuals. All the best. Malcolm Webb www.mysteriousorigins.co.uk mfwebb2005@btinternet.com <mailto:mfwebb2005@btinternet.com> -----Original Message----- From: bk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:bk-bounces@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of J. P. Gilliver (John) Sent: 01 March 2012 00:15 To: bk@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [BK] Why "invalid date"? Also quarters. In message <CMEFJIGMPKLPELNONILDKECODHAA.mfwebb2005@btinternet.com>, Malcolm Webb <mfwebb2005@btinternet.com> writes: [] >This is fine for my purposes. The BK calculations use the correct year and >the Q1 prefix tells ME that I obtained the information from the UK BMD >index. I record the full GRO index as my source under "comments for this >citation" which gives me the opportunity to obtain a copy of the certificate >if I find it necessary in the future without having to look at the index >again. Just curious - why don't you put the "full GRO index" under "page" in the source page, rather than the comment field? > >I have a large number of ancestors where I have recorded the birth, marriage >or death as "Qx YYYY", so I guess I shall be sticking to this format. Me too (well, I have the Qx in the event comment field, and __ ___ 1951 as the date, but the same reasoning). [I have it set to accept ddmmyyyy as the input, but to _display_ as __ ___ yyyy.] [] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "I hate the guys that criticize the enterprise of other guys whose enterprise has made them rise above the guys who criticize!" (W9BRD, former editor of "How's DX?" column in "QST") Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message