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")

On Thu, 1 Mar 2012 00:14:55 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: >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.] >[] so you think reports with the " He was born at __ ___ 1941 and died __ ___ 1990" is very nice way to present the book reports of your family ??? :) -- Otto Jørgensen http://www.bkwin.info/ All email is checked by NORTON

Yes, that is a good method, Otto, as it highlights the fact that no data is available for that information, not simply omitted. Also It permits space to enter the data should it be found subsequent to printing. Its only a report, not a formally published book. Cheers Barry P. ++ + + + -----Original Message----- From: bk-bounces@rootsweb.com ... Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 8:16 PM To: ... bk@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [BK] Why "invalid date"? Also quarters. On Thu, 1 Mar 2012 00:14:55 +0000, <... Middle bits deleted ... {BEP}> > >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.] >[] so you think reports with the " He was born at __ ___ 1941 and died __ ___ 1990" is very nice way to present the book reports of your family ??? :) -- Otto Jørgensen ++ + + + +