While the List is quiet (it is, isn't it - or am I missing something?), perhaps some members would like to consider what is a relatively minor matter, but one that has been exercising my mind of late. We are told by TNA and other authorities that the correct way to give a reference to a census entry (1851-1901) is "Piece/Folio/Page". Not having had the benefit of that advice when I set up my own "systems", and having thought out things for myself, I decided to use "Piece/Folio/Schedule", omitting the "HO 107" or "RG --" part of the piece number. Now, it seems fairly obvious that any reference must begin with the piece number. followed by the folio number, and perhaps you might think that whatever comes after the folio number is not very important. However, when I was a beginner I was told that referring to page numbers is to be avoided, as there would be several books to each piece of the census, and so a page number within any particular book would be ambiguous. The schedule number pins down the reference to one household, which is usually what is required anyway, whereas TNA's system never gives you anything better than an ambiguity level of one page. What do you think? NB there are no schedule numbers for the 1841 census, for which I use "Piece/Part/Folio", which seems to be standard Geoff Nicholson

Geoff I always record both page and schedule number - on the premis that the more info the better! I also have the HO 107 or the RG number on the front However when I was working from the indexes created by the NDFHS, only the page number is given in many cases - so some of my records still need to be updated Heather