I disagree and think SENIOR,Roy,?,?,?,? is the correct solution. It is speculation that this entry is a repeat of the previous one. I think it is more likely that there _is_ an entry for SENIOR, Roy but because of the alias on the previous line the details got accidentally omitted, although admittedly one would expect the order to be reversed. The entry being returned as SENIOR,Roy,?,?,?,? would alert the a researcher of the anomaly and cause them to view the original. They would then be in a position to make a special request of the GRO for the certificate for the entry or pursue other avenues. Barrie On 19:59, Alan Edgar wrote: > Good one Mike. > Having stared at the page for a while I think I too would be in a dilemma > and would have requested advice/assistance/thoughts but probably transcribed > as :- > SENIOR,Roy H.C.,MAY,Bristol,7b,358 > #COMMENT(2) Entry reads MAY or McCARTHY for Spouse. > SENIOR,Roy H.C.,McCARTHY,Bristol,7b,358 > SENIOR,Roy,McCARTHY,Bristol,7b,358 > > My logic would be if you leave a line of > SENIOR,Roy,?,?,?,? > Then anyone searching for this name under marriages for March 1959 would be > returned the two complete entries and the '?'s one that could not lead them > anywhere. > Therefore in my view there is no point in entering the line with the 4 > unknown fields. > Can't think of a suitable #COMMENT to add after the > SENIOR,Roy,McCARTHY,Bristol,7b,358 but feel as if there should be one. > > Alan - pleased you had this one first. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: freebmd-admins-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:freebmd-admins-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Mike Thomas > Sent: 06 November 2011 10:41 > To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com > Subject: 1958M1-S-0180 > > Hi, > > I've had a query from a transcriber about the entry on this page for SENIOR, > Roy H.C. which has alternative Spouse's surnames - something that's pretty > common in these 1958 marriages. As is nearly always the case the > alternative Spouse's surnames MAY or McCARTHY spread onto two lines. > However, what's unusual about this entry is that the second line also has a > double dash in the Surname column (repeating the surname SENIOR), and the > word Roy in the Forename column. > > I've advised the transcriber to treat the entry for SENIOR, Roy H.C. in the > normal way for entries with alternative Spouse's surnames, and then add > another transcription line for SENIOR, Roy with all the other fields > transcribed as question marks to show they're blank, like this: > > SENIOR,Roy H.C.,MAY,Bristol,7b,358 > #COMMENT(2) Entry reads MAY or McCARTHY for Spouse's surname SENIOR,Roy > H.C.,McCARTHY,Bristol,7b,358 SENIOR,Roy,?,?,?,? > > I know that doesn't absolutely adhere to TWYS, but it seems to me to be the > best compromise taking into account what the original typist intended and > trying to provide the most complete and accurate transcription for our end > users. > > Has anyone got any better ideas ? > > Cheers, > > Mike > > Ian Brooke syndicate co-ordinator > FreeBMD-Admins mailing list - archive > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/freebmd-admins > FreeBMD http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FREEBMD-ADMINS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > --Certified Virus Free by 4SecureMail.com ICSA-Certified Scanner--