Thanks. I have not attempted to correct the entry (after all, there's no way of knowing which of the two spellings is the right one! - come to that, they might both be wrong!). But I will add a #COMMENT which I hope will assist anyone researching the record. Sue ----- Original Message ----- From: "david mayall" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 7:36 AM Subject: Re: Alternative spelling of spouse surname > 2008/12/30 Sue Barnard <[email protected]> > >> I am currently transcribing 1926 Marriages and am working on December >> quarter, page 436. One of the entries on this page is for a marriage >> between Hughes and Carapanagertis. >> >> As the final character of Carapanagertis was slightly indistinct, I >> decided >> to cross-check it against the corresponding entry for the spouse - only >> to >> find that that entry (on page 139) shows the surname spelled >> Carapanageotis. >> >> Has anyone come across this particular problem before, and if so, what is >> the correct way of tackling it? Is it #COMMENT or #THEORY? >> > > You should transcribe it based ONLY on the entry that you are > transcribing. > The normal rule of TWYS (namely that you don't try to resolve an entry > based > on other records such as another event for the same person, or on a census > record for that person, applies equally to cross referencing the spouse. > > If you wish to add a #COMMENT, that would be acceptable, but not > essential. > > -- > Dave Mayall > 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 > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message