Hi Barry, Thanks for your changes to TKB and your reply. No, I did not mention TKB 6(u) here, but then I've said much on that topic above. So I ignored it here. I'm happy to confirm that we all (you, Phil and I) seem to be in agreement on the TKB 6(u) implementation in this complex example. I might have written the #COMMENT differently, but that is neither here or there. I'm generally happy with the revised TKB 6(d). However, neither of the two multiple-change examples include an AND/and, e.g. #COMMENT handwritten amendment of crossed out volume 3b page number 541 #COMMENT(2) original volume of 3b had a handwritten amendment of 3c original page of 341 had a handwritten amendment of 178 I've used (not very often) #COMMENTS of this nature with a "... change to this and that field" and they have not yet appeared on the Suspect file comments list. That either means that they are OK, or you not yet started looking for them. I think these #COMMENT examples would read better as: #COMMENT handwritten amendment of crossed out volume 3b AND page number 541 #COMMENT(2) original volume of 3b had a handwritten amendment of 3c AND original page of 341 had a handwritten amendment of 178 with either a l.c. or L.C. "AND", but its not something that I feel all that strongly about. It's also good to get confirmation that a compound #COMMENT is acceptable. Three days ago I was uncertain whether implementation aught to be by one or two #COMMENT lines, e.g. Line 6 ... #COMMENT handwritten amendment of crossed out volume 3b #COMMENT handwritten amendment of crossed out page number 541 Line 8 ..... Having now looked at the sections for Using #COMMENT and Using #THEORY, Ref in <http://www.freebmd.org.uk/Format.shtml> it's legal for the latter but not the former. Thanks again. Regards, Philip -----Original Message----- From: Barrie Archer [mailto:chairman@strettonfocus.org.uk] Sent: 05 April 2012 09:40 To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: RE: Problem Entry Of course, what has been not mentioned is that TKB 6(u) has also been applied ... correctly I believe. TKB 6(d) has now been amended to correct the error and cover the issue of multiple fields. The amendments is somewhat simpler than suggested in order to avoid making the explanation look complicated for a comparatively rare case. One has to take into account that people can be "turned off" if it all looks too complicated. The remaining issue is what to do if one has both a crossed out and and a non-crossed out amendment. I would have thought that in the absence of specific guidance the use of two separate comments would be expected. However, I don't think it matters which is chosen and so I am reluctant to further complicate the explanation to give specific instruction for such a rare case. Regards Barrie On 19:59, philip clarke wrote: > Keith, > > I'm really glad that you brought that up. I'd planned to raise a similar > question on this page and you got in first; it would be good to get a > definitive answer. > > > There are two things happening with this entry (1942B1M0145): > > (1)handwritten replacement of Mother's name "Ward" with "Howard or Murray", > which on its own is covered by TKB 6(d) - entry crossed out. > > (2) handwritten addition of "B" to Page No. 793, which on its own is covered > by TKB 6(d) - entry not crossed out. > > The first change on its own would be typed as (I think): > > Murray,Marjorie,Murray,Liverpool N.,8b,793 > #COMMENT(2) Original mother's name Ward crossed through and replaced by > Murray or Howard. > Murray,Marjorie,Howard,Liverpool N.,8b,793 > > But that is not a strict interpretation of TBK guidance (see below). > > The second change on its own involves typing the relevant entry (see later) > firstly with District/page no. Liverpool N.,8b,793 and secondly with > Liverpool N.,8b,793B. > > > So overall I would type it slightly different to Phil, i.e. > > Murray,Marjorie,Murray,Liverpool N.,8b,793 > #COMMENT(2) Original mother's name Ward crossed through and replaced by > Murray or Howard. Letter B added to page number as a handwritten amendment > Murray,Marjorie,Howard,Liverpool N.,8b,793 > Murray,Marjorie,Murray,L'pool N.,8B,793B > #COMMENT(2) Entry reads Murray or Howard for mother's name > Murray,Marjorie,Howard,L'pool N.,8B,793B > > There are some "problems" that need resolving/clarifying: > > (1) TKB 6(d) - entry crossed out has a definition > > #COMMENT handwritten amendment of crossed out <fieldname> <fieldvalue> where > <fieldname> is the name of the field (surname, page number, etc.) and > <fieldvalue> is the original page number. > > That is slightly misleading, it should be: > > #COMMENT handwritten amendment of crossed out <fieldname> <fieldvalue> > where <fieldname> is the name of the field (surname, page number, etc.) and > <fieldvalue> is the original field (surname, page number, etc.). > > However, no mention made of more than one change. So is the following a > suitable and acceptable definition for changes to more than one field? > > #COMMENT handwritten amendment of crossed out <fieldname1> <fieldvalue1> and > <fieldname2> <fieldvalue2> where <fieldname1> is the name of the field1 > (surname, page number, etc.); <fieldvalue1> is the original field1 (surname, > page number, etc.); <fieldname2> is the name of the field2 (surname, page > number, etc.) and <fieldvalue2> is the original field2 (surname, page > number, etc.), etc. > > > > (2) TKB 6(d) - entry not crossed out has a definition > > #COMMENT(2) original <fieldname> of <orginalvalue> had a handwritten > amendment of <newvalue> where <fieldname> is the name of the field (surname, > page number, etc.), <originalvalue> is the original value of the field and > <newvalue> the amendment. > > Similar comment to above in respect of more than one change to a field. > > (3) If the definitions can't be altered, then is the entry to be typed as? > > Murray,Marjorie,Murray,Liverpool N.,8b,793 > #COMMENT(2) Original mother's name Ward crossed through and replaced by > Murray or Howard. > #COMMENT(2) original Pager No. 793 has a handwritten amendment of 793B > Murray,Marjorie,Howard,Liverpool N.,8b,793 > Murray,Marjorie,Murray,L'pool N.,8B,793B > #COMMENT(2) Entry reads Murray or Howard for mother's name > #COMMENT(2) original Pager No. 793 has a handwritten amendment of 793B > Murray,Marjorie,Howard,L'pool N.,8B,793B > > I'd like to think at Phil's or my version above is correct with the use of a > "compound" #COMMENT(2) line, OK we have a minor divergence of opinion on how > to handle the amendment of Page no. but that is all. > > Like Keith, I've also recently (1954 & 1956 entries) transcribed birth > entries that have both a handwritten change to both name and to page number, > but in all my cases so far its been changes to Page No, and Forename(s) not > "X or Y " changes to Page No and Mother's name. > > I'd like to see some definitive agreement from the Project on what is a > relatively minor (on paper) set of changes. > > Best Regards, > > Philip > > -----Original Message----- > From: Phil [mailto:phil.osbourn@ntlworld.com] > Sent: 03 April 2012 20:13 > To: freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: Problem Entry > > Keith, I think you mean 1942 not 1924... > > Anyway here is how I would transcribe it: > > Murray,Marjorie,Murray,Liverpool N.,8b,793B > #COMMENT(2) Original mother's name Ward crossed through and replaced by > Murray or Howard. Letter B added to page number as a handwritten amendment > Murray,Marjorie,Howard,Liverpool N.,8b,793B > Murray,Marjorie,Murray,L'pool N.,8B,793B > #COMMENT(2) Entry reads Murray or Howard for mother's name > Murray,Marjorie,Howard,L'pool N.,8B,793B > > Phil > > > >