I know about the graphs on the file management page, but I am not concerned with those. I am talking about the statistics on the Scan2 home page, the column headed "Typ" is supposed to show how many pages I have transcribed, but it counts a double page scan as 1 page not 2 the same goes for the columns headed "All" and "56 day". The second is on my allocations page there is a link called "Individual Graphs" this page has Rankings!! and the figures are based on "Total Pages Transcribed" and "Total Pages Transcribed in the last 4 weeks", therefore if some pages have more or less entries than others, what is the point? When I have just slogged through a double page scan (and I really don't like them, they seem never ending) it doesn't do much for moral. Lucille -------Original Message------- From: Philip Powell Date: 16 November 2003 17:15:23 In message <001c01c3ac56$8e72f7d0$023d1dac@dickhome>, Dick Bond <dick@bonds.plus.com> writes >Having just completed my first 2 Page Scan and submitted it, I note >that it only appears to be included in the statistics of completed >pages as a single page. I know that 'it is not a competition', but >should it not be registered as a submission of 2 pages? If you look on the FreeBMD file management page you will find that the details are recorded as uploaded files rather than pages and you can also see how many actual entries you have uploaded. Actual entries make more sense than pages [or files] because the latter vary in size. Typically, typeset pages have 375 entries whereas as handwritten pages have only 40. Of course, you won't be able to see yours until the next database update - which I'd guess will be starting in the next few days. >If it is worth compiling statistics, then it is also worth having them >correct. (Or should we be recording 'submissions' rather than 'pages') Once your files have been entered into the database you will see that that is the case - though they are referred to as "entries" rather than "submissions" and are additional to the list of actual files. -- Philip Powell Looking north across the Derwent Valley and Northumberland to The Cheviot .

I have to agree, but as some pages have less entries and others have more, it would seem fair to base it on entries. As Dick says quote > If it is worth compiling statistics, then it is also worth having them correct. (Or should we be recording 'submissions' rather than 'pages')< Lucille Scan2 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dick Bond" <dick@bonds.plus.com> To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 3:29 PM Subject: Statistics for 2 Page Scans > Having just completed my first 2 Page Scan and submitted it, I note that it only appears to be included in the statistics of completed pages as a single page. I know that 'it is not a competition', but should it not be registered as a submission of 2 pages? > > If it is worth compiling statistics, then it is also worth having them correct. (Or should we be recording 'submissions' rather than 'pages') > > Only a comment to those in charge of such matters! Keep up the good work!! > > > ==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== > FreeBMD Transcribers homepage > http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vindex.shtml > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > >

Hi All I am fully aware of this and plan to fix it to count the double pages correctly rather than allocations. BUT there are only 24 hours in a day, and it is not at the top of my priorities. At 06:05 PM 16/11/2003 +0000, L Hambling wrote: >I know about the graphs on the file management page, but I am not concerned >with those. I am talking about the statistics on the Scan2 home page, the >column headed "Typ" is supposed to show how many pages I have transcribed, >but it counts a double page scan as 1 page not 2 the same goes for the >columns headed "All" and "56 day". The second is on my allocations page >there is a link called "Individual Graphs" this page has Rankings!! and the >figures are based on "Total Pages Transcribed" and "Total Pages Transcribed >in the last 4 weeks", therefore if some pages have more or less entries than >others, what is the point? When I have just slogged through a double page >scan (and I really don't like them, they seem never ending) it doesn't do >much for moral. > >Lucille > > >-------Original Message------- > >From: Philip Powell >Date: 16 November 2003 17:15:23 > >In message <001c01c3ac56$8e72f7d0$023d1dac@dickhome>, Dick Bond ><dick@bonds.plus.com> writes > >Having just completed my first 2 Page Scan and submitted it, I note > >that it only appears to be included in the statistics of completed > >pages as a single page. I know that 'it is not a competition', but > >should it not be registered as a submission of 2 pages? > >If you look on the FreeBMD file management page you will find that the >details are recorded as uploaded files rather than pages and you can >also see how many actual entries you have uploaded. Actual entries make >more sense than pages [or files] because the latter vary in size. >Typically, typeset pages have 375 entries whereas as handwritten pages >have only 40. > >Of course, you won't be able to see yours until the next database update >- which I'd guess will be starting in the next few days. > > >If it is worth compiling statistics, then it is also worth having them > >correct. (Or should we be recording 'submissions' rather than 'pages') > >Once your files have been entered into the database you will see that >that is the case - though they are referred to as "entries" rather than >"submissions" and are additional to the list of actual files. > >-- >Philip Powell >Looking north across the Derwent Valley and Northumberland >to The Cheviot > > >. > > > >============================== >To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, >go to: >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 Cheers Derek Derek C Hopkins, Phone +1(450)678-7768 6640, Biarritz, Fax +1(450)678-4252 Brossard, E-Mail derek.hopkins@sympatico.ca QC, Canada, J4Z-2A2. ==== FreeBMD - England and Wales - Birth - Marriage and Death Transcriptions <http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com> ==== Check out FreeBMD Scan2 Syndicate page (revised daily) Please bookmark our new home http://www.scan2.org/scan2.html Check out my web page (22jan1997) Last Revised 28 May 1998 <http://www.cam.org/~hopkde/index.html> Check out Abney Park Indexing Project (revised 14 MAR 2000, 195,000 names) <http://www.cam.org/~hopkde/abney.html> Check out my web Ramsgate page <http://members.adept.co.uk/hopkde> Check out the Quebec Family History web page <http://www.cam.org/~qfhs/index.html>

My personal favourites have been: Contents Increase Gratrix (March 1900 Marriages) and Easy Pease (March 1889 Deaths) These should be compiled into a book! Donna (dyb) Mt Lawley, Western Australia henry griffiths wrote: >Hi > >I often wonder what parents of today were thinking when they named their children, i.e. after football Teams or Pop Singers but the mind can only boggle at this one I just found while Transcribing 1874 Births : > >Sexy Elizabeth > >One thing is certain it was a memorable event. > >henry > > > >============================== >To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > > > >

Hi I often wonder what parents of today were thinking when they named their children, i.e. after football Teams or Pop Singers but the mind can only boggle at this one I just found while Transcribing 1874 Births : Sexy Elizabeth One thing is certain it was a memorable event. henry

John Fairlie wrote: > Back in September it was said...... <quote> > >>The plan is; > > >>1) Install additional hardware to handle the extra scans >>2) Complete scanning of all years all events from 1910 to 1866 working >>backwards. >>3) Complete scanning of all years marriages 1865 to 1837 marriages working >>backwards, including replacing scans of poor quality >>4) Likewise for Births and Deaths >>5) Start to work forwards from 1911. > > >>This may seem a slightly odd order, but it is designed to ensure that we > > keep a > >>sufficient stock of scanned images on hand at all times. > > >>Timescales are always difficult, but current guess is; > > >>New hardware on-line by end October >>Source 1866-1910 on-hand by same time > > <unquote> > > Did we get the new hardware and source available to the plan of End of > October??? Hardware was delivered. One of the two servers was faulty. We are awaiting the fix. Cheers, Ben. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 20:24:22 -0000, you wrote: >Don't tell me..... > >We don't have the hardware to load the scans onto???????? The new hardware is here, but not yet available. This isn't a disaster, because the old hardware can take a little more strain provided we nurse it along a little. Whilst it would be better if the additional hardware were available, because it would make the task easier, it isn't and we can cope. -- Dave Mayall

Please check out the FreeBMD Syndicates List Archives at: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/FREEBMD-SYNDICATES/2003-10 scroll down to the last entry "New servers". Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 11 November 2003 20:32 Subject: RE: New hardware and source. >Don't tell me..... > >We don't have the hardware to load the scans onto???????? > >John Fairlie >Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com > john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk >Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Allan Raymond [mailto:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] >Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 8:23 PM >To: john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk; FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: New hardware and source. > > >Yes regarding the source. > >Some of the films are with me ready to be personally handed to the volunteer >Scanning Organisation next week. > >Allan Raymond > >-----Original Message----- >From: John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> >To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >Date: 11 November 2003 20:07 >Subject: New hardware and source. > > >>Back in September it was said...... <quote> >> >>>The plan is; >> >>>1) Install additional hardware to handle the extra scans >>>2) Complete scanning of all years all events from 1910 to 1866 working >>>backwards. >>>3) Complete scanning of all years marriages 1865 to 1837 marriages working >>>backwards, including replacing scans of poor quality >>>4) Likewise for Births and Deaths >>>5) Start to work forwards from 1911. >> >>>This may seem a slightly odd order, but it is designed to ensure that we >>keep a >>>sufficient stock of scanned images on hand at all times. >> >>>Timescales are always difficult, but current guess is; >> >>>New hardware on-line by end October >>>Source 1866-1910 on-hand by same time >><unquote> >> >>Did we get the new hardware and source available to the plan of End of >>October??? >> >> >> >>John Fairlie >>Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com >> john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk >>Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com >> >> >> >>============================== >>To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, >go to: >>http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 >> >> > > > >============================== >To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 >

Don't tell me..... We don't have the hardware to load the scans onto???????? John Fairlie Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com -----Original Message----- From: Allan Raymond [mailto:allan_raymond@btinternet.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 8:23 PM To: john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk; FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: New hardware and source. Yes regarding the source. Some of the films are with me ready to be personally handed to the volunteer Scanning Organisation next week. Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 11 November 2003 20:07 Subject: New hardware and source. >Back in September it was said...... <quote> > >>The plan is; > >>1) Install additional hardware to handle the extra scans >>2) Complete scanning of all years all events from 1910 to 1866 working >>backwards. >>3) Complete scanning of all years marriages 1865 to 1837 marriages working >>backwards, including replacing scans of poor quality >>4) Likewise for Births and Deaths >>5) Start to work forwards from 1911. > >>This may seem a slightly odd order, but it is designed to ensure that we >keep a >>sufficient stock of scanned images on hand at all times. > >>Timescales are always difficult, but current guess is; > >>New hardware on-line by end October >>Source 1866-1910 on-hand by same time ><unquote> > >Did we get the new hardware and source available to the plan of End of >October??? > > > >John Fairlie >Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com > john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk >Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com > > > >============================== >To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > >

Yes regarding the source. Some of the films are with me ready to be personally handed to the volunteer Scanning Organisation next week. Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: John Fairlie <john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 11 November 2003 20:07 Subject: New hardware and source. >Back in September it was said...... <quote> > >>The plan is; > >>1) Install additional hardware to handle the extra scans >>2) Complete scanning of all years all events from 1910 to 1866 working >>backwards. >>3) Complete scanning of all years marriages 1865 to 1837 marriages working >>backwards, including replacing scans of poor quality >>4) Likewise for Births and Deaths >>5) Start to work forwards from 1911. > >>This may seem a slightly odd order, but it is designed to ensure that we >keep a >>sufficient stock of scanned images on hand at all times. > >>Timescales are always difficult, but current guess is; > >>New hardware on-line by end October >>Source 1866-1910 on-hand by same time ><unquote> > >Did we get the new hardware and source available to the plan of End of >October??? > > > >John Fairlie >Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com > john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk >Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com > > > >============================== >To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > >

Back in September it was said...... <quote> >The plan is; >1) Install additional hardware to handle the extra scans >2) Complete scanning of all years all events from 1910 to 1866 working >backwards. >3) Complete scanning of all years marriages 1865 to 1837 marriages working >backwards, including replacing scans of poor quality >4) Likewise for Births and Deaths >5) Start to work forwards from 1911. >This may seem a slightly odd order, but it is designed to ensure that we keep a >sufficient stock of scanned images on hand at all times. >Timescales are always difficult, but current guess is; >New hardware on-line by end October >Source 1866-1910 on-hand by same time <unquote> Did we get the new hardware and source available to the plan of End of October??? John Fairlie Mail us at ..... john@fairlie.plus.com john.fairlie@blueyonder.co.uk Home page... http://www.fairlie.plus.com

I'm confused (for a change): Does this debate refer to the FreeBMD site? Because the search page doesn't say either "Forename" or "Christian name". It says "first name(s)" Which seems pretty appropriate to me...? Angie Scan2 > -----Original Message----- > From: Barry and Mary Johnson [mailto:saint.cybi@virgin.net] > Sent: 06 November 2003 12:49 > To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: Unusual Christian name > > > I agree with John, and I know that Peter feels the same. "Name" is indeed > better than both "Christian name" and "Forename", and would be more > appropriate for the FreeBMD project. > > But that won't stop me from carrying on transcribing! > > Barry Johnson > Monmouthshire > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Parker" <homeowner@deardenholt.fsnet.co.uk> > To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 4:14 PM > Subject: Re: Unusual Christian name > > > > I believe that the practice in past times was to use just > "name" for what > > would now be specified as "christian name", "forename", or "given name". > > The Census books for the 1851 Census (which any serious family historian > > will get to sooner or later) instruct the enumerator to enter the "Name > and > > Surname" of each individual. Looking at my own birth certificate (not > quite > > that old but less than 100 years after 1851!), I see that > column 2 (headed > > "Name, if any") has just my christian names (ie "John Stephen") > and column > 4 > > (headed "Name and Surname of Father") has my Father's full name > ("Geoffrey > > Parker"). I note that the final column is headed "Baptismal > Name if added > > after Registration of Birth". > > > > The Penguin Dictionary of English Surnames, first published in > 1967, has a > > very readable introduction which treats "forename" as an > established term. > > > > The Oxford English Dictionary has examples of "forename" used in its > present > > sense from both the 16th and the early 17th centuries. > > > > J S Parker > > > > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy > records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > >

I agree with John, and I know that Peter feels the same. "Name" is indeed better than both "Christian name" and "Forename", and would be more appropriate for the FreeBMD project. But that won't stop me from carrying on transcribing! Barry Johnson Monmouthshire ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Parker" <homeowner@deardenholt.fsnet.co.uk> To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 4:14 PM Subject: Re: Unusual Christian name > I believe that the practice in past times was to use just "name" for what > would now be specified as "christian name", "forename", or "given name". > The Census books for the 1851 Census (which any serious family historian > will get to sooner or later) instruct the enumerator to enter the "Name and > Surname" of each individual. Looking at my own birth certificate (not quite > that old but less than 100 years after 1851!), I see that column 2 (headed > "Name, if any") has just my christian names (ie "John Stephen") and column 4 > (headed "Name and Surname of Father") has my Father's full name ("Geoffrey > Parker"). I note that the final column is headed "Baptismal Name if added > after Registration of Birth". > > The Penguin Dictionary of English Surnames, first published in 1967, has a > very readable introduction which treats "forename" as an established term. > > The Oxford English Dictionary has examples of "forename" used in its present > sense from both the 16th and the early 17th centuries. > > J S Parker >

I believe that the practice in past times was to use just "name" for what would now be specified as "christian name", "forename", or "given name". The Census books for the 1851 Census (which any serious family historian will get to sooner or later) instruct the enumerator to enter the "Name and Surname" of each individual. Looking at my own birth certificate (not quite that old but less than 100 years after 1851!), I see that column 2 (headed "Name, if any") has just my christian names (ie "John Stephen") and column 4 (headed "Name and Surname of Father") has my Father's full name ("Geoffrey Parker"). I note that the final column is headed "Baptismal Name if added after Registration of Birth". The Penguin Dictionary of English Surnames, first published in 1967, has a very readable introduction which treats "forename" as an established term. The Oxford English Dictionary has examples of "forename" used in its present sense from both the 16th and the early 17th centuries. J S Parker

I would wholeheartedly agree that we should not apply current values on our ancestors. But by the same token we should not apply a religious, and specifically Christian, term on the entire population just because the country was/is a Christian nation. The fact is that registration is a secular process and baptism a religious one. An analogy may be the comparison between 'wife' and 'partner' where both occupy the same position but not all partners are wives. Peter Barry and Mary Johnson wrote: >The proportion of non-Christians in the period of our GRO transcriptions was >miniscule, and the term "Christian name" would, I'm sure, have been much >more familiar to the vast majority, including those who were not actual >Church- or Chapel-goers, than "forename". > >Anyway, I'll go on using my favoured term, just as I still refer to my wife >as "my wife"! > >I believe we need to avoid imposing current values or preoccupations (including language) on our ancestors and their world. > >

We'll have to agree to disagree about this, Peter. The word "forename" is indeed a lot older than the C19, but I still believe that it didn't come into general use (on application forms, etc.) until about 20 years ago. (I was wrong to say 10 years.) I even found it on my Church in Wales parish electoral roll form recently, though it was changed after I protested. The proportion of non-Christians in the period of our GRO transcriptions was miniscule, and the term "Christian name" would, I'm sure, have been much more familiar to the vast majority, including those who were not actual Church- or Chapel-goers, than "forename". However, I'd be very interested to know whether there's any evidence to back up what is only a suspicion on my part. Anyway, I'll go on using my favoured term, just as I still refer to my wife as "my wife"! As an ex-teacher of English, I still see it as my duty to slow up linguistic change as best I can, though as a linguist I know that such change is inevitable. In the context of the FreeBMD project, the issue is, of course, unimportant; in the broader context of family history, I believe we need to avoid imposing current values or preoccupations (including language) on our ancestors and their world. Here too, the "forename" issue pales into insignificance beside attempts to get "pardons" for those soldiers executed in the Great War. But I don't want to start that hare off! Now .... back to those 1866 deaths. Barry Johnson ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Hendy-Ibbs" <peter.hendy-ibbs@ntlworld.com> To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 11:50 PM Subject: Re: Unusual Christian name > Certainly the term 'forename' has been in common use since I was a child > several decades ago. A Christian name is that 'given' through baptism > and has little to do with the secular process of civil registration. > Even in the nineteenth century there were many people who did not follow > a Christian faith. The term forename is therefore a much more accurate term > rather than a gesture of political correctness. It also contrasts with > those societies where the family name is placed first. An even more > accurate term is 'given name', but I suspect that would upset Barry even > more! :-) > > Peter Hendy-Ibbs > > >BTW - just out of interest, why the use of "forenames"? This is a word I'd > >never heard of until about ten years ago. The people whose names we are > >transcribing were overwhelmingly Christian, and would certainly have used > >the term "Christian name" themselves, as I have always done and still do. > >"Forename" seems to me to be anachronistic; an imposition of political > >correctness. If I were given to using the language of the politically > >correct, I'd say that the use of the term "forename" in a C19 context was > >offensive. But I'm not, so I don't. I just refuse to use the term myself. > > > >I hope that doesn't offend anyone. > > > >Barry Johnson > >Monmouthshire > > > > > > > > ______________________________

Well ....!!! I've seen some ignorant posting on these lists this year, but this one really takes the biscuit. To publicly insult someone you don't know, whilst openly admitting you haven't got a clue who they are, is in my view, the height of discourtesy. More so when Dave's name is on most (if not all) FreeBMD pages, therefore easy to research. I think that it is to Dave's credit that he has not responded to your comments - if someone were to post defamatory comments about me on the internet, I'm not sure that I would have as much self-control. Cheers Dave, and keep up the good work ... most of us DO appreciate it! Angie Scan2 -----Original Message----- From: JL [mailto:john@lucasfs.freeserve.co.uk] Sent: 01 November 2003 11:58 To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Courtesy Hi, I've been a transcriber for a couple of months now. Haven't completed many pages - I do as much as time allows. I've been tempted to write to the digest on a couple of occasions but am somewhat offput by the tone of some of the responses, particularly from this Dave Mayell character. I'm sure he is very important and busy guy, but a little courtesy costs nothing. Thanks, John Lucas ==== FreeBMD-Admins Mailing List ==== FreeBMD - http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237

Certainly the term 'forename' has been in common use since I was a child several decades ago. A Christian name is that 'given' through baptism and has little to do with the secular process of civil registration. Even in the nineteenth century there were many people who did not follow a Christian faith. The term forename is therefore a much more accurate term rather than a gesture of political correctness. It also contrasts with those societies where the family name is placed first. An even more accurate term is 'given name', but I suspect that would upset Barry even more! :-) Peter Hendy-Ibbs >BTW - just out of interest, why the use of "forenames"? This is a word I'd >never heard of until about ten years ago. The people whose names we are >transcribing were overwhelmingly Christian, and would certainly have used >the term "Christian name" themselves, as I have always done and still do. >"Forename" seems to me to be anachronistic; an imposition of political >correctness. If I were given to using the language of the politically >correct, I'd say that the use of the term "forename" in a C19 context was >offensive. But I'm not, so I don't. I just refuse to use the term myself. > >I hope that doesn't offend anyone. > >Barry Johnson >Monmouthshire > > >

Certainly the term 'forename' has been in common use since I was a child several decades ago. A Christian name is that 'given' through baptism and has little to do with the secular process of civil registration. Even in the nineteenth century there were many people who did not follow a Christian faith. The term forename is therefore much more accurate rather than a gesture of political correctness. It also contrasts with those societies where the family name is placed first. An even more accurate term is 'given name', but I suspect that would upset Barry even more! :-) Peter Hendy-Ibbs >BTW - just out of interest, why the use of "forenames"? This is a word I'd >never heard of until about ten years ago. The people whose names we are >transcribing were overwhelmingly Christian, and would certainly have used >the term "Christian name" themselves, as I have always done and still do. >"Forename" seems to me to be anachronistic; an imposition of political >correctness. If I were given to using the language of the politically >correct, I'd say that the use of the term "forename" in a C19 context was >offensive. But I'm not, so I don't. I just refuse to use the term myself. > >I hope that doesn't offend anyone. > >Barry Johnson >Monmouthshire > > >

A small point for anyone eventually checking duplicated - as distinct from double-keyed - entries : Fiche 2465 - Deaths - June 1871 - the entry LANGLEY - William - 23 - Leicester - 7a - 114 - is triplicated. I have TWYSed all three, but it would obviously make sense if, in due course, two were deleted. __________________________________________________________ Keith Sayers, Canberra, Australia kmsayers@pcug.org.au Mail : 6 Clambe Place, CHARNWOOD, ACT 2615 http://www.pcug.org.au/~kmsayers ----------------------------------------------------------