I understand that 2a 538 refers to Volume 2a page 538 The volume appears to be tied to a registration district or area. When entering records as coming from such source, I enter 2nd Qtr 1853 or 4th Qtr 1853 I often see Mar 1853 and this (as was stated) is misleading as actual month can be Jan, Feb or Mar in actuality. When the registration was actually done ie period in a month can also cause the qtr shown to be in another qtr. John H "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:NY7Tr1ZBDPESFwDs@soft255.demon.co.uk... > [] >>Births Jun 1891 >>Martin James Elias Gravesend 2a 538 > [] > (Deliberately deleted poster details as this isn't specific to that > poster.) > > I presume from the "2a 538" that this is from a BMD index. > > I'm sure most of us here know this, but it will mislead newcomers to the > hobby: these indexes are divided into quarter years, so the above really > means "April, May, or June 1891" (plus see last paragraph below). > > Unfortunately, I have seen such referred to as both "Apr 1891" and "Jun > 1891", so there isn't any consistency. > > Can we as a hobby/profession start to abandon using only a month to refer > to a quarter, when further precision isn't known? I'd suggest any of > > Apr-Jun 1891 > 1891, Apr-Jun > Q2 1891 > 1891Q2 > > (with my personal preference being for the last one). > > It'll be a long haul, not least because both Ancestry and FreeBMD use this > form in _some_ of their output (I'm not sure whether FMP do). > > [Ancestry have even mangled it further: they've _tried_ to fix it, but > then let it pass through another interpreter stage that turned "1" into > "Jan", so I've sometimes seen "QJan-Jan-Feb-Mar" (or something very like > that) in Ancestry output.] > > > What does the house think (about the suggestion we try to stop using just > one month to indicate a quarter)? > > (And yes, I do know that there's further ambiguity in that a BMD may be > registered in the following quarter. I feel my preferred option of 1891Q2 > makes that possibility very slightly more obvious, though I'm not sure why > I feel that.) > -- > J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf > > There's nothing wrong with looking at cake. - Sarah Millican, Radio Times > 10-16 December 2011

On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 09:45:00 +0930, "Johnno H" <johnh4999@gmail.com> wrote: > >"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >news:NY7Tr1ZBDPESFwDs@soft255.demon.co.uk... >> [] >>>Births Jun 1891 >>>Martin James Elias Gravesend 2a 538 >> [] >> (Deliberately deleted poster details as this isn't specific to that >> poster.) >> >> I presume from the "2a 538" that this is from a BMD index. >> >> I'm sure most of us here know this, but it will mislead newcomers to the >> hobby: these indexes are divided into quarter years, so the above really >> means "April, May, or June 1891" (plus see last paragraph below). >> >> Unfortunately, I have seen such referred to as both "Apr 1891" and "Jun >> 1891", so there isn't any consistency. >> >> Can we as a hobby/profession start to abandon using only a month to refer >> to a quarter, when further precision isn't known? I'd suggest any of >> >> Apr-Jun 1891 >> 1891, Apr-Jun >> Q2 1891 >> 1891Q2 >> >> (with my personal preference being for the last one). >> >> It'll be a long haul, not least because both Ancestry and FreeBMD use this >> form in _some_ of their output (I'm not sure whether FMP do). >> >> [Ancestry have even mangled it further: they've _tried_ to fix it, but >> then let it pass through another interpreter stage that turned "1" into >> "Jan", so I've sometimes seen "QJan-Jan-Feb-Mar" (or something very like >> that) in Ancestry output.] >> >> >> What does the house think (about the suggestion we try to stop using just >> one month to indicate a quarter)? >> >> (And yes, I do know that there's further ambiguity in that a BMD may be >> registered in the following quarter. I feel my preferred option of 1891Q2 >> makes that possibility very slightly more obvious, though I'm not sure why >> I feel that.) >> -- >> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf >> >> There's nothing wrong with looking at cake. - Sarah Millican, Radio Times >> 10-16 December 2011 > >I understand that 2a 538 refers to Volume 2a page 538 >The volume appears to be tied to a registration district or area. > It is larger area of England and Wales formed from several registration districts. See e.g. :- http://www.findmypast.co.uk/help-and-advice/knowledge-base/births-marriages-deaths/registration-districts >When entering records as coming from such source, I enter 2nd Qtr 1853 or >4th Qtr 1853 >I often see Mar 1853 and this (as was stated) is misleading as actual month >can be Jan, Feb or Mar in actuality. > Only if it is not recognised that indexes arranged by quarters which is obvious with the original books but not when a third party fails to properly represent the arrangement. >When the registration was actually done ie period in a month can also cause >the qtr shown to be in another qtr. > The quarter is when the event was registered not when it occurred. A few can be years after the event if registration was not made at/near the time or an amended record is created.