In message <mailman.2.1377033174.2882.genbrit@rootsweb.com>, singhals <singhals@erols.com> writes: > > >J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [] >>>> 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 [] >Aren't there enough things the newbie (and the oldie) need to remember >about boundary changes and calendar changes and how Regnal dates and >the Quaker dating system(s) differ from the Gregorian/Julian and why >Uncle James' baptism is down as Jacobus ... without tossing in an >unnecessary difference? Even if /this/ change seems like a good idea at >the time. > >Cheryl > > I wasn't sure whether you are agreeing with me or disagreeing. I'm only suggesting we use something like Q2 rather than Jun, which should _help_ not only newcomers but anyone; all I'm suggesting is that if we say Q2, it is less _likely_ that, further down the line, it'll lose the "quarter" information, whereas if we continue to say Jun, it can easily become corrupted into meaning the month. Interesting that, as well as the third month which is the standard way and the first which I have seen, someone in this thread (for what seems like a very sensible reason) uses the middle month - so all three are in use. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf It is dangerous to be sincere, unless you are also stupid. - George Bernard Shaw