1881 census entry problem

[Pauline]

I was about to add a couple from the 1881 census, and am unsure how I should enter their young baby. The child is listed as 'Newly Born Babe', a daughter aged 2 days, and the transcript has given her the surname of the parents, although the original entry doesn't show a surname.

What is the best way to enter this child's name?

The reference is RG11 2518 Fo: 94 P 13

 

[Bryman]

When I came across a similar situation from the 1911 census, I entered a forename of "Unnamed". The actual value entered is probably not very important as the unnamed child will not be entered alone on anyone's My Ancestors page and hence any matching will be made with one or both of the parents.

 

[Sue_3]

I would enter exactly what it says in the transcription, then you can reflect any additional information you have in the 'corrected' boxes, as usual.

 

[peter]

I would enter exactly what it says in the transcription, then you can reflect any additional information you have in the 'corrected' boxes, as usual.

I agree - after all, that's what it says on the form.

 

[Pauline]

I agree - after all, that's what it says on the form.

Obviously I'm well aware of what it says on the form, but it just felt all wrong in this case to enter the child's name as Newly, with middle names Born & Babe, even though this descriptive phrase has been transcribed misleadingly as if it were the child's forenames, and a surname assumed where one wasn't given.

I hadn't encountered a situation just like this before, and was in two minds as to whether it would be simpler just to omit this child altogether. As Bryman points out, if someone else has already entered this family we will match on the parents anyway.

 

[peter]

Obviously I'm well aware of what it says on the form, but it just felt all wrong in this case to enter the child's name as Newly, with middle names Born & Babe, even though this descriptive phrase has been transcribed misleadingly as if it were the child's forenames, and a surname assumed where one wasn't given.

I hadn't encountered a situation just like this before, and was in two minds as to whether it would be simpler just to omit this child altogether. As Bryman points out, if someone else has already entered this family we will match on the parents anyway.

Omitting the child achieves nothing. The advice on the form asks that you enter information "exactly as it appears in the census transcription even if you know that it is wrong or incomplete', so the only way you can go wrong is by not doing what it says.

 

[Bryman]

The advice on the form asks that you enter information "exactly as it appears in the census transcription even if you know that it is wrong or incomplete', so the only way you can go wrong is by not doing what it says.

That might be appropriate for names entered on the original form or transcription but surely not when the information is just an explanation as to why there is no entry. The LC system requires names to be supplied but does not specify what should be entered if no information is available. Should a blank value be allowed?

There are instances where children have been given 'rubbish' names for the birth registration. Confusion might arise if values can be either names or explanations.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Forgive if I have grasped the wrong end of the stick, but surely the whole point of the LC experience in entering information from Censuses is to enter what you see -daft, incorrect or vague (or whatever) - and then apply your own correction below? So if you enter Unknown Unknown (for instance) and then correct it to John Smith (for instance); then John Smith is what will show, and if memory serves, in italics.

 

[Pauline]

Forgive if I have grasped the wrong end of the stick,

No, I don't think you have grasped the wrong end of the stick. We should, of course, enter into LC exactly what the transcription says, and I have done just that in all other situations, adding in corrected names where appropriate.

But, as I said above, on this particular occasion it just felt all wrong to add what clearly wasn't a name at all into the name fields, which was why I raised the question. And although the transcriber had added an assumed surname for the child, and the baby is shown in the census as a daughter, adding corrected names at LC would be making my own - possibly incorrect - assumptions.

As it happens, I didn't get a match with this entry anyway!

 

[Bob Spiers]

And although the transcriber had added an assumed surname for the child, and the baby is shown in the census as a daughter, adding corrected names at LC would be making my own - possibly incorrect - assumptions.

Yes I see your point, you would not so much be correcting as making an assumption. I've had my share of 'sillies' particularly on recorded ages for newly born babies, from a few hours, days and weeks, or shown as '0'. Plus 'Boy' or 'Girl' and no surname, in which case I too would have had to assume a surname, and often amend the spelling. I make good use of the free form Comment box, even if only to act as an aide memoire, and of course this shows with its distinctive icon to indicate corrections have been made.

 

[peter]

That might be appropriate for names entered on the original form or transcription but surely not when the information is just an explanation as to why there is no entry. The LC system requires names to be supplied but does not specify what should be entered if no information is available. Should a blank value be allowed?

A blank value is allowed, but should only be used when there is a blank in the transcript.

 

[Bryman]

A blank value is allowed, but should only be used when there is a blank in the transcript.

I think that a blank value is allowed for the middle name but not the forename, as indicated by the presence or absence of a red asterisk against each field on the form. The assumption is that there will always be a forename but that is not always the case with newborns. Perhaps there is a need for a check box on the input form to indicate that a blank value is deliberate rather than a simple omission. However, such changes to the LC system may not be worthwhile if only two instances have been found so far. An enhanced instruction would be simpler and cheaper to implement. I would be happy to change my entry to comply with any revised instruction. Like Pauline, my existing entry has not yet been matched with that of another member.

 

[peter]

I think that a blank value is allowed for the middle name but not the forename

It is possible to enter a blank for the forename, if you know how, but it's such a rare occurrence that I don't publicise how it can be done.