https://www.familysearch.org/indexing/batch/20bfb105-7c40-4cdc-96b4-7a775014e804
I am reviewing the above batch of baptism records.
There appears to be conflicting information on how to index the child's surname if it is not given in the record.
The field instruction states: "If the surname was not recorded or was written as a variation of the word "unknown," press Ctrl+B to mark this field blank."
The project instruction states: "If a record does not include a name for the primary person, you should still index the record, marking the primary name fields blank and indexing other names, such as names of the parents, along with any other fields that are present on the record."
However, the example in the project instructions for baptisms (Fox) shows the child's surname indexed the same as the parents' even though no surname is given for the child.
So, for this batch, should the child's surname be blanked per the field instructions, or should the child's surname be indexed using the parents' surname per the project instructions example?
Best Answers
-
Hello,
Yes, I absolutely agree with you about the instructions. They are totally conflicting and don't match the examples given. I have the same problem with a batch of records from Middlesex.
I am loath to change the hard work of some indexer when there is such confusion, but my instinct is that the field should be marked "blank" unless a surname is specifically listed for that person.
We need guidance!
Hilary.
0 -
I think the example is correct since Fox is in a box as the Family Surname. This is showing a standard situation when both parents' name are the same.
The project instruction addressing not having the name of a primary person is of no consequence in this situation. That is for a situation where a person being indexed name(s) is never written, but there are other portions of the image that can be indeed.
The field help for the Child's Surname also indicates that we don't follow the General Indexing Guidelines for this project:
If a surname was recorded for the child, but not for the parents, index the surname of the child for both of the parents. This is an exception from the General Indexing Guidelines and should not be applied to other projects.
For your batch, the child's surname is blank because there is no surname for the child and there is a different surname for each parent. I believe that if there was one surname for both parents (i.e., Daniel, the son of Squire and Sarah Boone), then you could use Boone as the surname for the child - as they have done with Fox.
Having said that, there are other projects, like the Middlesex parish registers, where the field help has the addition of the instruction that addresses what to do in the case of two surnames for the parents and none for the child: If a surname was not recorded for a child and only 1 surname was recorded for both parents, type the parents' surname in this field. If 2 different surnames were recorded for the parents, type the father's surname in this field. This is an exception to the General Indexing Guidelines.
Since the Non-Conformist batch that you are working on doesn't have a detailed instruction like the one for the Middlesex Parish Registers, then you must leave the child's surname blank UNLESS it is shown as a Family name like Fox.
0 -
Thank you Hilary and Milissa for your responses. Your comments were helpful, and in this batch I shall leave the surnames blank as indexed.
Sometimes the instructions and/or the examples are not entirely clear. It is helpful to have this forum to ask the experts. I appreciate your timely answers.
0