I have the same question with batch:
Canada, Ontario—Tax Assessment Records, 1834–1899 [Part D] [M36F-KLX]
Also, I'm not sure what I found that made me believe that I should put the Municipality in the "Township" but I find that this is incorrect and I should have been putting it in the "City" field. Is there a way to go back to the last 5 or so batches I have done and change that?
Sorry, also after the above item there are two names, one listed as president and one as secretary. I don't know if these belong to the company or if I should make them two seperate entries in my record?
You only index the names of people, not businesses in this collection.
The project Instructions:
But, I would index the names of the President and Secretary of the Aurora Dairy Asst Ltd. because they are unique names in the left column of "taxable parties".
Index each unique name recorded in the first column of names, usually titled "Taxable Party" or "Occupants.
Thank you, guess I can't read :-P. I really did look before I asked!
No worries, @Cheryl Sutter It happens to all of us. There are alot of instructions and sometimes we miss one.
I'm reviewing in the same project. I am finding that a lot of indexers are "guessing" male vs. female but the project instructions clearly say not to guess. So I am changing "Male" to "Blank" if the gender is not explicitly noted on the record. I think that's the right thing to do.
I wish there could be a quick way to check this type of thing with the project coordinators.
Also @Cheryl Sutter I also am a bit confused about municipality vs township. If the record says "Assessment Roll for the Township of Markham" then I am inputting "Markham" into the Township space, not into the City space. I think that's the right thing to do but would love to get confirmation.
If it says Township of Markham, then you are correct to put Markham in the Township field. You can always do a quick search to verify whether the place is a Township or a City. But, I would try to base the field choice on what the examples show:
Municipality = City
Township = Township
Village = Township
Town = City
City = City
In the instruction examples, they index the 1st example (Municipality of Ancaster) as a City. In Example 3, they index the (Township of Ancaster) in the Township field. In Example 4, the Village of Wyoming is indexed as a Township, and in Example 2, the Town of Dundas is indexed as a City. I really wish they would just have one field Municipality/Township/City. Ancaster is a good example of a place like the one I live in, it was both a Township and a Town, now it is "a historic town in the City of Hamilton".
The field helps also help here:
City Field Help: Index municipalities, cities, or towns recorded in the header of the document in this field. Do not index any places recorded in the "Residence" or "Address" columns.
Do not index wards, districts, or townships in this field.
Township Field Help: Index the township or village recorded in the header of the document in this field. Do not index any places recorded in the "Residence" or "Address" columns.
Do not index wards, districts, cities, or municipalities in this field.
The indexers should not be guessing based on Given Names. But, there are columns on these records that indicate gender in some cases. In the column that says Freeholder, Householder, Tenant, or Farmer's Son, if they mark FS that is indicative of a Male. The other abbreviation they use is LS which is Landholder's Son. One should not use the abbreviation M.F. to indicate gender because that is most likely Manhood Franchise (even on the forms that don't list that status in the column header, ] they still used the abbreviation). If the prefix is Miss or Mrs or Mr, of course it isn't a guess.
Thanks @Melissa S Himes this is very helpful.
I'm also finding that people are listing "Concession" as the name of a Town - this is incorrect, something like "Concession 13" or "Concession 12" in Ontario would be a road, not a Town. So I'm "blanking" those, too.
And I also find that a lot of indexers REALLY want to give the "Address" information as the Town, but the instructions clearly say not to include anything from the "Address" or "Residence" column, as you mentioned. (I do understand this - we all want to include as much information as possible - but it seems important to follow the project instructions.)
Your gender information is extremely helpful, as well. I didn't know about F.S. and L.S. I've been keeping anything based on "Mrs.," "Widow," etc., of course.
Thanks so much for your feedback. Super useful.
@Melissa S Himes I'm just wondering - is "Yeoman" (as an Occupation) sufficient to make a call on the person's gender? I've been using "Widow" and "Gentleman" previously; Yeoman seems to be clearly Male but thought I would seek your opinion. Also thinking that "Rev" as a prefix would be a clear sign of "Male" in this time period.
Usually we can't use occupation to determine gender unless there is a special project instruction. I have seen that instruction in the Census records of New Zealand. I don't think this instruction is in the Canada tax project. The field help "other evidence in the language" never meant occupations in the past. (Gentlemen and Widows seem okay to me!) But, I would not use reverend to determine gender, no matter the time period. BTW, this was a topic I argued early in my indexing career (2014). I recall writing to Support that Stewardesses, Actresses, and Maids are women and Stewards, Actors, and Butlers are men. I was shot down on all my arguments.