Talk:World Archives Project: London, England, Selected Poor Law Removal and Settlement Records, 1828-1930 (Update)
Feel free to add to or edit information in this discussion tab as necessary. Please take time to become familiar with the General Keying Standards and be sure to read all instructions on the main project page. (Please note that in case of a discrepancy, project level instructions always trump general keying standards.)
Extra Keying Helps
Common Keying Errors Found by Reviewers
== Questions and Answers ==--
If you have a keying question that is not answered on the project page or in any of the information above, click “EDIT” and ask it here. (If you click on Rich Editor you won't have to worry about formatting your entry.) Then click “WATCH” at the top right on this page and you will be notified via email when an update has been made.
Q: The project instructions say to key every name on the page who isn't an official or magistrate. I keep running into employer names. Ex: Claimant's husband had a job as a livery hand under Mr So-and-So of X Parish but now he is ill and cannot work anymore. Do I key those employer names? They aren't really involved or of interest from a genealogical standpoint.
- A: Yes, we do key them. --Katerimmer 07:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Q: Also, why the hell is '1828' an invalid entry for the 'event year' field? I have to F7 that field on every line and it's unnecessarily annoying.
- A: Yes, it's annoying. But we have to F7 because this is an alert to the keyer that what you're keying is 'not expected' in this field - in this instance - outside the specified range for the field 'year' (expected range is 1828-1930). --ColleenF789
Q: I've encountered a few records where the primary claimant is written "Elizabeth Williams properly Curry" or "Laura Curtis otherwise Simmons." From the context in the documents, I learned Elizabeth had remarried a Mr Williams and Curry was her maiden name and Laura was an illegitimate daughter of mother Curtis who remarried a Mr. Simmons and had adopted his last name. TL;DR - Which last name do I key when it's written like that, the first listed or the second?
Q: Are the record books dated correctly? Most of the records that I have been indexing are dated 1826-1827.
- A: There are a number of records outside the range specified. I've keyed quite a few from the 1780s and 1790s. --ColleenF789
Q: Should we index "unnamed unbaptized bastard" children? If so, how? (female/male Smith?) Then for all of the "bastard" children should we assume the named father or the unmarried mother? Thanks.
- A: As far as I know, if they are unnamed, we don't key them. --Katerimmer 22:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Anna F: Could we have a ruling on this please? Often seen '... child named John aged 2 years and a male child unbaptised aged 1 year.' It seems that if the child hasn't been baptised the authorities don't recognise it. Some of the unbaptised children I've encountered are 'lawful issue' - and obviously have names, but these names haven't been recorded. --ColleenF789
If you have a suggestion or would like to make an addition to the project page, click “EDIT” and post your suggestion here. (If you click on Rich Editor you won't have to worry about formatting your entry.) Then click “WATCH” at the top right on this page and you will be notified via email when an update has been made.
If you are keying in names and the NEXT page has the same names exactly but it is a different image ...is that classed as a duplicate image (because you have the data already from previous page) or do you still key in the same names again for the second image ?
- A: Duplicate image is only used when it is actually another copy of the same image, not just the same names on a different image. You should key them again. If you classed it as a duplicate image, it would not be included in the final database and researchers would not be able to view it. --Katerimmer 07:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)