Quite frequently, we’ve been coming across plots with multiple owners–likely siblings in most cases. We have been recording only the first owner which meant that we might be missing the opportunity to index additional family surnames .
NEW: If there are two or more owners, record all the first names, separated with the word “or” in the “Property of: Given Name” field. For instance, “John or Peter or Susan”. Record all the surnames in the “Property of: Surname” field, again, separated with “or”. For instance, ” Cooper or Smith or Brown”.
If the given names have been abbreviated, do not expand them. If you can’t decipher a name, use ctrl+u to mark it unreadable.
In the case of an un-named infant or child, or the occasional “wife of”, the rule is to mark the “deceased’s given name” blank with ctrl+b and to use the surname of the relative mentioned.
The Mount Pleasant indexing fields offer no obvious way to record the forename of the relative. Here’s the solution:
NEW: Use the “Relationship: Given Name” and “Relationship: Surname” fields to record the relative’s name. For example, in “Infant son of Nathaniel Fox”, record “Nathaniel” in “Relationship: Given Name” and “Fox” in Relationship: Surname”.
If you have hidden the unused fields for Mount Pleasant Cemetery as I suggested in a previous post, you will need to show them again when you come across an entry like the above. (Go to the View menu, and select “Organize Fields”.)
You will only need these field occasionally, so hide them again.
Alternatively, you could move the “relationship fields” to the end of the indexing fields so they’re handy if you need them—but you won’t inadvertently enter data.
Indexer Pat Jeffs has brought forward a anomaly in the Mount Pleasant registers for which we now have an answer. Pat noted that, in a couple of cases, there were two individuals listed on a single line in the register–one set of twin infants, and a husband and wife.
Each individual should have a separate line entry. Do them in the order written. The line numbers increase automatically, but you can change them. The second number will be a duplicate, but that’s OK.
Remember that if there’s not an actual name the line should be marked as a blank; don’t be tempted to use “wife” or “child”, etc.
Instructions for this problem have now been added to the field help screens. Thank you to Pat (from England) for asking, and Rose (from Utah) for providing the answer.
I know that some of you have discovered the “organize fields” feature, but for those that haven’t, here’s a pleasant surprise that will make your indexing much easier.
When you have the indexing page open, you’ll see a “View” menu at the top left. Choose “Organize fields” and you can easily hide the fields you don’t need for Mount Pleasant, and drag the others into the correct order using the arrows between the columns. Just highlight the field name on the left, and use the second arrow button to move it to the box on the right, or use the third and fourth buttons to shuffle it up or down.
Here’s a screen shot of what the “Organize fields” should look like for Mount Pleasant. Please note that I’ve hidden “Age: Weeks” because the Mount Pleasant records don’t use weeks.
NOTE: Later records for Mount Pleasant Cemetery do use the “Nearest Relation” columns. Be sure to re-organise the fields to capture that information when it is present.
We are the Toronto Branch of the Ontario Genealogical Society, located in Toronto, Ontario Canada. We have more than 800 members in the Greater Toronto Area and around the world. Family historians are intent on researching their own families or the ancestry of their clients, but we also realize the importance of making records available for other researchers. We transcribe, index, and explain the records that are in our home areas—even if our own ancestry is elsewhere. We know that other volunteers are doing likewise all over the world.
This blog will provide information to our volunteers and others about projects in progress.
And if it inspires you to help with our projects, or one closer to your home, we’d be very pleased.