Timeline for Citing local BMD registrations in England and Wales
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 12, 2012 at 15:02 | vote | accept | ACProctor | ||
| Nov 29, 2012 at 20:50 | comment | added | ACProctor | OK. It's actually a good case for over-specifying details in a citation. Trying to be economical can result in a loss of usability. | |
| Nov 29, 2012 at 20:33 | comment | added | AdrianB38 | I think in practice the situation is not that dire if you include those sub-district names as they remain fixed - ironically it's the level above that is totally fluid. ("Fixed" aside from Crewe/Wybunbury type renames). Of course, you will not have a reference that can be used straight off by your reader - but if they apply a little intelligence, then they can find the right entry, with the new reference, on CheshireBMD etc. | |
| Nov 29, 2012 at 20:07 | comment | added | ACProctor | This sounds like a total disaster. I am interested in Cheshire too, and Lancashire. I have found a couple of local records that do not exist on the GRO index. That leaves me with a problem in devising a reliable (i.e. having some permanence) citation for them. | |
| Nov 29, 2012 at 19:44 | history | edited | AdrianB38 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 257 characters in body
|
| Nov 29, 2012 at 19:38 | history | answered | AdrianB38 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |