Forums
Using censuses as an example, last names of family names other than the head of the family are not spelled out, but ditto marks or "do" is used, and places/states of birth are often abbreviated. Is it standard to simply give the presumed name and/or state without explanation or should one be showing exactly what is in the census, such as in the reference note below, so that someone else can come to their own conclusion?
1860 U.S. census, Suffolk County, Massachusetts, population schedule, Boston, p. 14 (penned), dwelling 114, family 109, Mary Hickok [head of family is G. Hickok and ditto marks are used for the last names of the other family members]; digital images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 23 Oct 2012); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm M653, roll 521; state of birth of Conn[ecticut].
Yes. It is "standard to
Yes. It is "standard to simply give the presumed name and/or state without explanation." We would need to add an explanation only if there is a quirk in the record or there is something that seems problematic about the attribution of that name to that person.