TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2006-07 > 1151786566


From: David Ball <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] Entering Dates - was TMG-D Digest
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 13:42:46 -0700
In-Reply-To: <001101c69d49$ddc1b1f0$6401a8c0@richard>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard A. Pence [mailto:]
> Another issue is which calendar - Julian or Gregorian - was being used.
> Cyndi's List has links to numerous articles on this and other dating
> issues.
>

Agree

It is my continuing frustration to come across a date for an event between
1583 and 1752 that should be something like 10 Jan 1709/10 ("Old Style"
versus "New Style" for dates 1 Jan through 24 Mar) that comes to me either
as 10 Jan 1709 or as 10 Jan 1710 with no easy way to know how the date was
recorded with respect to our current view of the year starting with 1
January. Fortunately we can record the 10 Jan 1709/10 form in TMG, but one
never knows for sure how data were recorded by others. To echo Richard,
when you do know for sure, it should be recorded the 10 Jan 1709/10 form; if
you don't know for sure leave it alone and don't "fix" it by guessing. The
lack of a dual year is a very good sign that caution should be used.

This thread: