Peruvian baptism indexed with locality of Northumberland, England

Angela Berrett

Looking at images for records on GS:1398390 or DGS:4773142, these are Peruvian baptismal records. One of the records, image 31, has been indexed and attached to Juana Rosa Villavicencio Litardo, LZ3C-YTQ, as that is her baptism. However, the indexed record has the Christening Place as Whitfield, Northumberland, England, United Kingdom. Is there a way to fix this record transcript to match the information on the image and film? Thanks!

indexingerror.18Feb22.JPG

Áine Ní Donnghaile

@N Tychonievich

This one shows both original and adjusted places as Whitfield, Northumberland, England. The adjusted place has "United Kingdom" added.

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:N11W-Z84

Title board shows Peru.

Could you please have this one checked? Thanks, as always, for your help.

Paul W

https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?q.batchNumber=C00027-2

The link above shows the results for a search on the batch number in the citation - 656 results, but same events appear to be duplicated to include others / parents in same record(s).

https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?count=20&q.anyPlace=whitfield%2A&q.anyPlace.exact=on&q.filmNumber=4773142

https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?count=20&q.filmNumber=4773142

The second of the links shows the results of a search on the DGS number in the citation,with "Whitfield" inputted as the placename. The third one is the same search, but without including a placename. As you will see, 224 of the 6,217 total results have "Whitfield, Northumberland" as the indexed placename.

I'm sure there's a "simple" explanation for what has happened here, so I hope someone is able to offer it, as I haven't encountered anything quite like this before!

Áine Ní Donnghaile

@Paul W I think it is close to the same problem seen in this thread https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/429330#Comment_429330

In any case, I think it needs a tech/developer/programmer review to determine cause/quirk.

N Tychonievich

@Angela Berrett Looking at the image showing the indexed information, this does not fit the pattern that indicates an auto-standardization issue, since both the original and the standardized place have the same inaccuracy. This is a straight-up indexing error and not one we can send up to the engineers to fix. It is frustrating to find these when the option to edit is not present. For now, you have a couple of ways to flag the error when you use these records as sources:

• You can note the error in your "reason to attach" note.
• In source linker, when you pull over a place, you can edit it to show correctly

Wish I could give you a more satisfying answer. Fortunately, increased options for user corrections are promised in the future. Meanwhile, we do what we can with flawed indexed information.