1901 Census England and Wales
Why has this 1901 census entry been transcribed as in Newington Green, Middlesex (north of the River Thames), whereas it is clearly located in Newington, Southwark which is in Surrey and south of the River Thames? Please correct, there is no excuse for this kind of error.
Household Identifier
676282Record Type
Household
Collection Information
England and Wales Census, 1901
Learn more about this collection through the FamilySearch Wiki."England and Wales Census, 1901," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:X9H8-YFX : 20 May 2019), John J Soanes, Newington Green, Middlesex, England, United Kingdom; from "1901 England, Scotland and Wales census," database and images, findmypast (http://www.findmypast.com : n.d.); citing St Mary Newington subdistrict, PRO RG 13, The National Archives, Kew, Surrey.
Answers
-
@N Tychonievich This appears to be another instance of the placename correction issue. https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:X9H8-YFX
Please and thank you!
0 -
Almost there, but Newington Green, Middlesex, is an entirely different location and all references to both need to be removed.
FindMyPast transcript:
Registration district St Saviour Southwark
Sub-district St Mary Newington
Full address is 82, Ash Street, Newington, St Saviour Southwark, London which is in Surrey, England
0 -
@ymsmith Please see this thread about existing issues from N Tychonievich. That is why I tagged the mod. https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/116253/existing-historical-records-issues#latest
1 -
@ymsmith - Is your situation the same as this one - Incorrect information on a record that is not editable?
If it is, would you please go add your information there, too? If you are having a different problem, please don't add anything to that discussion. 😎
Thanks!
0 -
Piper - again, this is the placename standardization problem. And @N Tychonievich who has been taking the lead on this issue has asked for each incidence to be reported separately, rather than consolidated on a thread of many errors.
1 -
@Áine Ní Donnghaile - Thanks! I'll get in touch with them. Duplicating efforts makes no sense, but maybe there's a way I can support them.
0 -
@ymsmith (fyi, @PiperTWilson), thank you for reporting this error in the collection, England and Wales Census, 1901; which appears to include both the auto Standardization of place names, and an error in the in original indexing.
I will forward your information pertaining to the auto standardization issue so that then engineers can review it and begin the work to resolve it.
The auto standardization error is evidenced by the presence of both an Event Place (Original) place name - in this case, Newington, London, Middlesex, England - and an Event Place - Newington Green, Middlesex, England, United Kingdom. The two locations are different (as best as I can determine); therefore, we have satisfied the criteria to call this an auto standardization error.
With regard to the indexing problem: that the Event Place was incorrectly indexed as Middlesex; this is not an engineering issue. I mention that only to suggest that, with a fix to the auto standardization problem, you may still see the indexing error. We note that, at this time, there is no way for the system to pull out a single (or relatively few) record(s) to fix the index. Once the index has allowed us to find the original record, issues of indexing errors can be handled by noting the error and providing corrections within the Source fields associated with the individual in Family Tree.
We also appreciate that you have reported this problem using a new separate discussion thread. Because the engineers attack these auto-standardization issues on an issue-by-issue basis, we need the ability to report the issues independently (along with the related discussion thread).
I hope this helps. Unfortunately, we are unable to suggest when the problem will be resolved; however, it will be in their queue soon.
3
