Incomplete places list
The places list I have for indexing my Washington State death records file (1881- 1959) seems to be incomplete. For example I have a code of 801. There is no city or county for this code on the places reference list provided. Combinations of city and county codes that are provided do not match. For example 80 (Tacoma) and 1 (Adams county) do not make sense.
If this is like the other death records we have been seeing,
The first set of numbers is the Soundex Code, not a code for the city or county.
There is a Soundex Code, followed by a Name, then age/sex in parentheses, a city/county of Death, a date, and a certificate number.
If that doesn't help, please share the batch code to get a better answer. The batch code is the series of letters and numbers in brackets following the project title. For example, [GR8T-H2P]
P.S., I have a feeling you might be working on Part C. Which is slightly different from the death records I mentioned above. Much more complicated!1
Yes, This is a batch labeled part C.
US, Washington—County Death Registers, 1881–1979 [Part C][MSYB-WVT]
The soundex is the first number. The location numbers are found right before the certificate number.
There does not seem to be a complete list of places in the "what to remember about this project" list.
Something else I have been doing is indicating location as City, County, Washington (state), USA
Some of the location codes are for Cities that are not labeled the same as the county. I have been adding the county when this is the case. Some of the cities are named the same as counties. The list is in 2 parts. One with cities and counties identified separately and another set with cities and counties mixed together. Sometimes a city and county with the same name are listed as such with the word "city" following the code name for the city. Sometimes a name can indicate either a city and county in this second set. When it represents both I have only been listing the county.
See an example of codes that are not included in the original message I sent.1
Let me clarify a little.
Clarifying the first sentence. When a city has a name that is different than any of the county names in Washington, I can find the county it is in and add that.
Clarifying sentence 5. A Code in the second set of location names can indicate a city or a county. Sometimes there is a code for both the city and the county that have the same name. When this is the case, I record whichever level of the location is appropriate. If, for example, the location code indicated Walla Walla (city), I enter Walla Walla, Walla Walla, Washington, USA as the location.
Pleas let me know if this is being handled appropriately.0
You definitely don't have to index all the levels of locality, UNLESS they are on the image. Note on the examples that they only index the level of locality on the image. The rule is type what you see, don't type what you don't see. So if there is no County, State, or Country, you don't include those levels.
So, for the first entry you just enter Tacoma - not Tacoma, Pierce, Washington, USA
801 is odd, but, looking at the others and pulling up some Death Certificates, I think they added the third digit when it was a two digit location as a filler - or maybe 1 means hospital. People who died in Seattle have 601 as a code. 801 is Tacoma.
I would say just do your best. Or if you really want to get involved, you can look up the actual death certificates to verify what the odd codes mean, which is what I did.0
A couple of other questions.
- Where can I access the original certificates you mention above for validating data entry places?
- The are ages listed such as 2, 02, 00. Can I assume that 2 is 2 years old. 02 is 102 and 00 is 100?
- how would they indicate a person les than 1 year of age?
- Is it ok to validate my assumptions by looking at the original certificates? (if I can access them).
- I use the information from the image and do a record search in FamilySearch to find the original certificates. Lucky for us, the originals for these all seem to have been indexed.
- It looks like a single digits are hours/days/weeks/months so they could all be indexed as age = 0. I have no idea what they do with 10, 11, and 12 months, but, I'm going to guess they reuse 0, 1 and 2. Stillborn's seem to have a blank entry in the column. But, I would index those as a blank, since they are blank. They are using 01 to 09 for years. I am guessing that 00 could be 100.
- Usually the field help says that when a child is less than a year, we index a 0 (zero). This one says to round down when there are fractions of a year. More words to say the same thing...
- It is ok to use other images or outside sources to VALIDATE information. We just don't use outside sources to index, i.e., we wouldn't use the certificates we find to fill in the parents names, etc.
I also sent you a message that expands a bit on #1, so check your envelope box!1
I have now seen 1 "00" and the baby was two hours old. So 0 works. I wonder if they have 3 digits for 100 years and upwards...1