A family in 1860 Utah census is split- part can not be seen as indexed.
John W. Young [KWNK-XS2] and part of his family are on the last page of Washington Division of Washington County following its completion. It says it is Santa Clara. The last two children are shown as indexed on that page but are not.
Jno. D. Young [KWZ1-BJ1] and Leah are on page 1 of the Tonaquint part of Washington County. How can they be correctly linked together so they can be seen as the family they are?
Please help fix this problem.
It is likely that it will happen frequently in the 1950 census for the same reason. People don't verify that the following page is part of the same family so it gets consider as a different one. Especially since it is stated that it usually is not a continuation of the family. Bruce Feinauer
Keep in mind that the index is not the data. It is merely a finding aid for the data. You've found all of the family members, so the index has served its purpose.
When families break across a page, the people from the second page are purposely indexed as if they were on the first one in order to keep the family grouped together. This has been correctly done for the family in question on the 1860 census, and will presumably happen on the 1950 census, too, when an indexer gets the second page and sees that the first people on it belong in a family from the preceding page.
The complication for your 1860 family is that the two consecutive pages have been broken into separate waypointed "chunks", so that you can't simply page forward from the image linked to the index to get to the image that actually contains John D and Leah. I wrote illustrated explanations of waypoints on a couple of other threads earlier this morning: https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/449560#Comment_449560 and https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/449567#Comment_449567.
What you can do is use the instructions in the second post I just linked to get to the second page of this family, and then add the information about the correct images in the Notes section of the source citations attached to John D's and Leah's profiles.0
I would still like those two entries attache to the proper page in the census. Right now it is not and cannot be found by clicking on it.0
@Bruce Feinauer, the index-to-image associations are not user-editable, and as far as I know, there's nobody at FamilySearch tasked with fixing them, either, so you'll have to console yourself with the fact that you've found them in both the index and the images. In Family Tree, you can add the URL of the correct image to the Notes field of the index citation, and/or attach the image separately as a source (instructions in my reply to someone else here: https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/449832#Comment_449832).0