The birth record for my 3x great grandfather has been wrongly transcribed both in name and date. I have the original baptism/birth record from The National Records of Scotland showing the correct details.
Unless the image of the Scottish record is also on FamilySearch, it is not possible to edit the index/transcription.
can you be a little more clear WHERE precisely it has been mis-transcribed? (the actual page where you see it mis-trnscribed)
(url would be nice -- so we can go directly to the item in question)
URL for this record is https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:X1W8-9N5
Name should not be Metheren but Mathieson Birth date is 26th August 1797 and baptism 12 September 1797. Mothers name is Frances, not Francis.
How does one query a transcription? I have found some in Yorkshire Parish Registers showing likely confusion of placenames. For example,
""England, Yorkshire, Parish Registers, 1538-2016", database, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:661H-5R7M : 23 February 2022), John Overton, 1717."
This reads as Easington in Cleveland, East Riding, Yorkshire. There were two Easingtons in Yorkshire, the one in Cleveland was in North Riding, I understand, while the other in Holderness is in East Riding."
Poulson, History and Antiquities of the Seigniory of Holderness in the East Riding of Yorkshire, vol. 2 (1840), page 377 gives the same burial info as this FS entry but locates it in Easington, Holderness. I think the original should be reviewed to sort out which Easington is correct.
Because the image is not available, the index/extract cannot be edited.
If the image was available on FamilySearch, the Edit button would be live instead of greyed out.
Also - note in the "How to Use this Collection" the collection is considered a Legacy Collection, which cannot be edited. https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/1771030
Correction: Poulson's vol. 2 was published in 1841.
@rdmathieson, keep in mind that the index is not the data. It is merely a finding aid for the data. When the finding aid cannot be corrected, you can console yourself with the fact that you found the record anyway.
@Stephen Stuart_2, that's an auto-standardized location. Notice that there are two "Death or Burial Place" fields. The one with the parenthetical "original" is the text that was originally entered in the index, while the other one is the label of the location in the Places database that was associated with that text by the automated process.
Unlike most of the millions upon millions of records where said automated process Got It Wrong, in this case, it's the database that's unclear or wrong: it has two entities in two different places that are labeled identically as "Easington, Yorkshire, England". Both locations have a second label which just adds "United Kingdom", again identically between the two.
You can suggest corrections to the Places database using the "Improve This Place" button on an entry. I'm not sure how to fix this one, though, so I haven't submitted anything.
Thank you, Julia. Regional boundaries may have changed over time, so the database ought to accommodate the history. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Riding_of_Yorkshire#Administrative_history) But at this period the two Easingtons share no designation but Yorkshire, England. The nomenclature, Easington in Cleveland, East Riding, remains self-contradictory. To resolve the contradiction FS has to look up the original source, doesn't it?
To resolve the contradiction FS has to look up the original source, doesn't it?
Research is required. That's what the Places gazetteer team does. Have you looked up these place names in the gazetteer?
Navigate to Places from the Site Map. The FamilySearch main site (not here, Community) has a link to Site Map at the bottom of every page.
One post has been edited to remove personally identifiable information.