Need to know what numbers mean
What does this number signify A24281-2E11
Answers
-
This is what she is referring to.
0 -
This has not been answered. Would someone please address this question.
-1 -
Looks like it was only asked yesterday? In case useful for the future, there's a new flagging option allowing us to flag questions that haven't been answered after a week.
A24281-2 is an IGI batch number - I can see your Henry Barnes in that batch, here: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:1:MJMX-9FR?lang=en (his wife is shown using the Alternate Name on her FT profile).
If you want to look further into this, the next port of call is this page on the wiki: https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/IGI_Batch_Number_Descriptions
FS makes A* batches' source images available online to LDS people (I can't see them, maybe you can) via this collection: https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/collection/2060211, but only, as the wiki says, 'if the IGI sealing date is after 1941'.
1 -
To get questions answered efficiently, it is really helpful to give full links and full descriptions so that other people can jump directly to the area of concern and be able to see the full context of a problem.
In the future, I would suggest asking the original question in the following manner:
On the profile for Henry Barnes II (1758-1827) https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/L8W7-1J2 is a note placed there in 2013 which at that time referred to Henry Barnes (1765-1826) and his wife Elizabeth Yates (1769-) with the title "A24281-2 E 11 From Haslingden Church Reg" which states "A24281-2 E 11 From Haslingden Church Register unprinted." It can be viewed here: https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/changelog/L8W7-1J2/notes What do these letters and numbers mean?
First I'll comment that you need to know that notes of this format in which the title is just the first 40 characters of the note itself are old user entered notes in systems in which the notes did not have titles. When imported into Family Tree a title for the note was computer generated. Even though the note gives a user name of "FamilySearch" this is just a place holder for a blank spot. The note was created by a user long ago previous to Family Tree and when there are strange looking codes are there, they often have no meaning to anyone but that user.
However, in this case, as Mandy explained the first code ID is an extraction batch number. The E and the 11 are separate items and I have no idea if they mean anything or not.
Of interest, you can see that Henry and Elizabeth are no longer a couple in Family Tree. So it will be important to track down that original family group sheet which was submitted by a past researcher as a start in determining if Henry and Elizabeth as they now exist in Family Tree had some incorrect merges and this note refers to a completely different pair of people who need to be restored to Family Tree or if the original researcher who put them together as husband and wife made a mistake and they really were never a couple.
2 -
I've looked through the Famlly Group Sheet archive and do not see a sheet the corresponds to the information currently on Henry although there are a several sheets for various Henry Barnes which have a source on them of "Haslingden Church Register unprinted." Apparently it was a pretty common name.
It might be possible to pull more information from the Changes Logs for Henry and Elizabeth but I don't have time to analyze them right now. I'll take a look later.
2 -
I'm not sure why Mandy's IGI search only brought up one results. I'm also not sure limiting by batch number always works properly. Here is a search in the IGI for Henry Bates with wife Elizabeth Y* with forty results: https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/genealogies/results?count=20&q.collectionId=5&q.givenName=henry&q.spouseGivenName=elizabeth&q.spouseSurname=y%2A&q.surname=barnes
The information is all so similar that most of these may be duplicates.
In any event it looks like a lot of work has been done on the two people in the original couple, Henry Barnes and Elizabeth Yates to get them to the state they are in now. Going back and checking if all that work was done correctly is going to be a major job for someone.
The starting point seems to be a Henry Barns born in 1791. An original family group sheet does exist for him (I've clipped off the information that makes this have limited availability):
This researcher did not submit anything on these parents. Otherwise the standard was to put an asterisk next to the parent's name who appears on another sheet. Seven children are listed on the sheet. The sources for this information are:
Why a series of users since 2013 decided that the parents listed here for Henry Barnes b 1791 were not correct, is a project for someone in the family. I hope the users who split up Henry and Elizabeth documented their research well.
2 -
I looked for surname=Barnes (exact search) in the specific IGI batch (including the -2) and got 4 results, only one of which was a Henry, as I recall. I quoted the actual clicked-into entry URL, not the search one. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
1 -
I have not looked for these couples but would mention that, if FS sources aren't adequate, then there may be text only transcripts on the Lancashire OPC website (Google should find it). The site doesn't have every Lancashire church but it does have a lot. There's a site wide search and the transcripts are usually complete, not summaries. The price is right because it's a free site and the people who run the site are to be thanked.
A commercial site is Ancestry, of course. They have virtually all the Lancashire parish registers. The arrangements can confuse because the Manchester area is separate from the rest of Lancashire (presumably because it's a separate diocese) but the Bishops' Transcripts for Manchester are usually bundled with the rest of Lancashire BTs, again for reasons of history. I have a vague feeling that the Manchester area stuff is even split itself between the Cathedral and the ordinary churches in the area.
1 -
@MandyShaw1 You were very clear and I got the same result when including the batch number but I though it was strange the wife's name was very different. So I tried it without the batch number and got all the additional results which did have the correct name for the wife. That's what made me wonder if something was off in the search routine when it comes to batch numbers.
1 -
Ah, that makes sense.
At some point someone has put the 'Betty' name on Elizabeth Yeates' profile as an Alternate Name, another small piece of evidence perhaps.
1
