Incorrect US Census town referenced in 1940 Census.

carlosirizarry1

The following census page:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-L99M-Q3X1?view=explore&action=view&cc=2000219&lang=en&groupId=TH-1942-27904-2977-86

Is referenced erroneously as belonging to the Northern coast town of Quebradillas, Puerto Rico.

It actually belongs to Maricao, Puerto Rico, a montain locked town far from Quebradillas.

Can you please correct?

Áine.ní.Donnghaile

@carlosirizarry1
On the page you linked, there is a Feedback button where users are encouraged to report problems. That will send a message direct to the Engineers responsible.

This Community is primarily composed of other users of FamilySearch who cannot make corrections.

Alan E. Brown

@carlosirizarry1 , The image group (DGS) you linked to is 005462265. It contains census records from Maricao, Moca, and Quebradillas. If I understand your report correctly, you're saying that the "census page" refers to Quebradillas, when it's actually the containing Image Group that lists Quebradillas as the location:

Since this particular part of the metadata applies to the entire image group, and 3 distinct locations are contained within the image group, it's the common practice in such situations to select one of the locations to specify as the location for the image group. (A similar situation occurs for a page from Piute County, Utah, in DGS 005459988. That image group contains pages from 4 distinct counties in Utah, but the image group metadata only lists Salt Lake County. The same thing happens for many, many image groups in the 1940 US Census.)

But there's no need to be concerned about this. When you attach an image from that page as a source to a person in Family Tree, you'll see that the Residence location is correctly specified as a place within Maricao, Puerto Rico. You can simply ignore the part of the image group metadata that lists Quebradillas, since it has no real impact on anything you need to do with these particular records. I can certainly understand your desire to have the location metadata more precise, but that would require going back and subdividing many image groups into smaller groups, which I doubt would be worth the effort.