edited September 28, 2020 in Suggest an Idea
Verkadej said: For several events in the Netherlands, you mention the place "Noordwijk, Drenthe". This is only a tiny hamlet and usually incorrect. The correct place would be in nearly all case be: Noordwijk, Zuid-Holland. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noordwijk
Lundgren said: Thank you for the feedback,
Would you mind providing the link to the search in the image above so we can investigate this?0
Verkadej said: Of course; this is the example producing the mentioned output: http://bit.ly/2QTU9fY
Best try find a Dutchman over there for explanation; if not available I will try:
There is the village of Noordwijk in the Dutch province of South-Holland, since ages already existing of 2 halves: Noordwijk aan Zee (at sea; fishermen) and Noordwijk-Binnen (inland; bulb farmers), together nowadays over 40.000 inhabitants and at least several thousands in the 19the century.
Then there is a small hamlet named Noordwijk in the Dutch province of Drenthe with some 30 house and 80 inhabitants. Unlikely that people with place of birth Noordwijk come from this hamlet. Besides I know all listed people in my family tree: http://bit.ly/36tKMul and can confirm that they really originated from the village of Noordwijk in South-Holland.
Jordi Kloosterboer said: Yeah that first one is a record from the municipality of Noordwijk in the province of South Holland created in 1812ish. My question is where does the data Noordwijk, Drenthe, Nederland come from since it is incorrect?0
A van Helsdingen said: I notice that the records mentioned by Verkadej come from "Netherlands, Archival Indexes, Vital Records, 1600-2000", which is a copy of part of the Open Archives database (openarch.nl). The error has probably arisen during the transfer of the data from OpenArch to FamilySearch.0
Jordi Kloosterboer said: "In addition, dates and places in record indexes will soon be editable on FamilySearch.org. This feature is similar to an update in 2019 that allowed users to edit the name fields in indexed records." I wonder if this will be possible for records like these that were not indexed by familysearch.0