Fix the location of this record?
LegacyUser
✭✭✭✭
Jordi Kloosterboer said: Currently in Netherlands, Overijssel Province, Church Records, 1542-1893 > Nederlands Hervormd > Wesepe there are two links. Begraven 1806-1812 and Dopen 1666-1813 Trouwen 1751-1794.
I suggest making 3 links instead for Begraven 1806-1812, Dopen 1666-1813, and Trouwen 1751-1794. In English that is burials, baptisms, and marriages.
Currently in the baptisms and marriages link, it only shows the baptisms. I have to click on the arrow to change to film view to see the marriages. The first 2 pictures below shows how I am focused on the same image but with the link view and then the film view (which includes the marriages). When I click on an image for the marriages and change it back to "link" view (image 3), it says the link to that is from civil records in wesepe for Overlijden (death records)1806-1812 (which does include the promised death records but also the marriages which it should not since the marriages are definitely church records and are not deaths lol).
In conclusion: (this is kinda hard for me to explain without a graph lol):
Make the links have the actual content it promises. Separate baptisms from marriages. Keep the death civil records in the civil records part.
I suggest making 3 links instead for Begraven 1806-1812, Dopen 1666-1813, and Trouwen 1751-1794. In English that is burials, baptisms, and marriages.
Currently in the baptisms and marriages link, it only shows the baptisms. I have to click on the arrow to change to film view to see the marriages. The first 2 pictures below shows how I am focused on the same image but with the link view and then the film view (which includes the marriages). When I click on an image for the marriages and change it back to "link" view (image 3), it says the link to that is from civil records in wesepe for Overlijden (death records)1806-1812 (which does include the promised death records but also the marriages which it should not since the marriages are definitely church records and are not deaths lol).
In conclusion: (this is kinda hard for me to explain without a graph lol):
Make the links have the actual content it promises. Separate baptisms from marriages. Keep the death civil records in the civil records part.
0
Comments
-
Tom Huber said: This is very much like another issue that is under discussion: Start treating film items as separate entities at https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
In this case, the film was not divided into items, thought it should have been. And like the other discussions, each item should be treated as an independent set of records, not matter how many frames are involved.
Like indexing, this is going to take a lot of work, but it eventually needs to be done by FamilySearch.0 -
A van Helsdingen said: This is very common for Dutch DTB and BS records. I've seen hundreds or even thousands of images with different places, religions and record types all mixed up.
This is why Zoekakten, and nowadays Genealogie Werkbalk exists. If you haven't already I highly recommend trying it at: https://www.genealogiewerkbalk.nl/fs/ It's often much easier than using the Catalog or navigating through waypoints of a historical record collection.
The provincial archives are also a good place to look- they tend to split up records in much smaller chunks than FS. Also important is that their images are (often) in colour and better quality than FS digital microfilm. Personally, I always use the provincial archives' copies instead of FS.0