Unwarranted Records to Attach in "England, Staffordshire, Church Records, 1538-1944"
LegacyUser
✭✭✭✭
Adrian Bruce said: Well, I've never seen this before...
URL https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619... looks like a perfectly normal Church of England parish register burial entry. See:
I have checked the image in FindMyPast and it is a perfectly normal Church of England parish register burial entry. When I use Tools / Review Attachments on the https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619... historical index record, this is what I see:
The principal in the index record has been attached to L2GJ-KVQ correctly. But there are also entries to attach for his father, his mother and his spouse. All named simply Windsor. The user attaching them did attach the parents but not the spouse - perhaps she smelt a rat by this point.
To be clear - the index record contains a correct reference to the principal. It also contains totally incorrect references to the principal's parents and spouse, none of whom appear on the original image in any form and therefore shouldn't be in the index either.
Weirdly, the parents and spouse only appear in the source attachment style view.
I suspect that images and / or index may be from FindMyPast - certainly at some point the index has become corrupted. This may be a systemic fault - the next record in the original is indexed on https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619... and that also has 4 persons to attach instead of one.
Can someone please check and remove the extraneous persons from the index records? CofE burials records normally (but not always) refer only to one person - it looks to me that the extraneous persons should be identifiable by the lack of a given name. Probably.
URL https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619... looks like a perfectly normal Church of England parish register burial entry. See:
I have checked the image in FindMyPast and it is a perfectly normal Church of England parish register burial entry. When I use Tools / Review Attachments on the https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619... historical index record, this is what I see:
The principal in the index record has been attached to L2GJ-KVQ correctly. But there are also entries to attach for his father, his mother and his spouse. All named simply Windsor. The user attaching them did attach the parents but not the spouse - perhaps she smelt a rat by this point.
To be clear - the index record contains a correct reference to the principal. It also contains totally incorrect references to the principal's parents and spouse, none of whom appear on the original image in any form and therefore shouldn't be in the index either.
Weirdly, the parents and spouse only appear in the source attachment style view.
I suspect that images and / or index may be from FindMyPast - certainly at some point the index has become corrupted. This may be a systemic fault - the next record in the original is indexed on https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619... and that also has 4 persons to attach instead of one.
Can someone please check and remove the extraneous persons from the index records? CofE burials records normally (but not always) refer only to one person - it looks to me that the extraneous persons should be identifiable by the lack of a given name. Probably.
Tagged:
0
Comments
-
Adrian Bruce said: I have detached the incorrect attachments for the non-existent entries and dismissed the prompt for their non-attachment.0
-
David Newton said: Oh it's not only those records. There are other record sets of C of E marriages which have the mother of the groom and mother of the bride, those wonderful people / and /! As anyone who knows English records will be aware mothers of brides and grooms have NEVER been shown on marriage register entries at all. Another example of dreadful data validation in the transcribed record production pipeline I'm afraid.0
-
Adrian Bruce said: Worrying. I'd only ever seen "/" entries where they were plausible (on baptisms).
PS Seems like Slash, the lead guitarist of Guns N' Roses, got around a bit, then :-)0 -
David Newton said: Can't remember exactly which record set it is but I've about before.0
-
David Newton said: https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619...
See the link above for a direct example of the wonderful person /.
As you will see both you and I commented on that thread quite extensively. BTW they still have not fixed the problems with the Hampshire database. Over a year and they still have not fixed systematic problems which they know about (or should know about given my post) with a recently transcribed database. This is not a transcript they got from Findmypast. This is their own transcript in its entirety so far as I am aware.0
This discussion has been closed.