Retired Record wants you to View Current Record, but NO Current Record.
LegacyUser
✭✭✭✭
.png?1581616981)
.png?1581617010)
Comments
-
Brian Jensen said: Don, can you post a link to this record?0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: I have seen this a couple of times recently as well, although I can't remember where at this moment.0
-
Brett said: Jeff
For certain "Sources" that were attached of the "1851, Census of England and Wales" ...
Brett
.0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: Interesting. However, I am pretty sure that it was in records for Ohio in the US as that is the only area that I've been working in for the past few weeks.0
-
Tom Huber said: This sounds like some kind of glitch. Has there been any correction to the problem. Since the URL to the record was not provided, I have no way to check the situation (it is something I have not run into previously).0
-
Tom Huber said: In thinking more about this, especially with respect to the 1851 census situation, this may not be a glitch, but is something that needs to be addressed.
Where there is no correlation with a source that has "been retired" (or deleted) and an existing source that replaced it (I'm thinking of those Find a Grave records that cropped up a number of years ago when a new Find a Grave index was imported and no longer contained duplicated cemetery listings), then the wording should not suggest that there is a "current" record that take the place of the retired one.0