Incorrect title for a recently added collection - these records are not for Northumberland, England,
This matter is likely to cause much confusion to users who trust FamilySearch to be presenting them with accurate information concerning their ancestors' / relatives' vitals details. Please can this collection be retitled as soon as possible?
The marriage shown above took place at the parish church in Sunderland, Durham. All other records I have encountered recently relate to records of Anglican parishes in the county of Durham. (A marriage in a non-conformist chapel at this period would not have been legally recognised, in any case.)
When you find an error in a record title, you can always go to the top right and "ask a question." Someone there would probably be able to help you get a correction.0
Paul said: Here is the correct source detail, which I attached to the relevant ID in 2015. Note the "Similar Historical Record" suggestion that now appears against the source.
This issue might not be that important if it only affected a few records / sources, but there are likely several thousands included in this incorrectly titled collection (as detailed above).
A van Helsdingen said: Is this potentially related to changing county boundaries? Archives' holdings would be based on present boundaries, but genealogists tend to prefer 19th century boundaries.0
Adrian Bruce said: No - Sunderland was in the ancient county of Co. Durham, and is in Tyne & Wear now.
Northumberland is an ancient county and was on the opposite bank of the Tyne to Co. Durham.0
Paul said: It would partly make sense if the situation were the "other way round" - i.e. records shown as for Durham instead of Northumberland, as Northumberland was in the Diocese of Durham, but this still would not account for the records being shown as "non-conformist", when events relate to the (established) Church of England.0
Paul said: Thinking about this, perhaps I have come to the wrong conclusion. It is probably not the collection title in itself that is wrong - there probably are Northumberland non-conformist records that have been indexed by FamilySearch - but rather that a lot of recently added sources have been wrongly labelled and PLACED in the wrong collection. However, either way, the problem still needs to be rectified.0
Paul said: I discovered a further problem relating to this collection today, when I checked a source that had been attached to an individual I am "following". In this case, there probably was a non-conformist baptism, but - again - not relating to the county of Northumberland.
Unfortunately, no parish / location has been indexed. Another user has decided this source relates to Francis Wrightson, who lived on the borders of north Yorkshire and County Durham. However, there is already as source attached on his page for a person of unknown name, but who was born on a different day in the same month and year.
Due to the unreliability and limited detail that applies to the whole of this collection, I am unable to make a comparison between these records, so I can possibly detach the one added today. As the images can only be viewed at an FHC, I have no help in that respect.
Can this pleased be passed to someone in the appropriate section of FamilySearch, so the indexing of this whole collection can be thoroughly examined for its accuracy, errors and omissions?
Image for female child added today. As with the child in 2nd screenshot, parents are shown as Francis & Ann, but how can I investigate this, given the lack of (place) detail and the known inaccuracies already found relating to this collection?
This source (unknown name/sex) has been attached for some time and matches sources for other siblings.
Paul said: It is possible the indexed record for the 3 January 1663 "Northumberland" birth of "ELINOR Wrightson" might have had another source. If not, the screenshot below shows just how bad this indexing project has been supervised.
The record shows the 3 January 1663 birth record of ELIZABETH Wrightson, recorded, it appears, in a Society of Friends register for Lartington in Yorkshire. How handy (and essential) to have access to the original image, after all. This shows a wrong name AND wrong part of England has been indexed.
This, together with my other example of ANGLICAN records for Sunderland, County Durham also being indexed as Northumberland non-conformist records shows a really sorry state of affairs, which surely must be addressed by FamilySearch.
Paul said: For 3 January 1663, read "3 March 1663", as other entries on this page make it clear dates recorded with the "1st month" starting 25 March, not 1 January.0
Adrian Bruce said: Gosh, looking at that image, I wish I had Quaker relatives!0
Paul W ✭✭✭✭✭
@Coleman Patty - As you must realise, this is a post carried over from the GetSatisfaction.com forum, which I raised in August 2020. At that period, we were told the best way to get such matters resolved was by reporting them there. Eight months on and nothing has been done to correct this. (See https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?q.givenName=william&q.givenName.exact=on&q.surname=fennick&q.surname.exact=on&q.birthLikePlace=england&q.birthLikePlace.exact=on&q.birthLikeDate.from=1726&q.birthLikeDate.to=1726&count=20&offset=0&m.defaultFacets=on&m.queryRequireDefault=on&m.facetNestCollectionInCategory=on). The information against the second entry is correct, the other two entries include an incorrect "source".
After experiencing this type of problem over many years, most of us now have no confidence that these metadata problems will ever be corrected by FamilySearch, however they are reported. So,whilst I thank you for giving this query your attention, unfortunately it should not be labelled "Best Answer" or "Accepted Answer" because there is little chance your suggestion will go any way in seeing this / these problems are addressed by FamilySearch.0