Don't Retire Duplicate Records
Just this weekend I found two marriage records for a marriage that took place at New York City. The first record appears to be from offical New York records:
"New York, New York City Marriage Records, 1829-1940," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:243S-16K : 10 February 2018), Henry Pilkington and Mary Frain, 03 May 1903; citing Marriage, Manhattan, New York, New York, United States, New York City Municipal Archives, New York; FHL microfilm 1,570,974.
The second one was from extracted records from the IGI:
"New York Marriages, 1686-1980", database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:F6HN-1KD : 21 January 2020), Henry Joseph Pilkington, 1903.
The extracted record was made available last year, two years after the New York City Marriage Records database and it includes information not available in that database, in this case, the middle names of both the bride and groom. Therefore I linked to, but today, just a day later I received this message:
This record was a duplicate and has been retired. We recommend using the most current copy.
When click on the link it points to the first record, which does not include middle names and therefore is less complete. So I want to request that you keep the retired record available and searchable.
Comments
-
Sean
Welcome to the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
You are not alone ...
Yo have my vote ...
Many of us in the past, in the older versions, of the Forum(s), have requested that "Sources" (ie. Records) NOT be, either, "Retired"; and/or, "Removed".
NO "Source" (ie. Record) should be, either, "Retired"; and/or, "Removed", regardless is there are OTHER "Indexing" of the SAME 'Event'.
ALL such (past) "Sources" (ie. Records) WERE originally "Attached", 'in good faith', WITH the EXPECTATION that such "Sources" (ie. Records) WOULD remain in place and on record (ie. 'in situ'), attached to one's Ancestors.
The concerns, by SOME Users/Patrons, of the extra work required/involved to "Attach", the SIMILAR (or, what some, refer to; as, SAME) "Sources", being ANOTHER "Indexing" of the same 'Event', 'seems' to have 'swayed' the, thinking; and, considerations, of those at 'FamilySearch'. Such should NOT, have been; or, be the case.
WHY do SOME Users/Patrons, feel that it is so ONEROUS a task, to "Attach", the SIMILAR (or, what some, refer to; as, SAME) "Sources", being ANOTHER "Indexing" of the same 'Event'?
I just DO NOT understand, WHY ...
The ADDITIONAL "Sources", being ANOTHER "Indexing" of the same 'Event', really provide attritional proof/evidence.
The more, the merrier ...
I have had COUNTLESS, valid; and, acceptable, "Sources", that I "Attached", through 'due diligence', a number of YEARS ago, all 'in good faith', with the EXPECATION, that they would REMAIN, 'in-situ' ▬ NOWADAYS, summarily, "Retired"; and/or, "Removed".
Interestingly enough, some (if not, many) of those that were ORIGINALLY "Deleted"/"Removed", have SUBSEQENTLY been "Restored" ▬ that is interesting, in itself ...
'FamilySearch' really NEEDS to, CEASE; and, DESIST, with the "Deleting"/"Removing" of ANY "Source", that are SIMILAR (or, what some, refer to; as, SAME) "Sources", being ANOTHER "Indexing" of the same 'Event'.
Plus, 'FamilySearch' really NEEDS to, RESTORE; and/or, REINSTATE, "All" the MANY "Sources", that are SIMILAR (or, what some, refer to; as, SAME) "Sources", being ANOTHER "Indexing" of the same 'Event', that WERE previously "Deleted"/"Removed".
just my thoughts.
Brett
1 -
Hi, I have had similar problems with records of two different marriages, where bride's parents were deleted from "current record" although they appeared in the retired record.
Often marriage records are the only clue I have as to the bride's lineage. I also untangled a stepson/son only through their middle names.
This "retiring" of records seems like a real problem.
Chris
1 -
@ChrisSimpkins1 we have discussed this in another thread where I posted a detailed answer on your other example today after a trip to my affiliate library.
And, on NYC records which I use nearly every day, the new indexed version is invariably more useful because it contains the image and/or certificate number. Those numbers makes retrieving the record from the digitized microfilm much faster and simpler.
Your 2 URLs above are to the same record on the same reel of digitized microfilm 1570974. The new one also includes the image number.
0
