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
-
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
2 -
@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.
1 -
I agree that "duplicates" need to be accessible and more transparently so. The day before yesterday I happened to come upon a marriage record for my 2 x great grandmother that listed her father's name. I almost fell off my chair! I have hunted for a long time for the name of one of her parent's because this will help me find birth records for her and records for her ancestors. She has a very common name in a relatively narrow geographic area within in a county, so getting her father's name was like finding gold! Then I clicked on the "View the Current Record" and her father's name was NOT on that record. Oh boy, did I browse back in a hurry and take a screenshot of the first "retired" record with her father's name.
The retired record: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NXPW-5HS
The current record: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NKX4-H7M
In actual fact the current record is NOT a duplicate of the retired record.
That said, managing all of the records on Family Search is a gargantuan task and I am very grateful for all of the work that you do and the records that you provide. Thank you.
2 -
Ah I see someone's retired the wrong duplicate there.
One duplicate does need to be retired. The one that needs to be retired is indeed the "current" one. The "current" one was incorrectly transcribed with incomplete information. It is missing groom's father and bride's father. All English and Welsh marriage records on or after 1st July 1837 include bride, groom, groom's father and bride's father unless the father was unknown for some reason.
Those doing the retiring really do need to be more careful.
2 -
I'm glad actual duplicates are being retired. But I'm also seeing a lot of duplicates that included more information being retired to records that have less (specifically birth dates in addition to christening dates, or a specific church instead of just a town name).
I've also seen records marked as retired when the replacement isn't available for public viewing. Whoever's in charge of this: don't do that. It's exceptionally frustrating that any of these centuries-old records are hidden from public view, let alone when it's the only remaining "valid" record.
In some cases, the 'replacement' record is point-blank wrong. Here's an example:
This retired record shows a christening in Newchurch, Lancashire.
This "replacement" changes it to St. Mary's, Bury, Lancashire.
This secondary copy includes an image proving the retired record is correct.
This is especially troublesome as it gives the impression that the record was retired because it was inaccurate.
3 -
Unless a moderator can be certain an individual from the team that deals with these matters will be following this thread, I believe it is essential they escalate the issue, in order the individuals involved in this exercise are completely aware of the effects of their actions.
At the other end of the scale, multiple duplicate records (up to four) have recently been added (same date in citation and identical detail) relating the Yorkshire parish records collections. Usually, I would ask for tougher vetting to ensure (1) FamilySearch's resources are not being wasted in creating these new, duplicated items and (2) to stop the Sources sections of my relatives being subject to unnecessary clutter (from my adding truly duplicated material). However, these reports of the more comprehensive / valuable source having been retired is of great concern in that it appears insufficient analysis is being undertaken in determining the correct source(s) that it is quite safe to retire.
I do hope an employee or moderator will confirm the team concerned in retiring "duplicates" is fully aware of the potential dangers of such an exercise. Obviously, it would also be good if the team involved in adding newly indexed records to the FamilySearch database was aware of the fact that there is a lot of genuine, unnecessary duplication taking place at present (whether that is due to duplication of indexing projects, or something that is going wrong in the post-indexing phase).
2
