William Jubb GSQM-YDD and John Jubb M5V5-X5F
I think William Jubb GSQM-YDD and John Jubb M5V5-X5F are the same person. Family Search put them on the database in 2012. If you go to John's source, it will let you browse the film. In the film, I found an entry in baptisms for 3 February 1822, on page 433, but the record was for William, son of Joshua and Jane Jubb. There is only one entry for for Jubb. (Possibly "son of" looks like John?) I had looked at several of the previous and post records and they seemed to be in order by date for the baptisms, so I didn't continue looking for another entry for John. Should/can I merge them as William, and if so, what advice could you give in order to do it correctly?
Another difficulty I have is that the link to view the source for John works like a champ, but the link for William doesn't work. "Image unavailable". Link for William: https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:J7YF-WXB
The link for John: https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:N5JB-D7H
As you see, the links are not the same and I can't access William's source to verify that it is him.
If I merge William and John, I would like to be able to have the record for John attached to William, as it is viewable.
I hope this makes sense to you!
Thank you for your help,
Sandra Walker Briggs
Yes, I agree that these are duplicates of each other. The transcription for the England Births and Christenings record for 3 February 1822 says the child's name is John, but a view of the image is clearly, William, son of . . .
Go ahead and merge the two by ID number. It shouldn't really matter which way you merge, both sources will come over and you can replace "John" with "William."
It's great that you made that note in the Collaborate section. You might also want to make the same notation in the source itself. Click Edit and then insert your note in "Describe the Record (Notes)."
Also, don't worry about the sources -- the extracted record, you have the ability to browse the images. The record for William Jubb is from a slightly different record collection for which no images are available. Either way, it is the same record.
Let us know if you need further assistance. Great job on picking up the error in the extracted IGI record!0