Incorrectly Filed Books
Gornji Dubovec and Dubovac are not the same place. Books that are currently listed in Gornji Dubovec should be placed in Dubovac (Karlovac).
Answers
-
@SerraNola can you help with this placename problem please?
0 -
The first five items of the film are cataloged as Dubica, while item 6 is cataloged as Gornji Dubovec, but neither catalog entry bears any resemblance to the contents listed on that imaged notecard.
It looks to me like the first five items are correctly cataloged and waypointed; they're all really Dubica. Item 6's filming bookmark says Dubovac, and the types and date ranges on it match the notecard, but it doesn't mention Karlovac.
Paging through the images themselves, I couldn't decipher nearly enough of it to judge which (if either!) of the locations is correct. If it's not Gornji Dubovec, then it's a nearly forty-year-old error: the filming was done in 1986. (If the notecard is correct, then Gornji Dubovec clearly isn't, but I don't want to make any assumptions.)
1 -
Where did you get Dubica from?
0 -
The title board at the beginning/end of each of the first 5 sections shows "Dubica." https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QSQ-G99C-29WC-Z
0 -
Why are you giving me a link to Dubica, if we are talking about Gornji Dubovec and Dubovac? Those are three different places.
0 -
0
-
If a book mentions Gaza, Švarča (Szvarcha), Suburbio, Villa Judaica or Dubovac (Dubovacz) as parish village names, than that book belongs to Dubovac, not to Gornji Dubovec.
0 -
You asked where we saw Dubica. It's on the film you mentioned.
0 -
Links to Dubovac and Gornji Dubovec in my initial message: "Books that are currently listed in Gornji Dubovec should be placed in Dubovac (Karlovac)." Dubica was brought up by Julia Szent-Györgyi and you posted a link to Dubica, that is why I asked where you saw Dubica. I did not mention Dubica.
0 -
@Branko, multi-part films often contain material from multiple places. That's where Dubica has come into the mix: as I wrote, film 5481601 has six items, and the first five are Dubica, according to filming bookmarks/title boards, catalog, and contents alike. Item 6 has the filmed notecard that mentions Karlovac, but as I said, I can't read it well enough (and don't know enough about Croatian placenames) to figure out which one's wrong, the waypoint/cataloging or the notecard.
Either way, the error is nearly 40 years old, and as I wrote on your other thread, in my experience, things that old do not get corrected on FS.
Staring at my screenshot above, though, I thought of one thing to try, as a sort of last-ditch effort: if the error is definitely in the waypoint, you can try reporting it using the Feedback tab. It'll probably work best if you use an image where you can clearly see and point out some parish villages, because there are several places named Dubovac.
(If I type Dubovac into the formerly-Mapire site's search box, I get a town on the Danube about 40 miles east of Belgrade. I have to tell it to look for Karlovac to see the Dubovac that's about 30 miles southwest of Zagreb, and I have to type in the full Gornji Dubovec to get the place that's about 30 miles northeast of Zagreb. [Otherwise, Dubovec is a place in Slovakia.])
1 -
The item 6 that you mention, shows with no doubt that it is a record from Dubovac Parish near Karlovac, The page 3 image says Dubovac kod Karlovca in Croatian. It doesn't matter that it is on the same film as the other 5 Dubica books. Whoever was recording the books was done recording the Dubica parish and than they started recording the Dubovac parish on the same film in alphabetical order.
That is not cameramans' error, they clearly marked it as Dubovac. It is an error assuming that item 6 belongs to Gornji Dubovec and that is not an "old" error.
Dubovac by Karlovac on "the formerly-Mapire site": https://maps.arcanum.com/en/map/thirdsurvey25000/?layers=129&bbox=1726132.6365696203%2C5698204.472663962%2C1735223.8656212885%2C5701567.701908509.
If FamilySearch doesn't care for posting false information, why would I. Good luck.
0 -
@Branko The URL in your comment goes to https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/524832
And everything that displays from that URL is visible. Perhaps you meant another register?
0 -
Okay, in this case I missed the book starting in year 1672 and I assumed that it wasn't there. That doesn't change the fact that those books are incorrectly sorted.
0 -
@Branko, I'm just a fellow user of FS, and I'm not interested in either defending or attacking their practices, but it is only logical that people can't correct errors that they're not aware of.
In my experience, waypoints on FS are old, and they don't get changed. There are errors in multiple collections that I remember reporting a decade ago; they're still there, exactly as they were circa 2012.
Errors in the catalog are a different matter; the Help Center article on reporting them is dated this October, so hopefully, it's still accurate. The problem is, while the catalog has been frozen for a couple of years now, the search function for it has not, and it doesn't work nearly as well as it used to. (It can't find Viennese records any more, for example.) I haven't encountered the error you were trying to show, wherein the film number brings up the Gornji Dubovec RC entry, but going to that page, there's no sign of that film on it.
I tried plugging the number (406979) into the DGS-based URL (https://www.familysearch.org/search/film/000406979), but the viewer shows a blank image area, which indicates that it's probably an old film number, not a newer DGS number, and without that entry in the Catalog, we don't know the new number.
Perhaps someone at the email address in the catalog-corrections article can also track down what happened to that film?
0 -
@Branko You are correct that DGS #'s 5481602, 5481603, 5481604, 5481605, 5481606 and Item 6 of 5481601 are all records of Dubovac. Being that five of these have been indexed and show incorrectly in search results as Gornji Dubovec, it is important that you have brought this to our attention. Thank you also for the report of errors in the St. Ivan Church register for Zagreb. This has all been documented and added to the growing list of inaccuracies in FS databases.
2 -
Thanks @SerraNola
0 -
Thank you!
0
