FamilySearch Indexing: US Veterans Pension Cards, 1907-1933, FAQ

From FamilySearch Wiki
Revision as of 18:49, 24 March 2012 by Eafreem2 (talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

Occassionally, within the same image, we discover one history-sided card and one card we do not index (such as a Ledger-Sided Card, or a Charge Dummy Card, or it is Blank, Duplicate or Unreadable).
When one card is indexable (history side) and the other card within the same image is not, take the following steps:
1. Mark the Image Type of the first card as NORMAL. Yes, this will mark both cards within the image Normal but software limitations prevent marking the Image Type of the two cards within the image differently.
2. (The highlighted field is now on Pension Payment Type for the first card in the image.) If the first card is a ledger side or any other non-indexable card, mark all the remaining fields in the record blank by selecting the Mark The Record Blank icon. You will find the icon in the tools ribbon [the row of icons immediately below the image]. It is the icon with the blue X over three (3) fields [they look like boxes]. Another shortcut would be to select Edit > Mark Field or Record > Mark Record Blank.
3. Index the second card normally.
NOTE: Reverse steps 2 and 3 if the first card is indexable.

Q. Is there any determination on the "Permanent Withdrawal Request" cards yet?  I keep finding "Permanent Withdrawal Requests" cards that state all the information that we've been indexing, but this card takes the place of a card withdrawn from the card set.  When indexing several pages in a row, I can tell that this person is no longer indexed if we don't take the information from these cards.  Should we index them to capture the information?  Otherwise these people will be lost to researchers.  Please include a share batch number for our evaluation.  (Click File and then Share Batch) 186855371  And here's another one on card 15 at 187530033. 

I see the question answered about NOT adding information to the history side from the ledger side under the assumption that the two maynot be related/associated with one another; but, some records/batches have a Certificate# on them...and those match up number-for-number and name-for-name.  When that situation occurs, it is aceptable to index on the history since a widow payee listed on the ledger side? The ledger side should not be indexed. 

When indexing a widow's card with minors, please clarify if the widow is indexed as the guardian even if the word guardian is not used.  If I don't index it that way, the arbitrator usually changes it; if I do index it that way, the arbitrator usually changes it. The field helps are being rewritten to clarify this situation. The reason we would index the widow as a guardian is that on many cards this will be the only way a child will have a surname attached to them.

How do we index co-guardians for the minors listed on a Minors' Card?  The project is now being updated

Press Tab to skip the guardian fields unless: The clearly indicated guardian is the guardian of a MINOR. ONE EXCEPTION: When indexing the guardian of a minor and neither the MINOR nor the SOLDIER has a surname listed on the card, index the WIDOW as the guardian of the MINOR (so that a surname can be associated with the indexed minors).

We should not use any of the information recorded on the ledger side of a card and index the information as if it were on the history side of a card.  Remember:  Each image is treated as a unique document and not linked to any other document.  Some indexers have been pulling names, death dates, etc., from the NED side of what they assume is the back of the card they are indexing. 

When a married woman remarries and her previous married surname and new married surname are clearly indicated, "or" is not used between the two surnames.  The names are separated with a space.  Example:  For the surnames (was) Smith and (now) Jones, you would enter the surname as:  Smith Jones.

Where are the instructions when the two documents do not match? Each image is treated as a unique document and not linked to any another document.

Regarding PartA/004694298[4] the first image for Calder, Philip C, Army Invalid, has a dates of commencement of 1907 and 1912. The second image for Calder, Rachel, Army widow says the name of the soldier was James and the date of commencement 1901.  Treat each image as a seperate record.