Difference between revisions of "Talk:FamilySearch Indexing: US—Registers of U.S. Army, 1798-1913, FAQ"

From FamilySearch Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (The city of Pittsburgh is spelled with an h. I keep getting corrected by arbitrators who are apparently unaware of the proper spelling.)
Line 1: Line 1:
<fck:hr>
+
== Spelling of location names  ==
 +
 
 +
&nbsp;Few things are more aggravating to an indexer than to have arbitrators correct a spelling improperly. For example, the city of Pittsburgh is spelled with an h.&nbsp; The indexing instructions tell us to spell locations correctly, but this project incorrectly lists "Pittsburg" as the correct spelling.&nbsp; I have probably asked for a review of this arbitration error a couple hundred times by now and never see a change.
 +
 
 +
Please, can't someone make this simple change?!
 +
 
 +
<br>  
 +
 
 
== Additional names in microscopic writing!  ==
 
== Additional names in microscopic writing!  ==
  
Line 14: Line 21:
 
== Multiple dates of enlistment  ==
 
== Multiple dates of enlistment  ==
  
How should multiple dates of enlistment be indexed? For example, "June 8 or 11 1813".&nbsp;{{Records question}}  
+
How should multiple dates of enlistment be indexed? For example, "June 8 or 11 1813".&nbsp;{{Records question}} &lt;/fck:hr&gt;
</fck:hr>
 

Revision as of 17:14, 24 January 2013

Spelling of location names

 Few things are more aggravating to an indexer than to have arbitrators correct a spelling improperly. For example, the city of Pittsburgh is spelled with an h.  The indexing instructions tell us to spell locations correctly, but this project incorrectly lists "Pittsburg" as the correct spelling.  I have probably asked for a review of this arbitration error a couple hundred times by now and never see a change.

Please, can't someone make this simple change?!


Additional names in microscopic writing!

I can't find any directions in the project instructions about what we are to do when additional information has been added to a register page in REALLY tiny writing. Usually, it's telling what the man's alias was when he enlisted in a different year than the current page. At first, when I ran across these, I entered them as aliases (Frank Or Frederick) <~~example. And those were arbitrated as correct for quite a while, but suddenly they began to be arb'd as incorrect ... and the arbitrator added a separate line for the additional information, including the different year, even though all that information clearly referring to only one person. 


Has anyone else run into this? There's nothing about it in the project instructions or updates. I can index these either way. I would just like to know what is considered correct.

Question.png A question for the FamilySearch Historical Records project
Note to helpers: Once you have offered help, please replace this template with {{Helpme-helped}}.
Genealogy montage reasonably small.jpg




I've run into this too, where additional or alternative names are listed on the line directly below, with a different year at the end of the record, and sometimes different states of enlistment. I'm unsure how to correctly index the information as well.

Question.png A question for the FamilySearch Historical Records project
Note to helpers: Once you have offered help, please replace this template with {{Helpme-helped}}.
Genealogy montage reasonably small.jpg



Multiple dates of enlistment

How should multiple dates of enlistment be indexed? For example, "June 8 or 11 1813". 

Question.png A question for the FamilySearch Historical Records project
Note to helpers: Once you have offered help, please replace this template with {{Helpme-helped}}.
Genealogy montage reasonably small.jpg


</fck:hr>