FamilySearch Indexing: US, Texas—Deaths, 1890–1976, FAQ

From FamilySearch Wiki
Revision as of 18:14, 3 April 2012 by KuteKitty (talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

Duplicate Image - I am seeing repeated instances where a second page for the same person (certificate #) appears with some corrected information and stamped at the top is 'Duplicate Filed for Correction' - However this is NOT a duplicate image, put a different page of information. As such, it should be marked Normal and indexed. However, many are indexing and arbitrating it as a duplicate....Could you please, please address this in the project helps or add a slide to the presentation? Thank you.

Do I index or arbitrate an "Official Form of Transit Permit, Issued by the Texas State of Embalming"?  

As an arbitrator I'm having to return batches for reindexing due to incompletion because the Project Instructions - Records per Image and Overlay Images - are not being followed. It's a question of the second record on an image (the one with an overlay) being totally ignored.

On the 1909 Texas death records, the line entitled nativity usually has written American or US.  Is this indexed as United States for birth country?

I have a report of death card: not named last name given.  The record states sex: females , then as cause of death premature (Twins).  Do I make  two records one for each twin or the stand alone record  of the twins?

Are highlights available on this project?  If so, then are they appropriately highlighting the correct field area for birth city/county/state?  I am finding a lot of records are using the father's birth city information on the records.  Thanks

Can you give help please on Death City when a military base is listed instead of a city? For instance, Fort Sam Houston or Lackland AFB. Should they be indexed in the place of a city when that is all that is in that field? Nelsonmargaret1 19:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


Batch 187367777 includes military deaths from WW2; the places of death include Italy, Germany, Guam Pacific theater of war, Okinawa, etc. How do I index these? Do they go in the County field? 19 March 2012

Agent said ...
(10:15a) Hello Peter, this is Elder Bell from FamilySearch Indexing Support, how may I help you?
You said ...
(10:16a) I have  3 questions about indexing.
(10:16a) First is Death City when a military base is listed instead of a city? For instance, Fort Sam Houston or Lackland AFB. Does this answer cover the question? “Basic guidelines indicate the use of the lowest level of locality would be appropriate.”
Agent said ...
(10:20a) One moment.
(10:20a) This is Texas Deaths, right?
You said ...
(10:20a) yes
Agent said ...
(10:25a) You can use that instruction.
You said ...
(10:26a) GREAT The second Question is. Like Batch 187367777 includes military deaths from WW2; the places of death include Italy, Germany, Guam Pacific theater of war, Okinawa, etc. How do I index these?
Agent said ...
(10:28a) Index countries in counties, if there is location given, mark the field as blank.
You said ...
(10:28a) Anther GREAT.
(10:28a) As an ARBITRATOR, when you return (not REDO) a batch. Is it sent to another to arbitrator to finish?
Agent said ...
(10:29a) If you hit the return for other indexers, it sends it to another arbitrator.

Share Batch for this question: 187181537 -See and compare Record 2 to Record 7 regarding the death dates. Record 2 (and 3,4) show in the death date box as "found on....." Below on the same records it shows in another field box "when" the death occurred... "apparently". Indexer wants to know which date to use. Record 7 is the opposite with the approximate death date in the death date box and the found date below that (I told them to use the date on this one found in the death date place). Please confirm how to index both types of records.

Brother Pearson, can we have this link added to the project additional helps or updates page somewhere. It would be helpful for Spanish names in the project since there's quite a bit of problems with this. Thanks --Aprilrobertson 15:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The second image in my batch shows "grass widow" in the marital status box. A quick internet search indicates this is not a true widow, but could be a number of different situations including abandonment or divorce, or similar but in a non-marriage relationship. I am not sure how to mark this one, and believe it should just be left blank since the actual status isn't clear. Is that the right thing to do? Share batch #182230000  Enter Widow.

I have recently come across several batches of records from El Paso County (such as this one: 180254665) that include "Report of Death"s as well as Death Certificates. The RoD's  list specific Ward, Street, and Number addresses as Place of Death, then ask "Duration of residence in El Paso?" I believe this question is in reference to El Paso the city, but it never specifically lists El Paso as the death city. Because El Paso is both a city and a county, this is a confusing form! Should these be indexed as El Paso in both Death County and Death city or just Death County?  Basic guidelines indicate the use of the lowest level of locality would be appropriate, in this case city.

I realize if 'Infant' is written/typed in the marital status we are suppose to tab to the next field, however, if I accidentally type anything in this field it automatically indexes one of the four marital status and it won't let me delete it.  Is there a way to leave this blank without typing in Ctrl+B? Select EDIT (located between FILE and VIEW) and then select CLEAR FIELD.

If a male has his father's last name as his middle name but a different last name, do we still submit both names in the surname field? Use the basic indexing guidelines about names.

I see an example of an Amendment but it's not clear how to index this record, unless I missed this in the project instructions (entirely possible).  I know the image should be indexed as Normal but do we simply enter the corrected data on the Amendment record, or correct the original certificate data of the state file no. that the Amendment is referencing?  In my instance, the Amendment is correcting the first name in the certificate that precedes it in the batch. Share Batch 005145541 (assume that is the number).  Thanks. Index the amendment as a seperate document. Do not carry information from other documents.

I find the above question very helpful but confusing at the same time. To be clear, the presentation for the project states we do not repeat information that remains the same when entering information from an amendment, so I understood that to mean we only enter the information that has changed. Above, I see the answer states we index amendments as separate documents and "do not carry information from other documents". In many cases that would mean repeating information from the previous document that was not changed by the amendment, Is that correct? 

One more question about infants:  Additional Helps say, "Infant of Mr and Mrs B. B. Enderle" Do I index the name of "Enderle” as the surname of the deceased infant.  A. No. Mark the field <Blank>. 

On the batch I am working now, some of the infant deaths are recorded this way. This batch does not include names of the parents, so if I do not index the parent surname (Enderle, in this case) in the deceased’s surname, there will be no surname associated with the indexed record. I just want to verify that leaving both the given and surname blank in this situation is the correct way to index it.

I am continually getting dinged by an arbitrator(s?) for how I index Spanish surnames, (When "middle name" is clearly not a middle name, but rather a part of the surname.) Am I wrong or is the arbitrator? [ex. batch 109549294]

One other thing: I downloaded several batches awhile back that were in a numerical succession (ie. 1, 2, 3, etc) according to the index display. I indexed the last image for batch 109535285 and when I opened batch 109629231, the first image was a duplicate of that last image in the previous batch. I marked it as a duplicate image as I was supposed to, but knew that I would get dinged for it -- and eventually did -- because the arbitrator wouldn't know what I knew. Is it possible to avoid this situation in the future? KuteKitty 18:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)