Neither extracted nor submitted

[pottoka]

I've just come across a couple of records on the IGI which were neither member-submitted nor extracted from the parish records of the locality. They merely have Source Information, i.e. batch numbers, dates etc.

This is probably not the first time I've come across records like this, but it is the first time that I've thought of asking what the difference is (I've looked at the stickies and the other threads, but haven't come across the answer).

Why is there no "message" to say where the information comes from? How reliable is the information in terms of the IGI?

[Mutley]

Can you give us an example so we can see it too.

If there is some sort of source information or batch number then maybe it can be tracked back to somewhere.

[pottoka]

Hannah Martin christened in Farnworth near Prescot, Lancashire, in 1853, daughter of Ellen Martin.

Ellen Martin christened in Farnworth near Prescot, Lancashire, in 1837, daughter of Thomas and Alice Martin.

I hope that I didn't give you the impression that there was no place-name?

[JAP1]

They clearly are extracted by the LDS (as opposed to submitted by LDS members). Clicking on the Source Call No (1469034) reveals that the records come from:
Bishop's transcripts of Farnworth (near Prescot), 1604-1873. Church of England. Parish Church of Farnworth (near Prescot, Lancashire)

If you then click on the words which are highlighted in the LDS Library Catalogue (i.e. on 'Bishop's transcripts of Farnworth (near Prescot), 1604-1873') it takes you to further information, and then clicking on 'View Film Details' takes you to even more information.

Why it doesn't have the standard message of ' Extracted birth or christening record for the locality listed in the record. The source records are usually arranged chronologically by the birth or christening date.' I don't know.
I'd have to search around to see whether other Bishop's Transcripts batches have the message (no, I won't bother to do that ).
I suspect that batches entered into the IGI more recently don't have the message - but that's just an idea.
You could use the Contact form on the FamilySearch site and ask ...

Incidentally, the batch (C005733) is one of those infuriating batches where only the females have been extracted into the online IGI.

JAP

[pottoka]

Thank you very much for that interesting reply, Jap, which seems to resolve the issue nicely.

I didn't know that you could get anywhere by clicking on the numbers! I'll have fun tomorrow looking at all the information available. It's bedtime now. Sweet dreams

[Pam Downes]

Incidentally, the batch (C005733) is one of those infuriating batches where only the females have been extracted into the online IGI.
JAP

I wonder if it's because it's only a partial transcript/extraction that's why it doesn't say 'extracted from the record for the locality'?
I don't know how many batches are females-only, and/or whether they are specific to a particular area. If the latter, then perhaps the transcripts were done as a 'local project' for some reason?
Pam

[JAP1]

Hi Pam,

Females-only batches appear all over the place.
Heaps (pre-statutory registration) of the 'C' batches in Ayrshire Scotland, for example, are females only. They are extracted from the Parish Registers and have the standard wording.
Very commonly the recent 'I' batches are females-only (and often have no source information at all - though just recently the LDS have started to provide the source information in response to contact queries).

JAP

[pottoka]

Females-only batches appear all over the place.

Pretty good idea, if you ask me. After all, where would you be without us?

[MythicalMarian]

Hi Pam,

Females-only batches appear all over the place.
Heaps (pre-statutory registration) of the 'C' batches in Ayrshire Scotland, for example, are females only. They are extracted from the Parish Registers and have the standard wording.
Very commonly the recent 'I' batches are females-only (and often have no source information at all - though just recently the LDS have started to provide the source information in response to contact queries).

JAP

Jap - I always assumed the 'I' batches stood for 'Index' - have I been labouring under a misapprehension all these years? It could just be one of those daft links I've made - not the first...

[JAP1]

I have no idea what the 'I' stands for

Sorry!

What's more, I've seen both 'I' and also 'C' all-female christening batches without the words about 'extracted' and with no source information.

JAP