Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on Twitter, Facebook, or email.
I’m thankful

Misplaced set of images from Mexico, Catholic Church Records

After viewing the following set of images:
Mexico, Catholic Church Records > Durango > Canelas > San Jose > Matrimonios 1762-1783, I find that they are misplaced.

The records actually belong to:
Mexico, Catholic Church Records > Durango > Sianori > Nuestra Señora de la Asuncion.

Thanks for the great work.
1 person has
this problem
+1
Reply
  • Thanks for making us aware of this problem. It has been reported to our engineers.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m OK
    Several other Historical Record Collections from Mexico are mispaced.
    If you go to:

    a) Mexico, Catholic Church Records -- Albacete --- Casas de Juan Nuñez --- San Pedro Apóstol--- and you open any collection (Bautismos 1919-1924, for example) you will see that the records correspond to the ones listed in the FHLC as: México, Hidalgo, Chapulhuacán - Church records ---- Registros parroquiales, 1820-1928 Iglesia Católica. San Pedro Apóstol (Casas de Juan Nuñez, Albacete).
    So, these should be listed under Hidalgo --- Chapulhuacán; there is no Mexican state named Albacete.

    b) Also under Mexico, Catholic Church Record ----, Baja California & Baja California Norte are the same place; the current name of the state is just Baja Caliornia

    c) In Mexico, Catholic Church Records ---- Coahuila you can find the Gomez Palacio records, but this city is across the state border, in the state of Durango.

    d) Under Mexico, Distrito Federal, Catholic Church Records, 1886-1933 you list 4 states: Distrito Federal, Durango, Hidalgo and Mexico. However, Distrito Federal (D.F.) is the official name of Mexico City, it is not a state, like Washington District of Columbia (D.C.). Hidalgo and Mexico are states and should be listed under Mexico, Catholic Church Records (and we usually call this Mexico "State of Mexico" to avoid confusng it with Mexico City and and the whole country), Durango is also a state but the records shown there seem to be from Distrito Federal.

    Thanks! VN
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I am working to verify the locality for this issue. The records in question come on film 1646046 (DGS 4456023) and would be item 4 - or volume 2 of the Matrimonios of Canelas, San Jose parish records - this is where the potential confusion is coming from. Many (but certainly not all) of the records cite the marriage event in Siánori. I am trying to establish the actual Catholic Church tie between these two places at the time frame in question which might explain this apparent discrepancy. If you have seen a specific image which ties more than just a single marriage event, but rather the whole volume 2 book to Siánori I would be very interested in which image that is. I cannot find one and have little other evidence to suggest that this entire volume is all for Siánori rather than volume 2 of Matrimonios for the Canelas, San Jose parish which is indicated on the outside of the book (though not as concretely as to dismiss the possibility being discussed). Without such the waypoint would likely remain with a possible Wiki entry to explain that many of the marriage events are in Siánori.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited