Talk:Scotland Births and Baptisms (FamilySearch Historical Records)Edit This Page

From FamilySearch Wiki

Revision as of 19:55, 4 January 2012 by Donjgen (Talk | contribs)

I deleted the image of the Wallace Monument which I felt added no value to the page and took up too much space.  Others may feel differently.  

I find part of this description misleading.  To my knowledge the Historical Records collections do NOT include info submitted by individuals researching their own ancestry. The sample source citations do not seem helpful in relation to this database.  I feel this description needs more editing than I am willing to do or should do.  This may also apply to the description for the Scotland Marriages database which I haven't read. BakerBH 23:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The two collections you referred to
Scotland Births and Baptisms
Scotland Marriages
consist primarily of IGI entries. They may also include some on-line indexing projects. However, when we identify included indexing projects, those projects are removed and posted as their own collection. TimothyNB


It appears that much of the information on the site comes from a pre drawn template that is on most of the wiki articles relating to 'FamilySearch Historical Rcords' If I were you I would edit it now or I will soon Donjgen 21:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in improving the FamilySearch Wiki articles.
The articles linked to FamilySearch Historical Collections do use the same format or template by design. The information within the sections of the template varies according to the collection.
The article you referred to, Scotland Births and Baptisms (FamilySearch Historical Records), as well as approximately 10 percent of the other FamilySearch Historical Records articles, form a group that is slightly different from the other FamilySearch Historical Records articles. These articles are linked to collections that were formerly called Vital Records Index Collections.
This group of articles not only has the same template, but also has the same content or very similar content. This is because the collections they link to all come primarily from the same source, the IGI. The IGI consists of
  • Names submitted to the LDS Church by it's members and other researchers. The names are obtained through their research efforts or those of their family and contacts. The names in this catagory each have their own source of information.
  • Controlled extraction projects done by the LDS Church. The names in this catagory have many names linked by locality to a single source for that locality.
Names in these index collections generally have batch numbers attached to them. The batch numbers in turn may lead to the actural source for the name.
These collections have titles which include the locality and one of the following terms as relevant to that particular locality:
  • Births and Baptisms
  • Baptisms
  • Marriages
  • Deaths and Burals
  • Deaths
It would be nice to link all of this group of collections to one wiki article. Then the information would not need to be repeated. However, there are over 250 of these collections and at this time we are unable to link that many collections to one article
You are welcome to edit anything you would like. That's one of the advantages of the Wiki. Please remember that all contributions to FamilySearch Wiki can be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. TimothyNB

The IGI is not the source for this collection. The IGI simply housed all the different extraction projects and now all the projects are being copied over and put in Historical Records Collection There are mainly only two record groups that make up this collection. The OPR which has been extracted and the Civil Registration 1855 to 1875 which have been extracted. No submissions by LDS members are in this collection or any of the other collections. The LDS submissions remain in the IGI and New FamilySearch The OPR and Civil Registration are the sources for this collection, and this is what people should know. This article currently does not reflect this. I would say that the current article could be completely rewritten to reflect this. Donjgen 19:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)