Talk:Scotland Births and Baptisms (FamilySearch Historical Records)

From FamilySearch Wiki
Revision as of 05:15, 29 January 2012 by TimothyNB (talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

Scotland Births and Baptisms (FamilySearch Historical Records)

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)

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)

This message was inappropriately placed on my user page so I have pasted it here in the discusion area where it belongs. Donjgen 06:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The person noted above is claiming ownership of this page and every other “Historical Records” page. I recieved the above note upon rewriting the page to correctly reflect the collection of Scotland Births and Baptisms (FamilySearch Historical Records)

  1. the template was poorly concieved of to begin with
    1. why insist on a template for the sake of the template and not the material it covers
    2. the word 'records' and 'index' are used interchangability even though they have two separate meanings.
    3. links provided without explanantion and out of context
    4. to preserve coding, comment tags should be inserted into the document, though I'm not sure what coding is being referred to. I've seen the tag <!--bibdescbegin--> but I cannot find anywhere on the wiki what this means or does.

part of the thread on this is over on the Derbyshire Talk Page On England's Pages there is the same dialogue pasted into each of the Historical_Records pages. It is like these articles are an island unto themselves. England already has a substanitial material on the subject matter yet there is no appropriate links to the subject matter. I cannot see away of rewriting a page without altering the section headings, since the headings refer to 'Records' and the section is about an 'index' in FamilySearch .
Even after I rewrote the page an inaccurate section was placed back into the article: "Citation for This Collection" just because it was part of a template. There are no images on FamilySearch associated with this collection.
Donjgen 21:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The FamilySearch Historical Records collections are created to describe digital collections published in There are links embedded into the article in the wiki template and the bibdesc coding at the bottom to enable links to and from the published collection. Please do not change either the wiki template or the bibdesc coding that surrounds the source ciation at the botom of the article. If those are changed the Learn More and Source Citations will disappear from the landing page for the collection in These articles are not intended to cover how to conduct research, although they may include tips.

We use templates when we create our articles. They are not all the same. There is an Italian Civil Registration template, and a template for collections like this one that are based on data extracted from the LDS legacy databases, including the IGI. We do not have specifics about where the data came for each of these collections and our citations are therefore, general in nature. We do not cite the original collections, but the legacy data.

As NaDine mentioned some data is being removed from the "legacy" articles as collections with images are published for the individuals listed in the legacy indexes. I will be thrilled when the day comes that the legacy indexes are all replaced by image collections. It is a very slow process however and will not happen for many years.

As wiki articles, anyone can make change to these articles. We need contributions to fill them in. We have a small staff and do not always have time to complete each section. Related websites and wiki article links are very welcome information. You may see some stub articles where the Record Content and Description sections are blank, please assist us with those sections as well, and there are additional places to include your genealogical expertise.

If you are confused about the purpose of an article, feel free to ask questions as has been done here, or in our user pages. We watch the FamilySearch Historical Records collections in order to communicate with our contributors.

We strive not to undo information placed into an article unless it breaks our links.

Thank you for helping with these articles,

Dorothy Horan

In response to helpme request, the wiki support team feels this issue needs to be mediated. I have therefore referred this issue for mediation. Klk3 18:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

After reading the above comment by Dorothy about not changing the template, but being able to edit the page my solution is to create another page called, Scotland Birth and Marriages on FamilySearch, that way I wouldn't mangle there template and I could provide relevant data about what is on familysearch. I'll have to see what the mediation comes up with first. Donjgen 20:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


I am studying this article in more depth. I've asked the opinions of several others and I'll get back to you more next week.

I am curious about where you obtained the statistics that you quote in the article about the record content. How did you come up with those percentages?

I have a few answers to your question about coding:

The nowiki code should have been removed from the article. We have decided that it is too confusing to place in the articles.

We have two sets of coding that are critical in the Historical Records articles.

The FamilySearch template appears at the top of each article. Within that template we input data that creates the links to the Historical Records digital collections in FamilySearch. These are sensitive templates and easy to disrupt. Prior to publication the link that appears in the template is to the FamilySearch site, the link is altered once the collection is published, and the title of the collection appears, with a link to the landing page of that collection.

The other major set of coding appears at the bottom of the article, around the collection source citation. This coding allows the source citation to appear on the landing page of the Historical Records collection. That coding is also sensitive. The heading we have selected for this section is based on discussion with citation experts. It is "Citation for This Collection". 

Thank you for your interest in this collection and article.

HoranDM 16:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


It is well known that the OPR and the 1855 to 1875 civil Registration Records make up the majority of the collection. To determine what there was beyond 1875 I made a search using the most common surnames in Scotland. What I found was that beyond 1910 there are a few over those 40 years from 1910 to 1950. From 1876 to 1910 I found more but when I looked at the sources of these records they orginate from just a few churches in Scotland. From this 95% is conservative. I believe it may be 98%. To say this collection has records to 1950 is misleading. The few beyond 1910 are 'L' which are the few live sealings that were done and inserted into this collection.
Nowiki allows one to talk about code issues
It would be helpful if you put comment tags around those items that should not be altered, so when someone goes to edit they will be aware of how and why the tags work and expalin what a landing page is and other jargon that editors are not aware of. Thats if you want anyone to edit the articles.
The section 'Citation for this Collection' is incomplete. While the citation it self is sound there is no explantion of how or why to use the citation. The current text associated with this citation is inaccurate. I would clasify the current citation with something I would put in a research log rather than my source for a particular birth. That section could be expanded quite a bite. Donjgen 18:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)