IT TECHS - Add Baptism to Christening line
Comments
-
In British Colonial America adult baptisms began in certain denominations in the 1600's. In England adult baptisms were conducted among Nonconformist denominations. In continental Europe there were Anabaptists and evangelical denominations. Not least among them were various flavors of Mormonism.
Who pays the bills here? Not you and I, Julia. You were correct earlier in this thread when you said debate was a lost cause.
Think about what non-LDS contributors here might gain. Wouldn't an easier way to transfer data from a baptism field to a christening field, as I suggested, be a great help? Do you think you could get behind that idea and push?
0 -
Reductio ad absurdum. Look it up.
0 -
Wouldn't an easier way to transfer data from a baptism field to a christening field, as I suggested, be a great help?
Maybe, but it'd be a unitasker tool (the sort that sensible people ban from their kitchens), and more importantly, it should not be necessary.
I don't know how FS determines where Source Linker will (offer to) put the contents of any particular field, but it seems to me that whatever the answer, they have control over which collections/projects are affected by any change. If the determination is made at the level of field labels, then they'd need to change "baptism" to "christening" on a lot of collections, but they could pick and choose which ones. If the destination is a matter of a collection-specific setting, then again, FS has perfect control over which collections to redirect. Whichever is the case, I can offer a dead-simple "first pass" distribution: set all European baptisms to christenings, because that's what they are. If it makes the Mormons happy, they can leave American baptisms under Other. It'll be mostly wrong, but a little bit less mostly than in Europe.
0 -
So conflate baptism and christening, and assign wrong proxy birth dates to all persons with believer baptisms? Or, stop using infant baptism as a proxy for birth date. No thanks.
Again: worldwide, believer baptism is far more prevalent than some here will admit. And it is increasing even in denominations that historically practiced primarily infant baptism.
0 -
There are duplicate Roman Catholic church records, one set Hungarian the other Croatian, for infants born in the same small town Laskafalu aka Čeminac. One set is indexed as christenings, the other set as baptisms. And the dates are close but not the same. Argh!
I have been working with these records for years and am 100% sure the babies are the same and the dates differ due to "corrections" reflecting later changes of calendar.
Example: children of L2PY-J57
0 -
It's not conflation when they're the same thing. English just has too many words.
A modern increase (if any) in adult rites is totally irrelevant. Birth-related records on FamilySearch are at least a century old, due to privacy laws.
Until the discussion on GetSatisfaction back in 2018, I was unaware that anybody on the planet considered "christening" and "baptism" to be separate things. In my world, you name and welcome a baby by wetting it and saying stuff. You can't do the name-and-welcome without the wet-and-words, and you can't do the wet-and-words without resulting in the name-and-welcome. The ritual is called keresztelés, which translates to baptism or christening (because see above about the English language's overabundant vocabulary).
If Source Linker were changed, and as a result a few christenings got populated with adult rites, well, so what? How is that any worse than all of those misfiled infant rites, resulting in millions of profiles with no birth or birth proxy, despite the data being Right There? Does the possible need for an occasional user to move an event from Vitals to Other really outweigh the current need for thousands of users to move events from Other to Vitals?
1 -
Re: Laskafalu, judging by the date ranges, the Hungarian version (which indexed the actual baptism date) is the bishop's copies, while the Croatian version (which indexed the dates of birth) is the originals. They're both in Latin, at least in the time period that I flipped through.
Complicating matters is the fact that FS's recent ill-conceived routine has messed up the Hungarian version, changing almost all of the genders to masculine, and making them all unfindable by removing the children's surnames.
0 -
My concern is about matching records. For purposes of matching, no birth or proxy data is far better than wildly wrong data, which is what happens when believer baptisms are treated the same as infant baptisms.
Re Laskafalu, these particular Croatian records are later duplicate copies of original Hungarian records. These scanned Hungarian records appear to be duplicates too, since they lack dates and are more condensed than original registers. The population was originally German, a government sponsored colony. The earliest original records are a mixture of German and Latin, with many details not often found in church records. The German bits gradually were replaced by Hungarian, then much later by Croatian.
0 -
Lack of birth or birth proxy data is a far more common bar to proper matching of records than incorrect data. Without the birth details, all you have is names, and the hinting algorithm will either not come up with anything (even though it's there, just with the birth info misfiled), or it'll come up with random families from elsewhere with the same names. Ditto for Find: if the birth proxy is under Other, it will refuse to cough up the exactly matching profile.
I messaged privately about Laskafalu, since it's a different topic, but I forgot to ask: why are you under the impression that the Hungarian records lack dates? Are you looking only at the index (which is currently royally screwed up)? Check the images: they have quite clear dates, for both birth and sacrament, and it's all in Latin, meaning you don't even need to be a specialist in any region to make sense of it.
0 -
The latest post in the FamilySearch Magyarország - Hungary Group on these forums is someone pointing out an "attachment error". It's complete with a screenshot. Paraphrasing: when a christening record is attached, the date and place often end up under Other rather than Vitals.
https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/101763/keresztelesi-anyakoenyvezesek-csatolasi-hiba
0 -
why are you under the impression that the Hungarian records lack dates? Are you looking only at the index (which is currently royally screwed up)?
We were discussing indexing. The index records lack dates.
I also confused the issue by mentioning original historical records and later historical copies. Relevance is: for some time periods FamilySearch has indexed several sets of records of the very same vital events. Here is an example of the very same christening records, a Hungarian set indexed with only the year and a Croatian set indexed with full dates:
0 -
IT TECHS - Is this ever going to be resolved? I waste too much time everyday by manually transferring the infant christening/baptism records from Other Events to the Christening Line and then submitting it for Temple work. Can't this be done automatically? Please review this with the top managers and let's get it resolved. Thank you. Cynthia
0 -
It would be nice to show the christening date in the Selected Person box and possibly an option to add the Baptism information as christening if we determine the christening is blank or not right.
If we at least could wee the current christening date we would know not to add baptism over and over again.
0 -
I usually have the person's Details page open in another tab, so can switch back to it (while linking a source) to see what detail needs to be carried across. In the case of a "Baptism" (almost always an infant event, in my experience) I never carry these across - I just add the detail to the Christening field, if it is blank.
Sometimes it is better to enter data manually, regardless. This especially applies to Marriage detail, where data with less detail than the perfectly good existing entry can replace the correct detail (on the Details page) if carried across (while linking the source).
The issue of defining the term "baptism" compared to "christening" has been discussed many times on this forum. For the purpose of consistency within FamilySearch, it would be better if the term "Baptism" could only be used in reference to adult events (say when a person has converted to another denomination) and "Christening" applied as the "Event type" for all infant events.
0 -
I typically carry across any baptism in the Source Linker, then as a last step edit the profile to copy paste the baptism into the Christening field and delete the Baptism field.
I do it this way to facilitate sorting out same-name siblings and cousins.
0
