Please use standard "christening" rather than "Baptism" custom event.
This seems to be a recent change. As an example, see the attached image from this source linker page:
https://www.familysearch.org/search/l...
Comments
-
Brett said: James
I am not so sure that what you refer to is a recent change; but, I could be wrong.
There has been much discussion over the years in the "FamilySearch" ("GetSatisfaction") 'Feedback' Forum in regard to, "Christening" versus "Baptism"; or, visa versa.
The matter is NOT an easy one.
Here are just some of the previous post in this forum ...
christening/baptism/blessing event ... [ Over 7 Years ago ]
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
"Christening" on every page is probably not such a good idea. ... [ Over 5 Years ago ]
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
Catholic christening records ... [ Over 4 Years ago ]
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
christening sources
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea... ... [ Over 3 Years ago ]
Accepting Christening or Baptism dates as correct date ... [ Over 2 Years ago ]
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
Baptism events and the Source Linker ... [ 1 Year ago ]
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
Add an Option for "Baptism" as an alternative to "Christening" ... [ 1 Year ago ]
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
Why are "christening" and "baptism" treated as totally different events on Family Tree? ... [ https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea... ]
I would like to add christening records in my original entry ... [ 1 Year ago ]
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
These are only from a "Searching" using the term "baptism versus christening";and, on the FIRST page of 30 pages ...
As you can see from the above, the subject of "Christening" versus "Baptism"; or, visa versa, can be divisive.
There is no consensus.
Hence, why the 'status quo' seems to have remained, as is, for some time.
I am not disregarding your post, just letting you know that there are factors involved that make the matter quite complicated.
Nothing is as easy as it seems.
I hope this helps.
Brett
.0 -
Paul said: Basically, this is due to an inconsistency, at some stage of the process, involved in different indexing projects. For the most part, the baptism / christening event is treated as a "christening" and the details can be carried directly across to the person page (if the date/place fields are empty) whilst adding the source. However, certain projects have led to these events being labelled a "baptism" and - as you have found - can only be carried across to the custom event section.
What is certain is there appears no sense whatsoever to this - i.e it is purely down to inconsistency, as I have never found any difference in the nature of the event itself. It probably could be acceptable if an infant christening/baptism was not involved, as I imagine few religions, e.g. who practice total immersion of the individual later on in the child or adult's life, would call the event a christening. However, in FamilySearch it involves nothing of the sort and so a silly misunderstanding that leads to this exercise in some indexing projects is probably responsible for 99% of cases where this problem occurs.
This is not the only problem that arises in FamilySearch indexing projects. Misuse of the Residence field, treating marriage banns / licence records as actual marriage events and confusing christening dates with birth dates is also quite common. These problems have also been the subject of several posts on this forum.0 -
Adrian Bruce said: James - as Brett says, it's all over the place.
Your suggestion that "baptism events that occur within 1 year of a person's birth be marked Christening rather than a baptism" does rather suggest you have an idea about the difference between what a Christening is and what a Baptism is.
But the problem is that I can guarantee that lots of people will swear that the two are indeed different while lots of people will swear that the two are the same. And speakers of various other languages don't understand what on earth we're on about because they only have one word for both.
(Note that I'm talking about infant baptisms and christenings. The subject of adult baptisms and baptisms in denominations that don't believe in infant baptisms just confuses matters even more unless we exclude them from the discussions).
What I would say is that FS does sometimes create Baptisms where normally it creates Christenings and we've no idea why. So yes, consistency would be nice. And since Christening is used as a proxy for birth, it makes more sense to use that one.0 -
Tom Huber said: This inconsistency is not a new phenomenon. The same problem exists between marriage licenses and the actual marriage.
FamilySearch FamilyTree does not support marriage licenses and for a very long time has not used the correct term when it comes to various records.
More than once, I have sourced a marriage and then corrected the title of the source so that it reads Marriage License.
But that is not the only problem with the baptism/christening situation. There it is a matter of the terminology used by the culture and denominations involved. In some languages there is no difference in the actual terminology.0 -
Paul said: Adrian
The only reason I raised the subject of later-life baptism is that this is an area where I feel it would be appropriate to be labelled as such and placed in the Custom Event section. I know of a number of people who were christened/baptised as a baby by Church of England ritual, then converted to another denomination and were baptised by full immersion.
So I do believe, in such cases, the current christening field in the Vitals section is appropriate for the infant ritual and the "Baptism" field (under Custom Event) suitable to record the adult one. However, in actuality I have never come across any collection of adult baptisms in FamilySearch.0 -
Adrian Bruce said: Indeed Paul. I don't have any problem with "later life" baptisms being labelled as such. I think I'd prefer such ceremonies to be, as you say, a Custom Event, called "Adult Baptism" rather than just "Baptism", to make it clear what we're talkiing about (or rather, make it clear that we're not talking about Infant Baptism). What I'm not sure of is whether those denominations that practice "later life" baptisms would be happy with "Adult baptism" as a term given that it can be administered to people under the legal age of majority - Wikipedia refers to it as "Believer's Baptism" but that's not a term I'd seen before.0
-
Erika Campbell said: Remember that this is a global tree and baptism or christening is used in different countries in a different way. So, just leave it as it is. FamilySearch is trying to accommodate everyone.
Have a great New Year with much success in your research.
Erika0 -
Adrian Bruce said: I'm perfectly happy with there being both baptism and christening event types. I can mutter about there not being any clear distinction, but that's me - let everyone use them as they wish, as you say.
The inconsistencies that annoy me are when usually FS indexes these events as christenings but then, every once in a while, they index the same type of event in the same denomination, in the same country, as baptisms. Or vice versa.
It's confusing enough out there in the real world, as you say. Unfortunately, occasionally FS adds its own confusion to things with never an explanation.
It makes life interesting, I suppose!0 -
Juli said: FamilySearch's Family Tree is full of legacy data imported from FS FT's predecessors, which contained profiles directly based on indexed baptisms. These profiles have exactly what's in the index (errors and all), with no birthdate or birthplace, only names (no dates or places) for the parents, and the indexed date and place of the baptism event entered in the Christening field. The originating index entry is sometimes already attached as a source (as the result of a semi-automated process at some point), but more often it's there as a record hint. If you go to attach the record from such a hint, Source Linker will helpfully offer to add the indexed date and place -- as a Custom Event of Baptism. Source Linker does not show the Christening field unless there's a Christening field in the indexed record, which is basically never, because the Latin term is Baptismus, and a large proportion of European church registers are in Latin. This means that the inconsistency in categorization results in the same event being entered in two places on many profiles.
FamilySearch should consistently treat "baptism" and "christening" as the perfect synonyms that they are in pretty much every language besides English. Not doing so results in annoyance, duplicated effort, and confusion.0 -
Since there doesn't seem to be any substantial religious or other objections, I too would like to see "Baptism" and "Christening" treated as synonyms, mainly so that "Baptism" records would 'slide' directly into the "Christening" slot in the Source Linker. Now, I have to copy the info in "Baptism", go to the person, then enter it into the "Christening" event, which is time-consuming. This all seems just to be a programming problem rather than a philosophical or theological problem.
0 -
Scott
I am just a 'lowly' User/Patron ...
[ And, was the first/initial respondent in the post, way back in December 2019 ... ]
You are not alone ...
FYI
Please be aware that ...
There is STILL much MORE than just a programming matter ...
There have been a number of recent posts, of late; even, in this "Community.Familysearch" Forum.
The whole matter is STILL a 'Work in Progress'; as, there is NO real consensus regarding Christening/Baptism.
The matter of the "SourceLinker" is just part of the whole problem/issue.
For NOW, the best thing to do, is to either:
▬ NOT "Move" the "Baptism" across, to the "Other Information" Section.
.... Then, Just go in after; and, add the "Baptism"/"Christening", in the "Vitals" Section, under "Christening ...
OR ...
▬ In first instance, "Move" the "Baptism" across, to the "Other Information" Section.
... [ Just for reference purposes, until the action of the following ... ]
.... Then, Just go in after; and, add the "Baptism"/"Christening", in the "Vitals" Section, under "Christening ...
.... Then, in second instance, "Delete" the "Baptism", that was "Moved" across, to Other Information" Section
[ Been there ... done that ... STILL do ... ]
Certainly NOT the best.
As, waiting for what has been proposed, may take a EVERY "Long" time
[ As it is almost TWO (x2) Years, since this post back in December 2019 ... ]
And ...
Also, please be aware that ...
There are many competing priorities, in "Family Tree" (and, the OTHER Parts), of 'FamilySearch'; and, there are very LIMITED Resources (ie. Funds) available to 'FamilySearch.
What has been proposed here, would be VERY "Low" on the list of priorities.
As, there are, MANY; Many; many, things that NEED addressing/fixing (or, for that matter "Adding").
There is a very, simple; and, easy, "Workaround", in the matter - we are just lucky we have that ...
[ We should be really thankful, that we have such a "Workaround" ... ]
But ...
That Said ...
We can but live in hope ...
Just my thoughts.
I know that this does not help; but, I hope that this gives you some, insight; and, another perspective.
Brett
0 -
@ScottStieg, oh, you have no idea just how huge a can of worms the whole baptism-versus-christening nonsense gets to be around here.
In the rest of the world, "baptism" and "christening" are so much the same thing that they aren't even synonyms, because they're the same word. Therefore, when monolingual English-speaking LDS members get all up in arms over the distinction, the rest of us get ...rather puzzled. But those monolingual LDS members run the website, so I doubt this will ever change. If a collection happens to be labeled "Christenings", then the events will get filed correctly by Source Linker. If the collection happens to be titled "Baptisms", then the events will get misfiled. It's just the way it is.
English just has too many words.
1
