Attaching sources- "Christening" record data into "Christening" field instead of Other Info: Baptis

LegacyUser

Melinda Sandberg said: When attaching sources the infant baptism or "Christening" is being entered by the program into the "Other Information: Baptism" instead of "Christening" field which is directly under the Birth and accepted as an alternative to Birth to qualify for Temple Ordinances.

There are thousands of new records in the "Germany, Baden, Archdiocese of Freiburg im Breisgau, Catholic Church Records, 1678-1930" As it now stands the patron is required to manually enter each Christening date and location.

Please designate the DATE and LOCATION of the CHRISTENING record to be entered into the CHRISTENING field instead of the OTHER INFORMATION: BAPTISM field. Thank you.

LegacyUser

Juli said: Don't even get me started on the TOTAL LACK OF ANY DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER between the words "baptism" and "christening" in the non-English-speaking world...

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Welcome back to the community-powered feedback forum for FamilySearch. FamilySearch personnel read every discussion thread and may or may not respond as their time permits. We all share an active interest in using the resources of this site and as users, we have various levels of knowledge and experience and do our best to help each other with concerns, issues, and/or questions.

I can understand and concur with the frustration you are feeling. There are a number of issues involved, starting with the way many source indices are set up, and that includes child baptism/christening. As Juli points out, in many languages, the same word is used for christening and baptism.

In the meantime, and despite repeated requests dealing with this particular topic, we are left with manually entering the data into the correct vitals and tagging the source accordingly.

LegacyUser

Melinda Sandberg said: There seems to be a strong difference made between infant baptism and adult ordinances within FamilySearch since every field is designated Christening except for the INDEX field. It is more of a program inconsistency, not a cultural difference.

LegacyUser

Melinda Sandberg said: Data field to Data field.
In every screen the term Christening is used.
Only when the data is populated into the Individual record is it designated Other Ordinance: Baptism.
This is a fixable programmer's choice of field population.

LegacyUser

Paul said: There are plenty of inconsistencies like this. The general problem not only applies to the christening / baptism situation but to death records, too. In England and Wales, the General Records Office records relate to death registrations yet, once in FamilySearch, some records are recorded as deaths. If recorded as a death, the date can be moved straight across via the source linker. However, where recorded as a death registration, the detail goes (as with baptism details) to Other Information and needs to be added manually to the Death field.

I believe these problems with inconsistency are sometimes due to index project instructions and, in other cases, down to programming.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: I wholly agree with your frustration. I suspect it's indexing where the issues arise, rather than programming - which makes it even easier to fix... Or does it? (Sigh...)

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Just to head off any comments - there is a whole world of difference theologically and genealogically between (using English terms) Adult Baptism and Infant Baptism / Christening.