Talk:Prioritized List of Online England County Church Records

To Batsondl and DunnPB

Alec,

See in bold my responses to your suggestions.

I do really like this new format for a table, and think it is a lot better than the old table on England Church Records. The idea of using different background colours to signify index or index/images is a lot better than having two seperate columns. Answer: Great, we will go with the new (colored) format. However shouldn't this be used to replace the old table on England Church Records, rather than making a whole new page and partially duplicating content? Answer: Yes

Suggestions

1. I note there are various grammar errors that need fixing, and record collections incorrectly ordered by coverage 2. Having "Most complete coverage", 2nd most, 3rd most etc. implies a very definitive and precise order, which as I have discussed earlier on the England Church Records talk page is not possible. Instead I suggest:

(It would look much better if the two middle columns could be merged just for that row so that the words 'Online Records" are centered.

Putting the offline records at the end is due to the fact that most viewers will not be in England (myself included), especially with the American-centric situation in genealogy and the LDS church. Thus for the vast majority of users offline records are not very useful. And of course this wiki is online, not offline and is more aimed at online researchers - '''Answer: Agreed; I like it, and will add it. FYI: We have mostly completed indexing the vast majority of the National Archives, UK collection of Nonconformist church registers which we microfilmed starting in the 1970's and this row reference researchers to our website.'''

3. Reduce clutter on the table by abbreviating Online Parish Clerks to (OPC), eliminating the dashes before $ signs and have a note at the start of the table saying that all percentages refer to approximate coverages, so that the word "coverage" doesn't need to be repeated over and over again '''Agreed! Will do according to your suggestion'''

4. I retreat from my earlier position that FreeReg and (ex)-IGI records should be removed from the table, provided that they are listed in the proper order for each and every county. Answer: If you mean removing them from the "[Browse All Published Collections https://www.familysearch.org/search]" page.

5. As discussed on the England Church Records talk page, a row for the RG4-8 Non-conformist records should be included. Answer: As you suggest; watch for it

6. I know this will cause disagreement, but I stand firm to my position that (ex)-IGI records should be differentiated from records on FamilySearch with their own historical record collection. '''Response: Why? Why would or should they receive a different link, to a different and redundant database when the old historical records data--as I stated in a prior "Talk" thread--in the former HAS IN RECENT YEARS BEEN MOVED INTO THE CURRENT FamilySearch.org/search databases?''' You-->I'm no longer saying they don't belong on the table, just that the hyperlinked text should be "IGI" not "FamilySearch". '''Answer 1): The 'IGI' is a now an antequated term, and is for most intents and purposes irrevelant. It's dead. (It's only because of the Hugh Wallis and Archersoftware websites that it continues to have a 'life' of its own and keeps being perpetuated uselessly. Answer ,and repeating the above 2) The county "historical records collection" in each case are redundant to that data which is now found in the familysearch.org databases from which the search engine retrieves its data results. For example: Where you find a county database such as [England,] Cheshire Parish Registers 1538-2000 in the "Browse These Records Collections" (FamilySearch.org/search), you will note that when you click on it, a new page appears--with a search page where you can run a search for an ancestor--in that singular database of 6.4 million name entries. HOWEVER, whats totally misunderstood by most users is that all that data is or has (also) been migrated over and into the current search engine (at FamilySearch.org/search), but with added/more name entries from recent indexing. For the sake of contrast, let me ask--do you really want to continue using/searching a 6.4 million name database, or do you want to search the FamilySearch.org/search [engine], which currently holds 8.8 million names for Cheshire? You get the point. That's why the IGI (old historical records) is now basically dead. All of that parish register indexed data has now been placed in the current search engine... Another example:  Cornwall with 840,000 name database, vs the current FamilySearch.org/search Cornwall database holds 4.6 million names [Hint: Click Baptisms or Marriages, then type "Cornwall", etc.). And these are all "Historical records, NOT family submitted names (old IGI) to F.S.''' You-->This will avoid confusion when users find there are no specific historical record collections for Buckinghamshire, Berkshire ... on FamilySearch.

7. I suggest that the hyperlinks for counties with their own historical record collection should be to the wiki pages for those collections. Answer: Unfortunately the county databases (i.e. England, Dorset, Devonshire) in the Historical Records collections (see "Browse These Record Collections") are not updated as frequently as they probably should be...mostly due to the logistics of internal (FamilySearch) product and production goals by our engineers.

8. Every record on this table should have a hyperlink. Even offline collections need a link to the website of the society where the records are kept. Answer: Agree

I agree with everything you said, except that I still feel that FamilySearch hyperlinks should be to the wiki page about the historical record collections. I will continue to edit the table county by county along those principles. --Av85647 (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

You'll also note that I added a new colour Red for the table (images only). I've only used it if there are no image+index collections for that county. --Av85647 (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Moving Table to page England Church Records
As previously agreed, the table is to be moved to the page England Church Records. I've been working over the last few months to prepare the table for this. I invite other users to check the table and make uncontroversial edits such as adding resources, changing the order in which the resources are listed and fixing obvious mistakes. Please discuss more controversial edits first such as removing resources or changing the table layout. Please note: - The table only has room for 4 online resources, so where more than 4 were listed previously the least valuable resources were removed. This table is only designed to list "major" resources. - Where no website has images for that county, I've tried to make sure there is an offline source (even if it is visiting the county archive) that include images. - I've made all links (except for FamilySearch records without their own historical record collection) direct to the specific collection. Ancestry and FindMyPast often have separate collections for baptisms, marriages and burials. Where this occurs the link is to the baptisms. Another pattern is for the 1538-1812 records to be in one collection, and records from 1813 onward separated into baptisms, marriages and burials. In those cases the link is to the 1538-1812 collection. --Av85647 (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)