Talk:FreeBMD

Projects for other countries

Where Can I find a list of FreeBMD projects for other countries ? - unsigned by 2008-09-10T13:08:16 150.101.209.14

Do you have a particular country in mind? Have you tried google " country name +births" etc gioto (talk) 09:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Try here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Open_Genealogy_Alliance DenCol (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 24 September 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NOt moved  — Amakuru (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

---

FreeBMD → Free UK Genealogy – organisation changed its name in 2014 – Wikileigh32 (talk) 09:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• Possible Oppose It appears as if FreeBMD is part of Free UK Genealogy, not a name change if that's true. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, though evidently the introduction to FreeBMD will need to be amended if the scope of the organisation behind it has expanded and FreeBMD is no longer the organisation. I don't see any evidence at the moment of the parent organisation, Free UK Genealogy, being notable in its own right (anecdotally I've used FreeBMD and other genealogy resources for many years and never heard of Free UK Genealogy). Sionk (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
• Propose FreeBMD is just the name of the project; charity itself was FreeBMD, now Free UK Genealogy. Propose to change info to reflect this, and leave FreeBMD as name of entry?Wikileigh32 (talk) 12:53 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment, From the site you link to: "Free UK Genealogy is ... an umbrella organisation for FreeBMD, FreeREG [on parish registers] and FreeCEN [on census records]". If we move this article to Free UK Genealogy, it should at least mention those other projects. GrindtXX (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is the wrong way round. If someone who knows the information takes half an hour to produce a couple of paras on Free UK Genealogy, and then another fifteen minutes to merge into it the salient pieces of text from the FreeBMD wiki page, then there is a arguable case for the one title replacing the other. But right now what we have is an entry on FreeBMD. You would only create confusion by changing the name without bothering to provide information on the rather different entity - what it does and what its structure is.

The article is about FreeBMD, so re-write it about it's umbrella organisation would be wrong unless that organisation was notable i.e. recorded and described in reliable independent sources. It certainly shouldn't be rewritten based on Free UK genealogy or FreeBMD webpages. Sionk (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Agreed. I rather meant somehow revise to include that FreeBMD is now a project within the organisation, and merely reference Free UK Genealogy is now the name of the organisation. That way the article remains about FreeBMD - notable where Free UK Genealogy is not - and the name is not changed, but the information is updated. User:Wikileigh32(talk) 10:57, 01 October 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

References

Editorial oversight

Is there any editorial oversight or verification of what transcribers produce? i.e. could it be used as a WP:RS, or is it just a volunteer catalogue, that could be full of errors, like discogs, IMDb, etc? It is not currently listed at WP:RSP. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It provides links to the original documents. Transcriptions are there to aid in searching, so I would say that reproducing transcriber error would be a citation error. But here is a link to oversight processes: https://www.freebmd.org.uk/process.html Turtlecrown (talk) 06:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Should it be listed at WP:RS as reliable? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Per the link above, procedures involve independent double transcription of entries, plus various higher-level procedures to iron out any discrepancies: that really should result in 99.9% accuracy. So yes, I think it should be treated as a reliable source. GrindtXX (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Perhaps it should be added to the list. Somewhat annoyingly, when I now try and search for a 20th-century birth I get "End of search must be before 1900", which I have never seen before. Has something now changed? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

When I go onto the site, I get a pop-up message saying "Due to a technical issue, post-1900 records cannot be searched. We are working on a solution, but this may take some time so please bear with us. We apologise for any inconvenience." Looks like a temporary glitch, anyway. 78.33.29.98 (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for clarifying. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Just to say the RSP has it's own set of inclusion criteria, it's not an indiscriminate list of sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. In that case, I guess I'll just start using it as WP:RS and see what discussions ensue. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Analysing and interpreting original documents or registers is WP:OR, regardless of whether the General Register Office is a reliable source. Sionk (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is talking about "analysing and interpreting original documents or registers". We are discussing citing such sources to support basic facts, such as an (approximate) date of birth. Per WP:PRIMARY, "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." GrindtXX (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The only thing you can confidently establish from the birth and death registers is the quarter that the birth/death was reported, and the registration district. Editors here often use the birth/death registers to suggest actual dates and places, which is rarely possible from these sources. Sionk (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Mother's maiden name is also provided and can be useful both directly and indirectly. "Suggestions" of dates and places can be very useful in narrowing a search or supporting existing unsourced details, e.g. location and year of birth. Narrative "postems", often added by transcribers to identify notable people, can also be very useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)