Talk:London Church Records

From FamilySearch Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

We have searched and correct the Web links below. Hope these are what you have in mind for the Cliff Webb sites.

Featured Article Committee members

Outdated Links[edit source]

The following Websites links do not work. Please fix. Thank you.

London & Middlesex Baptism Registers & their Online Availability by Cliff Webb
London & Middlesex Marriage Registers - Pre-1837 & their Online Availability by Cliff Webb
London & Middlesex Burial Register Indexes & their Online Availability by Cliff Webb
London & Middlesex Nonconformist Registers digitised by by Cliff Webb

Featured Article Committee members

Links have been updated. Thanks. Murphynw 22:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Online parish registers[edit source]

The following London City parishes' years have in fact been indexed and posted in

The Temple (Church)

St Michael Le Querne was united with St Vedast Foster Lane  from 1538-1877 and thus have to be considered "extracted"--even though later years showup as a "Computer Printout", i.e. 1837-1877

All Hallows Lombard Street - 1813-1846 chrs; 1813- 1837

St Alphage London By The Wall - 1813-1863 - chrs; 1754-1885 marrs

St Bartholomew the Less - 1547-1837 marriages
St Benet Gracechurch -  1730-1837 marrs; 1730-1866 chrs
St Dunstan in the West - chrs 1800-1840
St Katherine Coleman - 1710- 1877 - chrs; 1741-1841 marrs
St Michael Crooked Lane - 1749-1875 chrs; 1749-1825 marrs.
St Nicholas Olave - was united to St Nicholas Coleabbey; however, an almost complete range of years have been extraced and included in F.S. for this parish with the years 1721-1812 marriages Un-extracted (a comparison check ought to also be conducted for this parish to ensure data's in F.S.)

St Olave Silver Street - 1616-1736 chrs only, online
Most of the Inns, liberties

1. All Hallows Barking - fairly recent acquisitions; no extractions yet
2. St Paul's Cathedral - overlooked by Extraction Division
3. St Leonard Foster Lane - was united to Christchurch Greyfriars Newgate Street and just about all data has been extracted (1755-1803 excepted; perhaps a spot check in the registers of both ought to be conducted to verify of all years are complete)

Feel free to make updates Phil. Murphynw 19:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank YOU / YOUR Article is Selected[edit source]

The FamilySearch Research Wiki is delighted to let you know that the “London Church Records” article you helped create will be highlighted on the FamilySearch Research Wiki of the Wiki. It will appear September 17, 2012 and remain for seven days. Thank you for your excellent work – you have given readers/researchers important access to records. Your contributions are appreciated and will assist others in finding their ancestors. You have made a difference in research!

Please note:

We invite you to do any enhancing, editing or changing to this article before we post it. If you are considering an edit we ask that it be completed by September16, 2012. If you feel this article is not ready to be highlighted, please let us know. Thank you for your time and effort!

Featured Article Committee members -

Getting Help with your Genealogy on "London Church Records" Wiki page[edit source]

The purpose of this newly created section titled "Getting Help with your Genealogy" seems to be outside the scope of the Wiki, and out of place under the topic London Church Records. The heading used is misleading.

The purpose of this section runs afoul of the FamilySearch Wiki:Guiding Principles in three ways:

  • Free - Contributors may link to pay sites and so forth, but also be sure readers understand the non-pay-options. This is over emphasizing pay and under emphasizing non-pay.
  • Neutral point of view - over-emphasis on paid options makes me uneasy here as well. But much more the problem is how do we stay neutral on who we list. If we list one person we have to list them all. Why are not ALL "England researchers" from the ICAPGen, BCG, and APG in America, and whatever organization of genealogists there is in Great Britain listed? Who will update and maintain the list? Wouldn't it be better to link to their organization's Internet list rather than list them name-by-name on our own page and have us keep all their email addresses up?
  • Spam-free - With basically the same not-obviously-marked-as-taking-you-to-genealogists-for-hire message on so MANY pages this sure has a spam feeling to me.

Proposed solution: Delete this from most pages. But a message showing a balance of pay (for-hire) and non-pay (librarians, Family History Centers, and free look-ups) options would be appropriate on about one page per country if it is worded neutrally, shows all reasonable options, links to their organizations' Internet lists, and is absolutely up-front and forthright about what will cost money. If we get the right balance, it would be appropriate to let our readers know about for-hire options. The most appropriate place for such a section is probably in the Archives and Libraries section for each country such as England, Scotland, Wale, Ireland, Germany, or perhaps one per state in the United States.

DiltsGD 22:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Patron Feedback[edit source]

Question.png A question for the FamilySearch Historical Records project
Note to helpers: Once you have offered help, please replace this template with {{Helpme-helped}}.
Genealogy montage reasonably small.jpg

First, thank you for this page, it has been very helpful. It would be even more helpful if during this part:

"Most of the City of London's parishes, Inns of court, and liberty precincts are held at the Guildhall Library. FamilySearch has indexed more than 90% of the christenings and marriages. has digitised London's parish registers with the exception of All Hallows Barking."

It could specify if the term "London parish" used here included or excluded non-conformist parishes for each of the collections (Ancestry and FS).

Another question that came to my mind when I went to Ancestry and saw the search field boxes was whether all the digitized parish had been actually indexed or it this is a partial index. Perhaps Ancestry doesn't do "partial" indexes? Sometimes it seems FS does in some of their collections.JanaStokes 02:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)