Wikipedia talk:FindMyPast

Original research

Should something be mentioned on this page about WP:OR? Wikipedia is rife with editors dipping into unpublished genealogical records to 'verify' births, marriages, maiden names, deaths, places of residence etc. Generally it takes analysis and expertise to interpret original documents (and their transcriptions). There are some parts of Findmypast's archive that editors should stay clear of, in the interest of avoiding original research (or uncovering private personal info about living people). Sionk (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sionk: Do you have some language that would be useful for us to include in the page? I know from my spot checking of how editors have used the resource in the past on Special:Link Search, it seems that most experienced editors don't have trouble using it as a source. It would be great if you could draft something that meets your goal. Perhaps include both WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources? Anyway, I like the idea, Sadads (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

How about:

Original research

Editors should be mindful that Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. Analysis and interpretation of original, unpublished documents may constitute original research. Editors should be particularly mindful of using original research to uncover information about living people.

Sionk (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @Sionk:! Thats perfect. I added a bit more and added it in this revision! Sadads (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Great! Sionk (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Citing findmypast urls

Hi there. Anyone got advice on citing findmypast urls that trigger a WP warning message. I cited one here, and it is causing a warning message to be embedded in the cite because the url is in a format that isn't a supported URI scheme. However, it isn't an error: the URL does work. Suggestions? Is this a cross-findmypast problem? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not a findmypast problem, you've just missed the http:// bit off the front of the url. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Hamiltonstone: Like this. URLs need to begin with a URI scheme and colon, such as http: mailto: or ftp: - except that if the scheme is either http or https, both that and the colon are optional but the double slash that follows those is mandatory. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh. OK - don't know why that doesn't appear in the url in my browser, but if it fixes it, it fixes it! thanks!hamiltonstone (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Hamiltonstone: It's always in the address bar, but might be hidden, and different browsers behave differently in this area. I don't know which browser that you have, but for example, Firefox doesn't display the http:// part of a URL in the address bar (although it does display a https:// URL in full), and so if you use your mouse to drag over the URL you'll only copy what's visible. It is possible to copy the whole URL in Firefox: click on the text of a web page - anywhere that isn't a link; then press F6 which highlights the URL in the address bar; then copy to clipboard. When you paste that somewhere else, you'll see that it has the http:// part at the front. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks, yes i do indeed use Firefox and in all these years hadn't even noticed that feature! hamiltonstone (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Clarification on citing

Hi! I just want to be sure I'm doing this right. The project page has this example citation:

<ref> {{cite news |title=Terrific Gale |work=Burnley Gazette |date=2 October 1875 |accessdate=21 October 2012 |url=http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000280/18751002/009/0007| via= [[British Newspaper Archive]]|subscription=yes}}</ref>

and it also says "Note: We could use a better example of a good citation from FMP."

So just to be clear, is the "via" in this case Find My Past? For example, would I cite this article from this page as

<ref> {{cite news |title=Sisters part of community project to preserve documents, memorabilia |work=Terre Haute Tribune Star |date=25 July 2010 |accessdate=29 October 2014 |url=http://search.findmypast.com/search/us-and-world-newspapers/page/view/191021721| via= [[Find My Past]]|subscription=yes}}</ref>

• "Sisters part of community project to preserve documents, memorabilia". Terre Haute Tribune Star. 25 July 2010. Retrieved 29 October 2014 – via Find My Past. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

or do I have something not quite right yet? Thanks for the help. :) Sweet kate (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done Yes, thanks. That was a copypasta artifact when the page was created. I've since fixed it based on your post. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

New reference tool

There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

RSN discussion

Users may be interested in this discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Findmypast.com. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Find My Past and similar

(Moved from my talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 18:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC).)
User:Primefac doesn't like them. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

That is not true, and it'd be nice if you didn't put words in my mouth. I am simply removing completely useless refs like http://www.findmypast.co.uk/birth-indexes-search-start.action , which is a) a dead link, and b) when it was live, only went to the generic search page. When is referencing a Search ever RS? I am leaving well alone any reference to an actual document. So please, Philafrenzy, chill out. Primefac (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm glad we cleared that up!

Quick question, do you remove links like "http://www.findmypast.co.uk/birth-indexes-search-start.action=go&params=Bloggs%20Fred" - because on a lot of web sites (and this is not necessarily a good thing) that might well be the (an) url for an actual document.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC).

At this particular moment I am only removing links that are clearly to the generic search page with no extra information attached to them. Since I do not feel like paying for a subscription, I am leaving anything that may be ambiguous alone for now. Primefac (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

What about this, this, and this? All to specific pages in their site. (there are another 5 or 6) It doesn't matter, incidentally, that they are now dead. You can tag them for that if necessary. We need to retain the source of the information. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)At that particular time I was following the guidelines of WP:FMP and removing bare URLs. Even the ones using the naming parameter just used the generic "England Births XXXX-YYYY" title, so it's not much better than a bare URL.Primefac (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a list could be created and a mini-project to correct these URLs instituted - maybe under the auspices of WikiLibrary? Presumably they were added in good faith, so there should be something there to support the claim - if not another reference should be looked for. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC).

I agree, these links should be corrected, not removed. Fortunately I had a few of the affected pages on my watchlist and was able to search for the correct links. –anemoneprojectors– 17:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

1939 Register

Will the findmypast membership include access to the 1939 register? Thanks. --Elinor.Dashwood (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

From what I've read about it, the 1939 register is not included in a FindMyPast membership, but will be on a pay-per-view only basis. I'm sure at some point in the future it will be included, but probably not for some time (I believe this is what happened with the 1911 census originally). Also, in relation to the register, anyone born in the last 100 years will be censored. –anemoneprojectors– 17:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Discontinued

Hi all. I'm sad to say that we are no longer able to distribute accounts to FindMyPast. Despite the popular nature of FindMyPast resources and our best efforts to convince our contacts of this, structural changes at their parent organisation(s) mean that there is no longer interest in continuing the partnership with The Wikipedia Library. Existing accounts should continue to the end of their one year period, but we are unfortunately unable to process new applications or, it seems, recent applications that had not yet been activated. If you are still interested in access to newspapers I recommend you take a look at Newspapers.com, Newspaperarchive.com, Gale, or one of our other available newspaper partners to see if they have content you may find useful. Let me know if you have any questions. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Like the British Newspaper Library I see. These are vital resources for UK History. What is the hope of the Foundation funding accounts to ensure the provision of quality articles for Wikipedia? I see from the Signpost recently that the Foundationn has ample funds available for projects. Apwoolrich (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

That's hugely disappointing. I have access to Findmypast and the British Newspaper Archive through the Wikipedia Library and have found them both extremely useful. Such a pity to see this coming to an end. — GasHeadSteve _[TALK] 08:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @AnemoneProjectors, Eddaido, Keri, Apwoolrich, Elinor.Dashwood, Waynejayes, and Waynejayes:, as they have apparently not seen this talk page post. Primefac (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I had seen it, but it was posted after I requested a renewal. I think the fact that applications are closed needs to be made more clear on the page, as the last 4 requests for renewal were made after this was posted, and the last 3 were after the page was marked as closed. Considering FMP offered only 50 accounts, I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did, to be honest. anemoneprojectors 17:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@AnemoneProjectors: Agreed regarding making it clearer. Earlier today I made "(closed)" red which is hopefully more eye-catching. That said, I'm not going to spend too much time on it because we'll hopefully be deploying the library card platform before too long which will make the signup pages mostly unnecessary. We're happy to still take requests though; if there's any chance the partnership can be renewed in the future this will help us show demand for it. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)