"Standardized Locations" in Puerto Rico are shown as being in "Australia / New Zealand"
For instance:
Monacillo, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico
Neighborhood or Suburb (Australia / New Zealand), Unknown–1951
Puerto Rico is not in either Australia or in New Zealand. Please fix.
Comments
-
The same problem occurs in Florida. Buenaventura Lakes, Osceola County, Florida shows the "Suburb (Australia) flag.
0 -
In the Places database, each place name is described with a Place Type such State, City, or Village. This place type is displayed in the drop down menu in Family Tree under the place name and before the date. It has nothing to do with where a place is, only what kind of place it is.
If you go to the database itself, you can search for places using the Place Type as a filter:
A description of the place type appears while typing in the filter.
I really don't know why they put (Australia) in the place type. It looks like they are trying to say that a place called a Neighborhood in at least some of the English speaking word, is called a Suburb in Australia. So nothing is actually wrong, just confusing.
If I were in charge, I'd take out the (Australia) part of the name of the place type and then if it was really needed put it in the description.
0 -
I have a couple of these, too. No standard place names for certain locations in east London, England that had really large populations, but (at the top of the drop down list) the option of some obscure places in Australia or South Africa.
0 -
This is a misunderstanding. We (Authorities Team at FamilySearch) are trying to describe a place type category in such a way as to help multiple groups share understanding around a single place type. Clearly, we haven't found the right way, yet. 😊
We will remove the "(Australia)" reference and think some more on how to best communicate about this place type category.
0 -
Very pleased to see a member of the Authorities Team participating in this thread.
Unfortunately, recent projects to improve the quality / contents of the Standard place names database have sometimes made the situation a lot worse. Take the example below: this christening event is now shown at a place unknown (in this area) until 1998, yet a FamilySearch project has meant it replacing the place for which it was originally (and correctly) indexed!
This causes not only confusion when viewing the source, but in how it is shown in a search on the main website - see second screenshot.
Hopefully, you will eventually get there. Best wishes in your efforts.
The place name should show as St Mary Whitechapel, but a more recent project has meant it is now displayed as Altab Ali Park.
0 -
FamilySearch could improve its locations immensely if it paid attention to the jurisdiction issuing various records in its database. I've made that suggestion here https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/89736/improving-suggested-places-consider-the-jurisdiction#latest .
0