Why does "Oklahoma Territory" no longer work in Place names?

U32462

Oklahoma Territory use to work in place names but now seems to have disappeared as an allowed place name. For example it use to work with the counties Roger Mills and Custer but now it does not. Since it once worked as a place name I assume something has changed that now prevents it use. I will not go into the differences between where Oklahoma vs Indian Territories are located but Indian still works for some locations. I hope someone did not decide that Oklahoma Territory should not be allowed.

Brett .

@U32462

FYI

I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...

Just in passing ...

Like or not ...

Simple answer ...

Here is a "Knowledge Article", in 'FamilySearch':

Why does FamilySearch combine U.S. States and their historic territories in FamilySearch Places?

https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/when-did-familysearch-combine-us-states-and-their-historic-territories-in-familysearch-places

https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/when-did-familysearch-combine-us-states-and-their-historic-territories-in-familysearch-places

MANY User/Patrons, are DISMAYED, by this action, by 'FamilySearch'.

Pandering, to "Inexperience", rather than CORRECTNESS ...

I know, that this certainly does not help/assist; but, I hope, that this may provide you with, some additional, insight; and, perspective.

Brett

Gordon Collett

All place names are allowed. Ones that are not in the standards list can still be entered just fine and linked to the closest standard.

There was recently a decision that many people have complained about to simplify the standards lists for US state and territories by not including Territory in the standardized name, just like County is not used, and using the same standard for both the Territory and the State.

But you are still completely at liberty to enter Roger Mills, Oklahoma Territory and link it to Roger Mills, Okalhoma for the purposes of standardization. You won't get a map pin anymore, but that map pin on the detail page is completely unnecessary and means very little. So still go ahead and enter the place name correctly like this:

Here are other discussions regarding this: https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/123608/please-reverse-the-recent-action-that-means-there-is-no-separation-of-u-s-states-and-territories#latest which also references: https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/448165#Comment_448165

Paul W

I am surprised there has not been more outcry regarding this issue. The two matters that are of real importance here are: (1) historical / geographical accuracy and (2) consistency.

With regards to the first, I understand the areas of the former "territories" do not even match those covered by the current states. On the second matter - and please don't see this as an encouragement to do so - why adopt this for America and leave equally confusing other worldwide instances as they are?

Surely nobody is saying that users can generally understand the whole concept of placename formats based on historical time periods, but their heads suddenly start to spin when this is applied to America? Otherwise, can we please have a sensible explanation of what is going on here and whether there is now going to be a drastic cut in the number of available standard placename options?

For instance, maybe there will no longer be the option to show your relatives lived in Prussia and/or the other kingdoms / states that are now part of Germany.

Chas Howell

Good grief, what next. Oklahoma Territory existed simultaneously with Indian Territory as totally separate entities, separate government and separate geographical locations prior to the statehood of Oklahoma in 1907. Further Indian Territory was not a territory that ever shared its name with a US State.

Quoting from KA 16595 “In the past, FamilySearch Places contained separate entries for both U.S. states and the historic U.S. territories that shared their same names. For example, "Utah (state; 1896-today)" was one entry, and "Utah Territory (1850-1896)" was another. The distinction was accurate, but some users struggled to understand which place to select when documenting an ancestor's life.”

So how is standardizing the place your ancestor lived to a place that did not even exist at the time accurate at all in documenting an ancestor’s life? IMO the justification for this change, that some users struggled is absolutely insulting.

@U32462 , I just checked and it appears they did keep Indian Territory but not Oklahoma Territory in the standardized list. Not sure if all the towns and or counties work with Indian Territory though? It does appear you are out of luck with Oklahoma territory.

Rob Elsman

The category, "state", that is used for "Oklahoma, United States" is untruthful for the period, 1890-1907. For this period, "Oklahoma Territory, United States" would be classified as an incorporated territory in contrast to "Indian Territory, United States", which was an unincorporated territory. To say otherwise is to fail to tell the truth.