Standardized place of birth, death burial, etc.
Utah became a state in January 1896. Over time we have had the option of using "Utah Territory" as a standardized place for our ancestors if the date for the event was before January 1896. We use "Utah" as a standardized place after January 1896. The same applies in other states. Many of us in hundreds or thousands of instances, where we have used the place "Utah Territory" dated before 1896, will now need to make changes as we no longer have that option. Just for myself, if I have to change "Utah Territory" to just "Utah" will take some time. For just one family it could entail hundreds of changes. Utah Territory, as a place (Before January 1896) has been put in and taken out of the familysearch system several times, as I understand it. Those of us who are doing the work would like to have the place ("Utah Territory" as a standardized place and as an option) so we do not have to keep changing the place back and forth. I believe the Lord will want the place listed to be exact, either "Utah" or "Utah Territory" according to date within history. Thanks for your support in this cause.
Alan Braithwaite
Best Answer
-
All,
Yes, I see the issue. That is why I made the comment. We are all busy changing the data and spinning our wheels. If a change is made for the better I am all for it. But when we do not know about it, then we make changes and someone else changes it back. So the story never ends. We need to have a standard and stick to it so we can get some work done. Thanks so much for all the input.
Alan Braithwaite
0
Answers
-
You do not need to make a single change anywhere!
Do not waste you time doing so!
Using Utah Territory is perfectly fine, perfectly correct and no problem whatsoever!
You do not need to see a map pin!
This is exactly why the new person pages have gotten rid of them!
All your place names are still standardized!
If you wish to continue entering Utah Territory for places in Utah prior to 1896 you still can! You do still have that option!
Here is one of my relative's birth information:
This was entered before the standard's database was simplified a little by combining the standardized value for territories and states. The change in the database only changed how the place name was linked to a standard. As you can see, there is no error message. Not a thing to even suggest a problem with this entry.
If I open the editing box you can see this:
A nicely green check mark indicating that accurate place name is linked to the appropriate standard. Again there is no error message. Nothing to indicate that anything needs to be changed.
Leave all your place name as Utah Territory. That is the correct thing to do.
6 -
Whilst Gordon provides an excellent response to the issue, I can well understand your confusion. In other parts of the world, FamilySearch has been working hard to create standard place names appropriate to the time period. For example, there are generally matches for specific places, with or without a "United Kingdom" suffix, to be used depending on whether an event took place before or from 1801. Then, completely contrary to their general practice, someone decided to "simplify" the situation when it came to places in what is now the United States! Why they did this for one side of the Atlantic and not the other remains a mystery. I'm surprised there have not been far more complaints. As a United Kingdom resident / researcher, I would be only too happy for that suffix to be dropped from the database (so places within the U.K. ended in "England", "Scotland", etc.), although "unionists" would no doubt disagree with me!
1 -
Slightly apples and oranges Paul, since Utah Territory was part of the United States. The Territory and the territorial government were established by the US Congress. It just wasn't a State yet, but it was a part of the USA.
0 -
Whilst this article glosses over some history I believe - it does discuss a bit about Utah being a U.S. Territory and then State - in my mind indicating differentiating timeframes for names of the place - Deseret, Utah Territory and Utah (incidentally I don't know the name the Mexican territory would have been called prior to State of Deseret - but I recall a YouTube or having seen a map of it somewhere, sometime.):
https://blogs.loc.gov/maps/2016/04/the-state-formerly-known-as-deseret/
Clearly there is much history about the State of Deseret as envisioned by Brigham Young - and early settlers - that appears to be glossed over and not really represented in FamilySearch Places database. As mentioned often - these early settlers were outside of U.S./Federal territorial boundaries of the day (at least for a short period).
Interestingly, Utah Territory whilst listed as an "Alternate Names: Full Name" in FamilySearch Places Database/Standard/Authority - does not have its own unique associated timeframe listed (as mentioned by the OP - original poster) - thus does not appear as a separately recognized place when entering:
Anyone can suggest Improve this Place data if they wish - but I find it interesting that FamilySearch - originally Utah Genealogical Society - has decided to not enter a more detailed place history (separate place timeframes) into the Places Database/Standard/Authority. Perhaps - as the OP claims - Utah Territory was a separate standardized place name rather than combined as it now is - only FamilySearch would know from current state of the database (I think I vaguely recall such). Which seems to indicate perhaps FamilySearch is now more in favor of combining placenames rather than separating timeframe standards? If that is the trend - then it should be taken into account when suggesting improvements.
0 -
This article in the help center discusses this relatively recent change: https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/when-did-familysearch-combine-us-states-and-their-historic-territories-in-familysearch-places
Personally I wish they had kept the Territory designation. But apparently it was causing some trouble. Also, it was one of the few times in the database that a full place name which included a place description was used as the database name. But that has been an ongoing disagreement for years among genealogists over which is the best way to enter a place name:
- City of Provo, Utah County, State of Utah, United States of America
- City of Provo, Utah County, Utah Territory, United States of America
or
- Provo, Utah, Utah, United States of America
- Provo, Utah, Utah, United States of America
If you maintain the first set is most accurate, then one should consistently use the full name. If you maintain the second set is sufficient, then you really don't need two standardized versions. If one wants to use a mixture between the fully complete and the fully abridged forms, Family Tree allows that.
1 -
Ah ha! Gordon has the answer - yes FamilySearch is combining some placenames! But as mentioned - you can still use the other name and it still be a completely valid name (though not a separate Standard/timeframe). This does potentially introduce confusion/edits to the placename. People will just have to refer to the referenced Help Center article (probably with each place) - if 'edit wars' proliferate. Maybe FamilySearch would take the Idea of automating linkage to that Help Center article when those alternate specific places are entered? The pendulum continues to swing ... as long as people know the place referred to - I don't care which form the placename takes (I'm flexible/good with either representation - full, abridged or mixture - and would see no need to change it - unless as the article mentions it affected finding records significantly.).
0 -
Shows my (lack of) knowledge of U.S. history!
Obviously I stand by my original feelings about the general issue - if matters can be simplified in respect of the United States, why leave it at that? The inclusion of United Kingdom suffix caused a lot of problems relating to the search algorithm when it appeared some years ago. That issue seems to have been resolved, but I receive letters addressed to me in either "England" or the "United Kingdom" - never including both.
1 -
I don't disagree with you at all, @Paul W, on that point.
BTW, we still have some territories today.
0 -
One argument for saying they should not have combined the territory and state is that territories often had dramatic boundary changes while state boundaries, at least west of the Mississippi, stayed pretty stable.
Here is the state of Utah:
Here is the original Utah Territory:
It included all but the southern tip of the current state of Nevada along with parts of what are now Colorado and Wyoming. For places in Nevada during that time period, it does look a bit funny to see them in Utah, rather than Utah Territory, until one recalls that Utah is being used for both. That is why I would still include Territory no matter what is in the Places database.
5 -
Animated changes through time on the map of the US. https://www.mapofus.org/united-states/ You can also drill down and see the changes to county boundaries within most states.
1 -
"For places in Nevada during that time period, it does look a bit funny to see them in Utah, rather than Utah Territory, until one recalls that Utah is being used for both"
Which is why, @Gordon Collett , I find myself fundamentally opposed to combining Territory and State into what is, basically, the State. Take Carson City - now in Nevada - so far as I can understand from Wikipedia, when it was founded, "the area was part of Utah Territory". So which is the state / territory that FS wants us to apply to early events from there?
Nevada? - because it's too difficult for us to understand the difference between a territory and a state?
Utah? - because that's the administering territory? Except it's the state....
And where are the records kept or indexed as? What happened to applying the contemporary name? I have no concept of what the logical answer is! ☹️
Let me admit that this is not easy - but it won't get any easier if we try to wave our hands over it all and say, "It doesn't matter..." I find it really patronising to be told "State / Territory / It doesn't matter?" (And I'm on the eastern side of The Pond, where I might be assumed to be ignorant of these matters...)
1 -
@Adrian Bruce1 It's not that it doesn't matter historically - but for entry into FamilySearch you can just input - Utah Territory (a valid Alternate Name) - and be done with it (back to Gordon's initial post in this thread)...if others will leave it be. That's why I wonder if maybe FamilySearch shouldn't just default to that name for events/record from that time period or link to the Help Center article so that people could understand that in this case the Alternate names are combined into one.
As long as you've included the correct name that the document contains what does it matter? FamilySearch Places doesn't display historical boundaries anyway (though who knows if there is some underlying linkage). I wish FamilySearch Places included boundaries but they don't (correction by Gordon below - FamilySearch is starting to include boundary/kml). There are plenty of other Gazetteer solutions (some mentioned in this thread) for learning about the place boundaries.
0 -
@Adrian Bruce1 "And where are the records kept or indexed as?" really is the fundamental question. Place names should be able to lead us to the records.
"I find it really patronising to be told "State / Territory / It doesn't matter?"" I would, too, but I think what they are really saying is that the definition of State and Territory is so similar that two entries are not needed and that since people that want to add Territory can do so without any trouble at all.
To take your example of Carson City, currently the Places database shows:
- 1864-1969 - Carson City, Ormsby, Nevada, United States
- 1969-Today - Carson City, Nevada, United States
When the database is complete, with the current designations it could have:
- 1851-1858 - Eagle Station, Utah, United States
- 1858-1860 - Carson City, Utah, United States
- 1861-1969 - Carson City, Ormsby, Nevada, United States
- 1969-Today - Carson City, Nevada, United States
Before the states and territories were put under the same terms it would have been:
- 1851-1858 - Eagle Station, Utah Territory, United States (I don't think there were any counties in the area yet.)
- 1858-1860 - Carson City, Utah Territory, United States
- 1861-1964 - Carson City, Ormsby, Nevada Territory, United States
- 1864-1969 - Carson City, Ormsby, Nevada, United States
- 1969-Today - Carson City, Nevada, United States
The does raise the question that if the city, which is what one is really interested in, has the right time periods does that make it obvious enough that the State/Territory differentiation is not really needed?
2 -
... does that make it obvious enough that the State/Territory differentiation is not really needed?
If it is obvious enough then I think FamilySearch could automate for records/Events from that placeand timeframe - it would default to that parent place entry. But the automated Standardization of Places doesn't have a good track record so far... WIP
1 -
@genthusiast stated " I wish FamilySearch Places included boundaries but they don't."
They are starting to!
It's pretty limited at this point. I only see this once in a while. I suspect that with all the other work the Places database needs this is a side project some few people are working on.
1 -
"for entry into FamilySearch you can just input - "Utah Territory" (a valid Alternate Name) - and be done with it ... if others will leave it be." (My emphasis)
"If others will leave it be" is unfortunately the issue. I think there is a case that can be made for combining the Territory and State entities under the one name - that of the state, thus removing standard place-names including the form "XXXX Territory".
Unfortunately, I suspect most of us know what will then happen - those users who are under the impression that "Standardising Place-Names" means that the Display Name must be identical with a Standardised Name will go through entries, changing those Display Names containing (say) "Utah Territory" to contain "Utah" instead, because the "Utah Territory" names will no longer exist as Standard Names.
Not only is this a waste of time, but it's a risk to data quality, as all sorts of other stuff may be removed from the Display Place-Names.
0 -
"if the city, which is what one is really interested in, has the right time periods does that make it obvious enough that the State/Territory differentiation is not really needed?"
My own view - which some might say is driven by pedantry while I would claim it's driven by logic - is that the State / Territory differentiation is out there in sources like Wikipedia, etc. So for FamilySearch to contradict this, doesn't make sense.
However, I have a suggestion:
The Nevada in "Carson City, Nevada" is labelled in FS Places as "1856-today, State". This is historically incorrect because it was Nevada Territory first. Suppose that the label for Nevada is altered to:
"1856-today, State/Territory"
In this way, it makes it clear what's going on - the single name represents both the Territory and the State.
This would be done for all states where the same name was used for a predecessor Territory - e.g. Missouri would also be given a type of "State / Territory". (I believe most States would end up with "State / Territory" as a type.)
This provides a simple explanation of what's going on rather than a vague half-truth.
1 -
@Adrian Bruce1, luckily the old interface for the person page is going away soon, and taking those dratted map pins with it, so hopefully there will be a lot fewer people ruining placenames in the name of "fixing" them.
3 -
@alandeanbraithwaite1 but you do get the point, right? You do not need to change anything. "Standards" are not standards. They do not need to be used in Family Tree. Correct data is to be used in Family Tree. "Standards" are just textual representations of latitude and longitude and a way to quickly enter common place names. If this is confusing, please view: https://youtu.be/qLa5PC4RPPk
1 -
But isn't it "FamilySearch" causing much of the the confusion by its "simplifying" the Standards database in relation to the U.S., but allowing the rest of the world (especially, I find, for locations in England) to have so many options to choose from that one has to scroll through a long list to decide which is the most appropriate? Even when the "standard" is completely identical in name, I have an option of "Parish", "Populated place", "Poor law union", "Registration district" and sometimes a couple more to click on - none of which probably makes any difference whatsoever to the search engine results, latitude / longitude, or any other matter.
"FamilySearch" seems to be continuing to add all sorts of formats for the exact-same location, but thinks "State" and "Territory" differentiation has proved to be too confusing for its users....
1 -
... none of which probably makes any difference whatsoever to the search engine results, latitude / longitude, or any other matter.
Only because the database is incomplete. If a place in the database were more complete the difference in location/areas would be easier to visualize. Yes the coordinates might be the same in the database - but if the areas/kml boundaries were visible the difference could be seen.
0 -
The confusion is long standing. It started with using the term "standard" to mean "location on globe." It was compounded by having the database have two uses: 1) localization of places on the globe. 2) shortcuts for name entry.
1 -
Only because the database is incomplete. If a place in the database were more complete the difference in location/areas would be easier to visualize. Yes the coordinates might be the same in the database - but if the areas/kml boundaries were visible the difference could be seen.
@genthusiast - I have to agree with @Paul W on the confusion re names outside the US. Take one of my ancestral towns, Nantwich, for instance. It has:
- Two dated names for the town of "Nantwich", split at 1801;
- Two dated names for the hundred of Nantwich, split at 1801;
- The Poor Law Union of Nantwich;
- The Civil Registration District of Nantwich.
Strangely I can't find one for the parish of Nantwich (it may be there - I just can't find it).
You refer to differences in location / area. Those entries have been there for years, without anything other than what I suspect is an arbitrary pin on the map near the town, so I'm not holding my breath for that sort of data. Once they are used as places in FS FamilyTree, it becomes impossible (or just nearly impossible?) to tell which Nantwich is referred to.
A far better, and far quicker, way of distinguishing them would be to alter the names to stick the type in as part of the name, thus:
- Nantwich Poor Law Union, Cheshire, England, United Kingdom
- Nantwich Civil Reg District, Cheshire, England, United Kingdom
Alas, FamilySearch seems to have set its face against this sort of naming (leading to years of confusion between Baltimore and Baltimore - one being the city, the other the county, IIRC). Except... I notice that some churches now appear to be recorded with the word "Church" in the name - thus "St Mary's Church" which sits "underneath" Nantwich. Perhaps all our comments about the probability of confusion over what "Chalfont St. Giles" might be - the church of St. Giles in Chalfont, or a place called "Chalfont St. Giles" - have borne fruit?
1 -
Anyone can make corrections or suggestions for improvement for most places. I look forward to the confusion with places being resolved through future additions and improvements.
0 -
@davidnewton2 I think everyone has a place in genealogy/Family Tree. If they get a place wrong - because of confusion - then someone can either explain it to them or ignore them and just correct it. If FamilySearch’s change has caused more confusion - then they can change it back if needed. If users complain one way or the other it puts FamilySearch in the position to make a decision. I do agree that once a place is certified it should not change (thus it should be essentially complete). I wish there was a similar feature in Tree to finalize good information/profiles - so that further change/edits were unnecessary. Until such a feature I guess I'll just have to make what I feel are good/correct changes to reverse others... It does get to be frustrating ...
0 -
@davidnewton2 I think everyone that abides by FamilySearch Terms of service has a place then - yes clearly those careless/destructive are not really abiding by those terms (notice the confusion qualifier above). I'm certainly not one who has taken an easy approach on destruction in Tree. I am one more in favor of FamilySearch changing tree structure to eliminate bad data or reduce the likelihood of it.
As far as stupidity - I try to avoid it - I'd probably just try to correct it without engaging the prior editor. Hopefully I haven't made too many stupid mistakes in Tree ...
0
