Events happening in the Utah Territory (prior to 1896) only allowing "Utah"?
Why are events happening in the Utah Territory (prior to 1896) not allowing it as a standardized place for the Utah Territory? The only place name allowed is "Utah" - when it wasn't a state yet. Other states are showing their Territorial place names, or even British American Colonies, instead of the United States.
Answers
-
FamilySearch decided a while back to simplify places in the United States with regard to the time when there were territories that later became states. You can read a detailed explanation of the reasons for that change at https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/when-did-familysearch-combine-us-states-and-their-historic-territories-in-familysearch-places
2 -
All place names are allowed. If you wish to include Utah Territory as part of the place name, then go ahead and do so. We are not required to use the standardized version of a name. We are only required to link the name we do use to the appropriate standard.
This place name is correctly entered and correctly standardized:
The green check marks confirm that everything here is just fine.
2 -
Everything @Gordon Collett says is correct - however, it's kinda strange if we relate the existence of the 2022 project to "combine" states and their territories and then promptly explain how to get round its effects.
If people don't know about this technique of altering the "display" placename while leaving it linked to a standard placename (and anecdotal Community evidence suggests many don't), then they will be forced to use inaccurate values.
I might add that there are still US Territories in the standards database - "Louisiana Territory, United States" (1803-1812) which became Missouri Territory In Real Life. And "Orleans Territory, United States" (1804-1812), which became the state of Louisiana. It's virtually impossible to envisage any other arrangements that make any sense, so thank you to the voice of sanity that kept those two in.
3 -
I agree that it is a bit strange and would not be surprised if things changed back twenty years from now. That is the trouble with standards. They keep changing. It all depends on someone with some type of recognized or unrecognized authority or influence deciding how things should be done.
But for the database, it does kind of make sense. "Utah" is short for "The State of Utah." Making it also be short for "Utah Territory" which has the identical latitude and longitude in the database and eventually the same boundaries cuts in half the number of entries in the database required for every place in Utah that existed before 1896. It is also consistent with the generally accepted practice of shortening place names and allowing the context to resolve any ambiguity.
Is Utah in a place name The State of Utah, Utah Territory, or Utah County? You can determine that by the date on the place and the level the name appears at.
1850, Utah, United States is clearly the territory.
1920, Utah, United States is clearly the state.
Any year, Utah, , United States is clearly the county if you notice the extra comma.
The great thing about the dual entry system for place names is that if you are person who can't stand ambiguity, you don't have to put up with it.
0 -
Just to add to Adrian's territory list, Indian Territory, United States 1819-1907 which became part of the state of Oklahoma has also been kept.
1 -
@Gordon Collett said:
"... But for the database, it does kind of make sense. "Utah" is short for "The State of Utah." Making it also be short for "Utah Territory" which has the identical latitude and longitude in the database and eventually the same boundaries ..."
Actually, I could be persuaded that it made sense to merge the State and corresponding Territory, as you describe. But if you look at the type assigned to the entry "Utah", it says "State". That's not merging the State and the Territory, that's removing the Territory. If they'd altered the type to "State/Territory", I could have accepted that, because it would have been odd, but accurate and consistent. That would have been a proper merge. Pedantic? Well, yes. Just like I want my ancestors to have their correct names, I'd like where they lived to have the correct names and types.
"... cuts in half the number of entries in the database required for every place in Utah that existed before 1896 ..."
I suspect this is true.
3 -
This "simplification" exercise struck me as being very weird at the time and continues to baffle me.
It turns the whole concept - of being able to record a place name in the format it would have appeared at a particular period - upside down. Every week, there are requests here (and made through the "correct channels") for a specific place name to be added - either as it appeared, say, between 1850 and 1880, or in a more detailed form - e.g., a cemetery location, rather than just having the town in which the cemetery is located.
These are constantly being added to the database, whilst the complete opposite has happened with regard to certain states / territories in what now constitutes the United States. I have yet to find a satisfactory explanation for this amazing inconsistency.
3 -
Edit: I was going by memory when writing this comment and got it completely wrong, go to Paul W's comment for the correct history
I've also noticed that no versions of the UK exist before 1801 (When Ireland left the UK, creating the current United Kingdom) If it's before that, it just wants the specific country. I suppose that it's probably less confusing when working with Irish ancestors to have it be that way, but it still feels weird sometimes.
0 -
This explains that England (including Wales) and Scotland combined was officially known as Great Britain from 1776 to 1801. From 1801, the sovereign state was known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland for details of the further development of the officially recognised title(s).
2 -
@Paul W Harwood You're right, I should have checked instead of going by memory. Great Britain is the one that is missing
0
