Sobre o nome da Cidade de Narni
Olá a todos. Não sei quem foi lá no meu espaço falar uma informação errada. gente por favor dá um Google. foram qualificar minha pesquisa dizendo que há erros na base pois em 1876, ano de nascimento do parente, a cidade não tinha esse nome. Errado, a cidade tem esse nome desde 1861, então por favor, pesquisem melhor antes de falar né? ao menos um Google em Italiano.
Answers
-
Using Google translate:
About the city of Narni
Hello everybody. I don't know who was there in my space to tell me wrong information. Guys, please Google it. They went to qualify my research by saying that there are errors in the database because in 1876, the year the relative was born, the city did not have that name. Wrong, the city has had this name since 1861, so please, do some research before saying it, right? at least one Google in Italian.
0 -
@Luciane Briotto thank you for your feedback. Can you provide a Person ID number so that we can see where this issue is occuring? Thank you :)
obrigado pelo seu feedback. Você pode fornecer um número de identificação pessoal para que possamos ver onde esse problema está ocorrendo? Obrigado :)
0 -
The only Narni I'm finding in the Places database is the city in Umbria, and it only has two time periods: unknown-1927 and 1927-today. The difference between them is in the next jurisdiction up (Perugia versus Terni), but the way the data score's message is written, it always sounds like it's complaining about the placename itself, not the jurisdictions. This results in ridiculously false claims, such as Vienna, Austria not being called that until 1920 (!), when in fact it was called exactly that centuries earlier.
They've revised the wording somewhat in response to previous complaints, but it still makes those false claims. They really need to make it clear that it's the jurisdiction that has the mismatch, not the placename. (It's almost never the placename, in my experience, unless the name change is missing from the database.)
1 -
Maybe that is key the to fixing the confusion about the data quality statement, using the term jurisdiction or something similar instead of name.
It's becoming pretty clear that in a multi-part place designation, many people consider the name of the place to be the part before the first comma and the rest to be something else but not its name. And the first part of the name will never trigger the flag because all the variant names for a place are assigned to all the time periods so if any of them are used with the proper jurisdiction, the routine does not see any issue. If that first part is not in the database at all, then the standard is going to be one level up and the routine only looks at the standard.
Checking the current statement for the flag, I do see that they do not actually say the name as entered is wrong and don't even use the term name anymore: "The standard "Narni, Terni, Umbria, Italy" (ID: 7064386) is used for dates from 1927 onward. This conflicts with the birth date of 1876."
I wonder if there is any way to expand this statement to "The standard "Narni, Terni, Umbria, Italy" (ID: 7064386) is used for dates from 1927 onward. This conflicts with the birth date of 1876. The standard "Narni, Perugia, Umbria, Italy" (ID: …) is used for 1926 and earlier."
1