When I am researching I always try to standardize the locations mentioned, usually on the 'vitals' page, which are showing a red exclamation point. It is easy enough to do and choices are given for most places (except that Indian tribe locations when trying to 'Improve Place-Names' are also problematic), but in trying to do the same for the names/places where Missions were served no standardization comes up, so the red explanation marks remain unsatisfied.
right - but LDS Missions are not really specific exact geographic locations and their boundaries can change over time.
I dont see how a Mission can be a standardized location
but I defer to anyone else who can clarify this in ways I am not aware of.
just make sure that you assign a standard place name from the standards database to the DISPLAY name that you have. For example:
"Chillicothe, Ross, Ohio, United States"
is a standard place name. However,
"Crazy Silly Address Description, Chillicothe, Ross, Ohio, United States"
is NOT a standard place name. But you CAN keep and use it as a place name without the data error by simply standardizing it with the standard place name:
Please note that I DID NOT SAY to replace the former non-standard place name with the latter standard place name. I said to keep the non-standard place name and then STANDARDIZE IT using the other standard place name.
Every place name conclusion is actually 2 separate names. One is the displayed value and the other one is the standard place name that you use to standardize the non-standard name (i.e., the displayed value).
Have a look at the following and see if you can tell the difference. Especially note the first and last place names which contain the same address where one has a data error and the other does not:
It is INCORRECT to believe that you must set the displayed value of a place name to be equivalent to a Standard place name. It is also INCORRECT to be removing location details of a standardized display name. When you do that, you make the place name LESS ACCURATE!
When you do that you are likely removing useful details that someone has worked hard to make sure has been included in the place name
You standardize a displayed place name by assigning a standard place name to it and NOT by replacing it with a standard place name.
yes - but she is referring apparently to LDS missions which have broad geographic boundaries that don't correspond often with other political boundaries - and often change every few years.
The approach I gave above would work just fine for missions. Although they are non-standard locations, any of them can be "Standardized" so that they don't have a data error. But mpjohnson1 said:
"I always try to standardize the locations mentioned"
This always tends to hint that the person does not quite understand the location dual name system used in the FSFT (or the terminology involved which FS is inconsistent in using on the web site).
So in the example I gave above, the first 3 locations are all STANDARDIZED place names, although only the third one uses a STANDARD name as it's displayed name as well. Typically, when someone says something like "I always try to standardize the locations", what they are REALLY saying is more like "I always try to enter a STANDARD (i.e., NOT "standardized") name in the location field" which is never necessary and in many cases is far less desirable than entering a "STANDARDIZED" place name.
So I wanted to make sure that potential misconception was addressed.
Just for the record here is an example of a standardized mission name:
It is standardized to the Toronto city area as follows:
However, on quite a different note, the fact that a person served on a mission in some location is more of a FACT than a single EVENT (such as a Residence). I know that this is debatable, but defining it in a Custom Fact in the Other Information area totally avoids the need to do anything with standardizing location names and allows you to totally spell out all the details that you want. Here's an example for that same mission:
By the way, the use of many terms such as Standard place and Standardized place and their placement on FS web pages tends to be inconsistent, ambiguous at times, and leads to a lot of confusion for people not totally familiar with the dual place name system that FS uses.
The dual name system is wonderful and inspired. The more I look at it and use it, the more impressed and excited I get about how well it works, both now and how it can work in the future! Unfortunately, it can get a bit complicated for the uninitiated, and it is exacerbated by FS's inconsistent use of terminology. E.g., what does "Standard" mean? And what does it mean to "Standardize" something? They are different concepts.
You use a "Standard" in order to "Standardize" a "Non-Standard" item.
You use a "Standard" place name in order to "Standardize" a "Non-Standard" place name.
There is NO need to REPLACE a legitimate "Non-Standard" place name with a "Standard" place name as long as the place name standardizing the non-standard place name is appropriate
well it depends
what do you map these missions to:
The Central States Mission
or the Southern States Mission
or the Europan Mission
(all early LDS Missions)
my point was an LDS Mission is much more than just the one city it is named after - if it is even named after a city.
I may have served in the Toronto Mission and never served in Toronto.
Yes those cities can be used as standardized places - but using them for LDS Missions can often be misleading
Yup. Understood. That's why the Toronto East Mission in my example would more probably been standardize with just the province name (but of course that would put the geo coordinates and the resulting map pin in the middle of the Canadian Shield 😃
In fact, as a person moved around, the same non-standard place name could be standardized with DIFFERENT standard places at different times. But then if you took that approach, why wouldn't you just use the actual geographical name of the place as a residence for that event?
That's why I suggested that it might be more useful to use a Custom Fact instead of a Residence Event. Then you have total flexibility in description of everything. Obviously one trade off would be that the mission wouldn't show up on the time line charts. But since it seems completely unlikely to me that missions (with their changing boundaries over time) will ever be given in the Standard places database, you will get map markers that are very approximate anyway (such as my example of the Toronto East mission being shown in the middle of the Canadian Shield).
Note that one other way to do this would be to record the actual residence place at given time (e.g., 421 Main Street, Owen Sound, Ontario--part of the Toronto East mission) and then in the "Description of Residence" you could add the Mission information. As the person moved around the provence during transfers, you just enter the new date and location, but the same "Description of Residence" value.
exactly - "custom fact" makes much more sense to me.
I would like to thank the community for suggesting answers to my question about standardizing LDS Missions. I decided to add the name of the Mission to the 'Custom name' field and delete it from the 'custom place', as was suggested. Works great! And no more red exclamation marks! Again, many thanks. M