Standardized Places
I have noticing for the past few months that when a Standard place format is entered from a source on FamilySearch and Ancestry it will often show as not standard. There is a simple work around, but we shouldn't have to be doing that.
Comments
-
I believe you need to type the place into a field, rather than use "copy/paste". The place name might look to be a standard one, but spacing of the letters might be causing a problem.
I am possibly totally misunderstanding the issue - if so, an example would be helpful to clearly illustrate your point.
0 -
@Russ Armstrong ( & @Paul W )
'Paul'
I totally understand what 'Rus' is saying/talking about/referencing ...
'Russ'
You are totally correct/'spot on' ...
This is very much, a 'pet peeve' of mine, that I have wanted to raise; but, have been reluctant (ie. not been game) to do so; due to, my 'precarious' status.
FYI
It is NOT the resultant "Attaching" of the "Source" that is the problem/issue ...
It is the resulting "Place Name" (and, hence, "Standard") that appears (ie. is "Transferred") to the resulting "Event" in, either, the "Vital"; and/or, the "Other Information", Sections, after attaching the "Source", that IS the REAL Problem/Issue.
In particular, when "Attaching" the "Sources" from 'FamilySearch' to our Ancestors/Relatives/Family ...
Depending on the "Country" in question ...
And, here, I use, 'England' is a prime example ...
The "Source" indicates that the "Event" occurred in/at the 'Place' of "Dover, Kent, England", for example ...
[ ie. WITHOUT the 'Suffix' of the "United Kingdom" ]
In most instances (ie. obviously, depending on the relevant/associated 'Date'), the resulting "Place Name" (and, "Standard") that appears (ie. is "Transferred") to the "Event", in either, the "Vital"; and/or, the "Other Information", Sections, after attaching the "Source", is, in fact; NOT, that of "Dover, Kent, England", I the User/Patrons intended; but. instead, becomes (or, is "Changed" to) that of "Dover, Kent, England, United Kingdom".
And ...
Furthermore ,,,
The aforementioned, is NOT "Only", a Problem/Issue with regard to the attaching of "Sources", it ALSO occurs in a number of other facets of 'Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', as well.
And, forget all the (argument about) 'political correctness', for a moment ...
[ No need to resurrect all that ... I am well aware of the "History" of ALL that ... ]
IF, I WANT my Ancestors/Family/Relatives to be 'particularly' associated with ONLY the "Country" (for Example) of that of, "England"; or, "Wales"; or, "Scotland"; and, NOT have that 'Suffix' of the "United Kingdom" appended to them, with regard to a particular "Source"; THEN, I SHOULD be able to have that, when I so "Attach" that "Source" (or, in the other facet); and, include the associated "Event" in, either, the "Vital"; and/or, the "Other Information", Sections.
For Example:
IF, the "Source", that I am "Attaching", IS that with "Only" the reference of "Dover, Kent, England"; and, does not include/contain the 'Suffix' of the "United Kingdom"; and, I choose NOT to "Add" that 'Suffix' of the "United Kingdom", to the "Event" being "Created" in, either, the "Vital"; and/or, the "Other Information", Sections, from that "Source"; THEN, the "System" should NOT "Automatically" make the 'autocratic' decision, to "Add" the 'Suffix' of the "United Kingdom", to that "Place Name" and "Standradise", for that 'Place' as that, just because it is 'political correct'.
I agree that one (ie. a User/Patron) CAN include the 'Suffix' of the "United Kingdom", if they so desire; but, that is their 'Choice', it should NOT be 'foisted' upon them by the "System".
And, I am also aware that, I can LATER, go in, and "Amend" that which has been 'foisted' upon use by the "System"; but, I should NOT have to do so.
And, I am also very well aware that, LATER, 'down the track', ANOTHER User/Patron, can come along and "Change" what I have entered - that is the basic 'nature' and 'premise' of the "Open Edit" Platform of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
Whereas, the "System", should NOT, "Automatically" make the decision to 'autocratically' "Change", what I have entered.
Just my thoughts.
Brett
ps: One of the OTHER facets of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', where I find this particularly 'annoying', is in the "Creation" of an individual/person, where I indicate the "Country" as that of, "England"; or, "Wales"; or, "Scotland"; and, I DO NOT add that 'Suffix' of the "United Kingdom"; yet, the "System" Automatically makes the decision to 'autocratically' "Add" the 'Suffix' of the "United Kingdom" - that should NOT happen; or, be happening.
2 -
Totally agree.
1 -
Yes. Another example: Indiana Marriages. I am always careful, in the source linker to standardize the place (the standard place pin now shows), but the standard place DOES NOT TRANSFER to the couple's marriage record. Instead, I get a warning that the marriage place is not standard. I have to then go into the marriage record and edit the place to get it standardized. Clearly this is NOT a feature. IT IS A BUG!
1 -
Upvoting.
I am seeing the same bug. it is a bug. I think I have seen it only on the web interface, not the phone app.
It occurs when I use the Source Linker page. I evaluate / edit / confirm the standard event date and place name. Then I go to the person record (profile) and the place name is not standardized. Refreshing does not help. Waiting days does not help. Editing the event data again on the profile does help.
0 -
Another reason for NOT automatically adding "United Kingdom" in the standardized place names:
On the fan chart, it would be nice to show the individual country names rather than "United Kingdom."
0 -
Frank
It's 'Brett'.
I rarely use the "Fan Chart" ...
But, I have; and, I know EXACTLY, what you mean ...
When, the "System", AUTOMATICALLY, "Changed", ALL the "Standards", that I had PREVCIOUS (and, "Diligently") applied, to INCLUDE the 'Suffix' of the "United Kingdom", I was absolutely APPALLED; and, used the "Fan Chart", to pinpoint ( and, "Fix") ALL the ATROCITIES, summarily COMMITTED, by the "System".
It took a while; but, was well worth the effort ...
The worst thing was, that there was NO indication, in the "ChangeLog", for the individuals/persons, that the "System", has done such; as, it was obviously, just an AUTOMATIC "Pass Through", for a supposed "Fix", to "Place Names" ... Ugh ...
Brett
0
