Place Names are being corrupted

Owen Ira terry1

Things are getting real frustrating lately. I see a number of records that are being changed from what is the standard spelling for a particularly place to the place name that was in use at the time the record was created. This is very confusing particularly for those who are not familiar with research.

For example: North and South Holland was created after around 1800. Before then it was just Holland. So I'm seeing places like Maassluis Zuid Holland Netherlands changed to Maassluis Holland Netherlands. The problem here is the records are not tied to Holland Netherlands. A person who is new to genealogy research will have to figure out where the records are stored. It makes no sense to make this change. I don't know who made this change but it's not correct and I hope that someone who actually does research will correct this problem.

The other day someone changed one of my lines in a town in Germany to Holy Roman Empire. Now what am I to do with that? Look for the town in Hungary? It doesn't look right and will require more research just to figure out where the records are stored.

I'm open to suggestions on this but this is really frustrating. I spent many hours even years putting my Dutch genealogy in Family search and now it's being changed. This is not helpful and its really causing division among family members. I know I'm on the side of Standard names tied to records currently. It's how you built the Catalogue and it needs to remain that way. Ira

Adrien Kintziger

@Owen Ira terry1

Owen, in any historical setting, timeframe-etc ,..names as well as toponyms change rapidly,trailing behind wars,new subdivisions and many more..;also, a great many people have no clue about the term Holland.Even in Belgium here,and in the Netherlands itself the terminology is controversial both in naming and the use of it.Basically it is something like say 'the corn belt' or the Bible belt.The latter of what you write,well, this is a very common problem,almost impossible to solve, anyone can add or change in your tree, as you can do elsewhere.Locking an article or tree to 'protected', like on Wiki is not a feature here.

Owen Ira terry1

Thanks Adrien, I know this is not a feature. However, it seems that over the past few years someone at Familysearch has been pushing this idea. I wrote a note in another place for example and the person said it should be tied to the time period. I'm simply pointing out the problem with this idea as you've mentioned. I'm seeing this more now where people think they are making a relevant change but are actually corrupting the place names. I have several distant relatives that are altering my genealogy in Familysearch. It's hard to convince them this is not correct.

My hope is to bring this problem to the attention of someone in Familysearch that would put out a statement to tie the records to the place name. Otherwise it will be chaos.

A person at Familysearch in the comment section sent me a link to Maassluis before around 1800 that recorded the place as Maassluis, Holland. He told me this was the correct way to record the place. I'm simply pointing out this is not correct and workers both missionaries and employees need to understand this problem and perhaps make a policy in this regard.

Thanks for answering me Adrien. Ira

Adrien Kintziger

@Owen Ira terry1

Owen, the whole event is a never ending story and has generated masses of cascading mailing rounds,here and on other fora as well;-to the level many got bored to death with it,or became protagonists themselves.I made the proposal once to make some instances lock-able-but the idea was not picked up in any stream.What i always suggest,is to print your trees early on,for yourself and possible future migration events.

I would not really choke up on Maassluis in your case,any Dutch will get the point you have ,but i have to agree, most foreigner will not.Next to Zelzate here(where i live on the Dutch border,) there is a long dyke called the Graafjansdijk. For mailpurposes they sub-divised the dyke into two stretches, one called Graafjansdijk a and another called Graafjansdijk b.So we have a street with two names embedded in Westdorpe.The people living there only use Graafjansdijk,and locally the old toponym was simply "Wijk"-the term on the old deeds.Today the use of Wijk has diffused away...but if i search for birthcertificates of a certain timeframe i need to use it.

Owen Ira terry1

Very good Adrien, I have my genealogy in Ancestry and so I'm good. I'm the guy that originally put it in Familysearch and so I'm passionate about these types of changes. I guess I'm more worried about the beginners that try to do a little bit of work but will have a hard time figuring it out. I've done Dutch research for over 50 years now so I'm no stranger to the Dutch records. Thanks for your help and insight. Ira

GilbertStaepels1

If you have concern about the the information on places in FamilySearch, you could always make suggestions for a new place or correct the information about a place. The following help article in the FamilySearch help center will guide you through the process.

https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/how-do-i-request-a-new-place-in-the-database-of-standardized-places

Succes.

Owen Ira terry1

Thanks Gilbert, the place names in Zuid Holland have good established names already that are tied to where the records are located. What I'm concerned about is the corruption of these well established place names. They are correct for the time period of over 200 years ago, but are not helpful in finding where the records are found in Familysearch. A new researcher would have to do additional work to figure out where the records are cataloged. I don't believe that is a good idea. Example Maassluis, Holland should be Maassluis Zuid Holland.