Why are US Territories Missing?

Eric.Scott

Why have the US Territories been removed from the list of standardized places?

I went to https://www.familysearch.org/research/places/?searchTypeaheadInputText=&pagenum=1&pagesize=20 because someone said they could no longer find place names for Utah Territory. I looked for Taylor, Bingham, Idaho Territory and found that it has disappeared as well, and (apparently) was combined with Taylor, Bingham, Idaho. That was discouraging because I spent several hours figuring out when the jurisdictions changed (it was first populated about 1885 so was "Taylor, Bingham, Idaho Territory" from 1885 to 1890; "Taylor, Bingham, Idaho" from 1890 to 1911; then "Taylor, Bonneville, Idaho" from 1911 to present), submitted the suggested place, and waited a long time for it to be added.

I was really excited to go to my ancestors and update the locations for their life events. I don't understand. Is it not important to be able to specify the correct jurisdiction for a specific event?

For instance, my grandfather [KWZM-7VM] was born in Taylor, Bingham, Idaho, United States in 1891, but his cousin, Ellen Wadsworth [KWBB-X4R] was born and died in Taylor, Bingham, Idaho Territory, United States in 1887. I can no longer select the correct location for her as "Taylor, Bingham, Idaho Territory, United States" has been removed from the list of standardized places.

I can however choose the correct location for my mother's [KWZS-HRL] birth in "Taylor, Bonneville, Idaho, United States" in 1924.

Paul W

@Eric.Scott

There is a FamilySearch article that explains the reasoning, but I can't find it right now.

Basically, it appears having both "Territory" and "United States" as alternative, standard place names was causing users too much confusion. In which case, I would expect there to be similar (historically inaccurate) changes in the near future. For example, possibly just having "England, United Kingdom" for all time periods, when it should (as now) just be applied from 1801 onwards.

After "indoctrinating" users for years as to the importance of selecting the correct standard according to type of record and/or time period, this is a complete reversal of stance by FamilySearch.

As I have commented elsewhere, I have spent a lot of time adjusting standard place names to make them more appropriate to the event in question - have I been completely wasting my time?

Eric.Scott

@Paul W I found the knowledge article (KA):

https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/when-did-familysearch-combine-us-states-and-their-historic-territories-in-familysearch-places

I am flabbergasted! Are they going to do the same thing to counties next? What about towns?

At least we can still add the correct information into the field and then select the pseudo-standardized place. 🙄