Great Bedwyn indexing issues in Census

TroyPhillips5

I hope that this correct place to discuss issues with indexing British records?

I understand that the England and Wales Census records cannot be updated as they are externally provided, but wondering if that includes errors mapping from ‘Event Place (Original)’ to ‘Event Place’ (or whether issues can be fed back to the index provider)?

I have been working on some profiles in Great Bedwyn and Little Bedwyn which are both on the very far east of Wiltshire so are typically in the registration district of Hungerford, Berkshire.

Some examples:

Census 1911 (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:X7LC-818?cid=fs_copy )

• Event Place (Original)Great Bedwyn, Great Bedwyn, Berkshire, England
• Event PlaceBerkshire, England, United Kingdom

Census 1891 (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:719G-DMM?treeref=KCCM-F9B&cid=fs_copy )

• Event Place (Original)Great Bedwin, Berkshire, England
• Event PlaceBerkshire, England, United Kingdom

Census 1881 (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q27H-Q62X?treeref=KCCM-F9B&cid=fs_copy )

• Event Place (Original)Great Bedwin (Wilts), Berkshire, England
• Event PlaceGreat Bedwin (Wilts), Berkshire, England

Census 1871 (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VFXV-KGS?cid=fs_copy )

• Event Place (Original)Bedwyn, Great, Great Bedwyn, Berkshire, England
• Event PlaceGreat and Little Preston, Yorkshire, England, United Kingdom

Census 1861 (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M789-5BG?cid=fs_copy )

• Event Place (Original)Great Bedwyn, Berkshire, England
• Residence NoteChurch Street
• Event PlaceBerkshire, England, United Kingdom

Census 1851 (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:SGV1-K16?cid=fs_copy )

• Residence Note: Church St (same as above)
• Event PlaceHam, Berkshire, England

Áine Ní Donnghaile

@N Tychonievich This appears to be a placename standardization issue, please.

@TroyPhillips5 N Tychonievich has taken the lead on issues of this type.

Paul W

Apart from these records being provided to FamilySearch courtesy of Find My Past, there appear to be a slightly different problem attached to some of the examples you illustrate.

The common situation (which FamilySearch can address) occurs when the (perfectly acceptable) Event Place (Original) data has been "corrupted" by the auto-standardization exercise. However, in the examples you provide the situation is not so straightforward, especially in relation to the "correct" county: Berkshire or Wiltshire? I have a number of records for BMDs of my relatives - especially some whose events were registered in the registration districts of Stockton or Darlington in County Durham - where many of these events actually took place in north Yorkshire parishes, which used to lie within those (Durham) jurisdictions.

Whilst away from FamilySearch (dragged shopping!), I see that @Áine Ní Donnghaile   has marked this for the attention of @N Tychonievich, who is very helpful in passing auto-standardization issues to the correct FS team. However, it might be that Find My Past would need to be involved with some cases. In the case of Find A Grave records, that website always appear to standardize differently to FamilySearch: preferring present the cemetery location in the manner in which it is known today, rather than at the time of the burial. So, when their records are passed across to FamilySearch I always have to amend the place names.

In short, hopefully the FamilySearch team that deals with these / similar issues will be able to address your examples, too, but a Find My Past update could possibly negate the changes and put some instances back to how they currently stand!

Paul W

I just noticed that the original format / spelling of these "Great Bedwyn" references (Bedwin for Bedwyn, etc.) probably means the original indexing (or possibly even the original documents) have probably caused more problems here than those created by auto-standardization. However, I would still be hopeful that all your examples might be corrected.

TroyPhillips5

Based on https://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/place/11526/names , it seems that Bedwyn is both the ancient and current preferred spelling, but Bedwin is known alternate.

Also my reading of https://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit/10397236#tab02 , is that Great Bedwyn (and Little Bedwyn) has always physically been in Wiltshire but was just included in registration district of Hungerford (which is in Berkshire ! )

Maile L

I have report the placename error. There is a backlog so we do not when it will be fixed. Thanks for your report.