Places, Counties

[Wilfred Allan]

Re: Places, Counties

Let me really throw a fly into the ointment here. I input place names as they were at the time of the event.

For example:
1638 to 1685: Sandwich, Plymouth Colony (1638, first mention of a place called Sandwich)
1685 to 1691: Sandwich, Barnstable Co, Plymouth Colony (Barnstable County created 2 June 1685)
1691 to 1776: Sandwich, Barnstable Co, Mass. Bay (Plymouth Colony and Massachusetts Bay Colony merged into Province of Massachusetts Bay in 1691)
1776 to present: Sandwich, Barnstable Co, Mass. (Commonwealth of Massachusetts created in 1776 although some might argue that "officially" it was later)

I realize this procedure is complicated and requires some research about place names and the history of those places; nonetheless, I believe it is one small way of placing people in their historical context.

A specific example could have Mary Smith appear as:
born: 3 Mar 1683/84 Sandwich, Plymouth Colony
married: 15 Jan 1703/04 Sandwich, Barnstable Co, Mass. Bay
died: 2 Feb 1777 Sandwich, Barnstable Co, Mass.

I suspect most people reading this will find it "interesting" but not something they would want to adopt. I understand.

[Linda Thomas]

Re: Places, Counties

Let me really throw a fly into the ointment here. I input place names as they were at the time of the event.

I do the same thing. I think it helps make historical context clear.

[Michael Talibard]

Re: Places, Counties

I input place names as they were at the time of the event.

This implies that at any particular date, there was a generally accepted version of the place name. Often this is not so - certainly not in Europe.

[Wilfred Allan]

Re: Places, Counties

This implies that at any particular date, there was a generally accepted version of the place name. Often this is not so - certainly not in Europe.

Good point. The same is true on this side of the pond but probably to a lesser degree. When there is disagreement as to the place name and one is willing to take the time to explain the difference it would undoubtedly add more colour to the person's life story one is telling.

I realize though, if one, for example, is describing events in 19th and 20th century Alsace-Lorraine the explanation could be a very long one.

[Linda Thomas]

Re: Places, Counties

This implies that at any particular date, there was a generally accepted version of the place name. Often this is not so - certainly not in Europe.

That's a great point! Though it's a situation I've not run into personally. At least not yet. How do you handle it? Off the top of my head, I think I would enter the place as the ancestor would have referred to it if I could determine that with some notes about the fact that multiple names were in use.

[Bob Emnett]

Re: Places, Counties

A very interesting discussion to which I will add.

(1) As others have stated, I always spell out state names (for the same reasons).
(2) With independent cities, I started using "no county" some years ago. Many of our ancestors are in St. Louis for 150 or more years. St. Louis managed to become independent from St. Louis County in 1876 - which it probably regrets at this point, but that is a different discussion. So, I have these place entries: "St. Louis, St. Louis County, Missouri" (before 1876); and "St. Louis, [no county], Missouri" (after).
(3) I use the country designation only for location outside USA. I may ultimately regret that decision - especially if I get far enough back and collaborate with folks outside the states. Mainly, I confess it is probably just laziness - not wanting to add the extra characters to the extant data.
(4) I use "[xx]" - without the quotes - in place names where I am uncertain of the specifics. I do this almost exclusively in the U.S. So, if I have someone born in Ohio, but do not know the city and county, I will enter it as "[xx], [xx], Ohio" - again without the quotes. I do this because it gives me a visible reminder that there is more research to do on the location.

FWIW, I also use the [xx] for person names in many cases. For example, if I know the maiden name of a woman was Smith, but do not know her given name, I will enter the given name as "[xx]" - so, in reports, charts, etc., she shows up as "[xx] Smith"

[Michael Talibard]

Re: Places, Counties

How do you handle it?

Many of my ancestors were illiterate, so there's no such thing as how they preferred to record place names (or even their own names). That leaves you with the parish priest, whose spelling could be unpredictable. For example, I have lots of Talibards (or Talibarts) in St Careu, or St Careuc, or St Carreux, etc. Normally I have three documents for each individual (baptism, marriage and burial) and therefore quite possibly three spellings for the surname and three for the town. I decided early on that I didn't want to record a large family of siblings as having notionally different surnames and birthplaces - so I standardise. For the parishes, I use the modern spelling (Saint Carreuc, Gausson, etc.) because essentially, those names have not changed. However, the region these towns are in does change its name over time, and that I do reflect in my records.

[STEVE]

Re: Places, Counties

This implies that at any particular date, there was a generally accepted version of the place name. Often this is not so - certainly not in Europe.

I have always handled this situation by:

1a. Entering the information under the closest approximation for the original name I can find.

1b. Append a note giving the modern name: "20120527 name = <name>

2a. create a "Subsidiary Name" entry that gives the modern name.

2b. Memo: SEE ALSO: <original name>

NOTE: If the place name already exists in my database then <2b> is added to the entry. A single modern place name entry, not two.

STEVE

[Waystone]

Re: Places, Counties

Can't resist wading in, since I seem to do something no one else has mentioned - I put in my place names the other way around, from large to small, as such:

USA, Florida, Duval County, Jacksonville

This means that when I have multiple locations in the same city (like some other posters, I do use street addresses when I have them), they group nicely in the place listing:

USA, Florida, Duval County, Jacksonville
USA, Florida, Duval County, Jacksonville, 311 Billings Street
USA, Florida, Duval County, Jacksonville, 72 East Avenue

What I would absolutely love would be a refinement of places to allow one place (e.g., city) to have multiple sub-instances (e.g., the street addresses), like so:

USA
....Florida
.........Duval County
..............Jacksonville
...................311 Billings STreet
...................72 East Avenue
.........Hillsborough County
.........Orange County

... so that I could with one click bring up all instances of individuals in, say, Duval County regardless of city or address, or all the folks in Florida - but I imagine this would break all sorts of export-compliance rules that I'm not well-versed in.

[Keith Bage]

Re: Places, Counties

This means that when I have multiple locations in the same city (like some other posters, I do use street addresses when I have them), they group nicely in the place listing:

USA, Florida, Duval County, Jacksonville
USA, Florida, Duval County, Jacksonville, 311 Billings Street
USA, Florida, Duval County, Jacksonville, 72 East Avenue

You can sort places in reverse order which serves to group them together as you have. However, I must admit, I wish there were an additional option when using reverse sort to also transpose the place name back to front as you show it above.

In addition I would like the ability to select multiple places and show the people related to these. This would be great were the addresses recorded differ by street within the same town.