tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post4077877754740504998..comments2024-03-21T19:08:05.737-07:00Comments on Genealogy's Star: What about using standard place names for genealogy?James Tannerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-79886263498357908602020-01-06T15:37:11.384-07:002020-01-06T15:37:11.384-07:00When listening to a webinar on AniMap, Geoff Rassm... When listening to a webinar on AniMap, Geoff Rassmussen used as an example the town of Congamond. It has moved from Massachusetts to Connecticut; it's in a little indentation into Connecticut towards the western end.<br /> So iif looking for records on that town, it does change states quickly.Howland Davisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-87611503726358924832020-01-04T04:07:08.601-07:002020-01-04T04:07:08.601-07:00Absolutely true. The specific issue of "What ...Absolutely true. The specific issue of "What does Crewe mean?" actually runs across sources - birthplaces in censuses, residences in parish registers, etc. Yes, if it's part of the document header, then the type of record will probably tell you which Crewe is being referred to. As you say, a whole raft of things to consider, not just place names.Adrian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17121476733954006501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-75089947333259310092020-01-03T14:13:03.182-07:002020-01-03T14:13:03.182-07:00You did not specify if the record was a parish reg...You did not specify if the record was a parish register or civil registration record or some other type of record and where you found the record. All of those things are just as important or more important than the location with English records. James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-54834426710086817922020-01-03T11:11:36.539-07:002020-01-03T11:11:36.539-07:00If I have a historical record for 1850 labelled Cr...If I have a historical record for 1850 labelled Crewe, Cheshire, England, it's actually not at all clear whether that refers to the township / civil parish of Crewe in Barthomley parish (now known as Crewe Green) or the adjacent physical settlement of the railway town of Crewe in the parish of Coppenhall. Best to record what you do know and worry about interpretation in a separate "layer" later. Some temporal shifts are not clear.Adrian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17121476733954006501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-77434094557128980522020-01-03T08:52:17.466-07:002020-01-03T08:52:17.466-07:00Added note: especially if the records I am looking...Added note: especially if the records I am looking for are in EnglandJames Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-14523427888082336822020-01-03T08:51:25.004-07:002020-01-03T08:51:25.004-07:00That idea works as long as there is some relations...That idea works as long as there is some relationship between the "modern" place name and the historic location. For example, I may know that Rhode Island was a British Colony but if I put it in the United States in the 1600s I am unlikely to have a computer search engine help me much with that designation. <br />James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-64246810858403479732020-01-02T14:38:58.467-07:002020-01-02T14:38:58.467-07:00"The current designation for the British Colo..."The current designation for the British Colonies in America from FamilySearch.org is "British Colonial America." Very few people really like this designation because of the simple fact that no such designation existed during the colonial era. Have you got a better term?"<br />Yes, I dislike BCA for that very reason. I don't have any pre-1776 USA events to worry about. However, I do have pre-1901 Australian events - 1901 was when the six colonies were federated to form the Commonwealth of Australia. What I do there is to leave the colony name as the *last* element of the name, omitting "Australia". The colony is the highest level jurisdiction, after all, below the British Colonial Office.<br />That seems to work well enough although Geocoding events in the colony of Victoria is fun because it sometimes picks up a Victoria in British Columbia. <br /><br />So therefore I'd terminate the 13 colony names with the colony names - "Massachusetts Bay" etc. <br /><br />I think we need to be wary of trying to bundle a Wikipedia entry into a single place-name. We need to read the article to see where records *might* be but after I've found them, I tend to like place-names that say "We're not in Kansas any more" - hence I used "Grand Duchy of Finland" to refer to pre-1917 Finland, under the control of Russia (or Sweden prior to that). Even though I suspect Finnish genealogists will use Finland throughout...<br />Adrian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17121476733954006501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-20949164684217342012020-01-01T21:01:01.420-07:002020-01-01T21:01:01.420-07:00I can understand why in the days of paper genealog...I can understand why in the days of paper genealogy we needed to enter the place name as it was at the time of event, but it's been pointless to do it that way ever since computers made it possible to use modern place names. <br /><br />Even in the old days, the excuse that as researchers we'd need to know where the records are now was pretty flimsy. If I know where the place is in the modern world, I can easily find out where the records would be -- and they're not going to be all in one place anyway. <br /><br />We're struggling needlessly with this question because not enough people are willing to re-examine the problem from the ground up. Justin Durandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04446901098037742362noreply@blogger.com