Sourcer App and Victorian update

Question

I have just tried out Rob Pavey's update to his wonderful Sourcer app.

(I tried to find the original G2G post about the update without luck).

The update to the app seems to work VERY WELL.

Unfortunately, I have a problem with it, one that aggravates me, as I know how hard it is for those of us geographically challenged.  

An example to a Victorian Source from the App:

* "Victoria Registry of Births, Deaths & Marriages", Victoria Births Index; Registration number: 17819 / 1882, [https://www.bdm.vic.gov.au/research-and-family-history/search-your-family-history BDM Victoria] (accessed 17 May 2024), Albert Henry MIDDLETON; Year: 1882; Place: MTDU; Father: William Henry; Mother: Louisa Harding; Mother's LNAB: VAGG.

Just imagine you did not know which 'Victoria' in the world this is.  The only clue in the .au in the url. 

I think it should be:

 "Victoria (Australia) Registry of Births, Deaths & Marriages", Victoria Births Index; Registration number: 17819 / 1882, [https://www.bdm.vic.gov.au/research-and-family-history/search-your-family-history BDM Victoria] (accessed 17 May 2024), Albert Henry MIDDLETON; Year: 1882; Place: MTDU; Father: William Henry; Mother: Louisa Harding; Mother's LNAB: VAGG.

Why make it hard for people when I think the addition of one word would clarify exactly where the source came from. 

Otherwise I absolutely love the effort Rob puts in to the app and his willingness to put the time in it to update, especially when people like myself comes and criticise things.  At least I have a constructive solution.

Comments

I'm curious to see what others say. The Australia Project page on Victoria sources has examples and none of the BDM one include the work Australia.

I have no great knowledge of Australia so I defer to what Australians say. 

Personally I would not go with:

"Victoria (Australia) Registry of Births, Deaths & Marriages"

unless that is what the source collection/repository is named. But perhaps Australia could be inserted somewhere else.

---

I would think Victoria, Australia would be in the birth/death/marriage location field and in the biography, so doesn't need to be in the citation for the source as well. The citation is for the purpose of identifying the source of the information and gives a link to the registry for the reader to find the record, should they choose. It should already be documented that the BDM event occurred in Victoria, Australia?

---

I'm with Margaret on this.
The website refers to itself as "The Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages Victoria" without the word "Australia", which should be in the location field unless a pre-federation event is what was recorded whereby it is the prerogative of the pm to choose to use the colony name without the word Australia.
(It's not that difficult to add a rider to explain that before 1 January 1901 Victoria was still a Colony which was a part of the land that had become known as Australia (since 1817), although not officially a separate nation until 1901.)

---

For Rob's benefit, both Melanie and I are Australian!  

Thanks for all your great work including Australia in Sourcer, Rob!

Answer 1

Given the number of Victoria(s) in the world, Victoria, Australia would add clarity.
  A distinction between the Colony/State status in 1901 might be a problem but would be historically accurate, and consistent with Wikitrees approach to the British Colonial America/United States status that upsets data doctors,

Comments

The repository of the records does not use "Australia", so to insert it would be wrong.