Why isn't there ABODE as well as Birthplace

Question

Hi Folks, the more I learn, the more questions I have. When a person is added etc, we fill in the Birthplace, which obviously (mostly) is not the same as ABODE. When researching, I often get problems sorting and looking into details just to confirm that it's the same person etc as folk usually (in the 17-1800s either baptised or birthed in a larger town/Church etc. So, why is there not a second field for Birth/Abode? I understand that folk move around so it cannot be a standalone datafield.

But sometimes the parents abode for a childs birth is important to be able to trace the families movement. Sure I can read the profile info, but not all profiles have the place of abode included, frustrating.

Answer 1

I think the birth place is generally very close to the 'abode'... 

I think another field for 'abode at birth' could be interesting and useful, but - I hate to be the bearer of bad news - I don't think it's going to happen. This is for a similar reason to why most things (such as the idea for a 'baptism' field) don't happen. Some people want to keep the site as simple as possible and keep a lot of information in the bios.     

You may want to make a formal proposal.  Good luck!  (You have my vote already.)

Comments

Thanks Ian. Oh, I didn't think of a Baptism field! Keeping it simple is good, but there is a significant issue especially in the 1700-1800's when folk Baptised and Birthed not at the abode. Actually while often they are "close" in distance, it can make the difference in ID'ing a family.  This can be a real problem sorting out people of the same name/s. The reason for my headsup. I am frequently dealing with folk the same name living within a few miles of each other. When reviewing data, the Bio's simply don't cut it as its source and PManager dependant.

---

Yes, I understand.  But how can you confirm someone's 'abode' when they were born? (I guess by knowing where their parents were living..?)

---

Its often on the Baptism Transcript or Census data.

---

Yes, sometimes.

---

Ian, I've started playing with Events template first couple weeks of Hacktoberfest, but got swamped and dropped it before I got too far. Need to re-up with the new structure/npm stuff, but will try to do that sometime in the next week or two and then open an issue branch and do a pull request with the basics, if you were interested?

---

Jon:  Yes, I'm interested. 

Answer 2

I'm wondering why you don't think the abode at birth isn't   should be put in the birth place section. (I've looked at your recent edits re a person baptised in Chester le Street,   abode Chatershaugh) Google tells me that  Chatershaugh was a distinct location within the parish of Chester le Street. https://sites.google.com/site/fatfieldsite/chatershaugh Why not put it in the birth field?  In most cases, it's probably only in recent times that a mother's place of abode often  differs from  the place she gave birth.

Lots of parishes covered large areas or comprised several distinct hamlets. I've just recorded that a person was born in Bockhampton, Stinsford Dorset; Lower and Upper  Bockhampton are hamlets within the parish of  Stinsford.She was baptised in the parish church (no abode given) but later she is recorded on censuses as being born in Bockhampton.

 Here's another, more famous native. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Hardy-1197.  In the Stinsford register,  his parent's abode at baptism  was recorded as Upper Bockhampton and that's what is written in the location field. 

If I were  categorising, it would be a different matter. English profiles aren't categorised down to hamlets within parishes. Nor do we add the building so thougb a burial register tells me my gg grandmother's abode at death was Rugby workhouse. I've written Rugby in the death location. I've added the detail about the workhouse to the bio.

Comments

Hi Helen, I agree with you, except this seems to be a frequent question so it indicates there is some inconsistency re this issue. I am perfectly OK with adding the stated "abode" as given in a Baptism transcript or Census but don't want to ruffle feathers of Admins.

I checked, there is no definitive rule for which Birth, Death etc "location". But, the field is Birth Location, not Abode. Two different things.

I am a newbie and am tempted to do as you suggest, but not everyone does the same as you suggest, so there again is the inconsistency. Problem is, there are several opinions on the matter, just search this forum, hence my question. And yes it matters, I have folk of the same names living in villages all around Chesterlespring, but not IN CLS. BTW, Chartershaugh or Fatfield do not come up in the autosuggest, so its "free text" , I guess thats Ok, but from a database background, it makes me shudder.

---

The autosuggest comes from Family Search. It's not required that we use it. It is often incorrect; certainly for historical English place-names.  I understand that is even more  true for some parts of mainland Europe.I usually turn itoff.  See https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Location_Fields#Location_names_that_changed_over_time

---

This is the same debate that has been on here before, is the Birth place the Hospital or the place the family resided at the time, which could be some distance apart.

---

I didn't see it that way as I'd noticed what Greg was working on.

I don't do profiles for living profiles  If I were making a profile for my children,   their places of birth would not be the place where I lived at the time. Their place of birth was the location of the hospitals. That is what's on their birth certs and what they use when filling in  forms and is on their passports.

In England,  in  the case of a birth before birth certs exisited (1837) and probably  for a centuy after, most births were at home. A parental  abode written in a baptism register (which was part of the printed reg from 1813 but is often written  in earlier registers) is likely to be the place of birth unless it was a late baptism. There are a few exceptions such as children of very wealthy people. These might be  baptised at the 'family seat' but born elsewhere. At the other end of the spectrum, those born and baptised in  prison, workhouse and 19th C lying in hospitals weren't born at home. As with 20th C births, you would use the place of birth.

  In a large parish where the register  includes the parental hamlet or district, thats the likely place of birth. It's useful information and helps to distinguish between families of the same surname.

---

Hi, I didn't man to open a hornets nest. But I also see this from a database perspective. If there is data inconsistency or confusion it usually means a new field is required. This is a recurring issue so it seems there is an issue to be addressed.

I am OK with adding the abode when it is given rather than the "Place of baptism" which is usually the case for MANY before real registration came into effect. I think the issue ia largely an issue for 1700/1800, but it is there. I simply don't see a good reason to let the user decide when it is a valuable data point, its why it is usually given in a transcript or census for that precise reason.

So - I will go put my abodes in:)  But I still say it's a fundamental inconsistency. You do it, I will do it, some do, some don't.

Maybe this can be simply addressed in the Guidelines for location as a recommendation, rather than a new field? Can that be maybe put forward as something for the WT Admin's to consider? Thank for all the input.

---

In the Place of Birth field, I put in what shows up on most of the records. In the bio, it is more specific if the info is available. I do this because the search engines use this field and it is most likely the person doing the searching is also looking for this place. So if multiple census records show X as the birth place and Y for the Baptism, then X goes in the Place. If I have the record of birth, I use the place shown in the document. In English records I still get hung up on names that are both a town/village and Parish. I don't think you can develop a rule that fits all cases.

Answer 3

I've wondered on this as well.  People do move, especially young families, and by the next data source (Census) could be in a different state.  Hard to track, especially for common surnames.

When the birth location is different than the abode it looks like another move. But I suspect many times the 'hospital' or 'birthplace' is just somewhere besides home.

In my case I was born at a hospital just over the county line.  So my birth record is in another county, but I never 'lived' there.