Do you want to fix any problems with locations in the location dropdowns?

Question

There are some problems with locations in the dropdowns that we have on new person and edit pages.  Some of them are just a bit wrong.  The data for these dropdowns currently comes from FamilySearch, and to fix them, the advice is to go to FamilySearch and try to get them fixed there.  See this G2G post, for one example: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1587297/how-get-drop-down-placename-menu-massachusetts-colony-fixed?show=1587297#q1587297 .

As a short-term fix for this, I'm adding something to the WikiTree Browser Extension to fix these problems in the dropdowns. If anyone has any other particular problems that they would like to fix without having to go to FamilySearch to do that, let me know here, and I'll try to add them to this.

Thanks.

Comments

Sorry, Joe. Please see my edit above.

---

Florian, yes, but if they do not know what they are doing, should they be publishing guesswork on the internet for all to see ( and copy ) ? If the lack of a drop down menu means they have to do a tiny bit of research first, isn’t that a good thing for a genealogy site ? The code does require sources for locations, and a drop down menu is not a source.

---

Ian, yes, see: 

• It is not a requirement to add Great Britain or United Kingdom after England in their respective time periods.

You can remove UK before 1921 to improve the drop down menu, without upsetting the England Project as UK is not required by them.

---

Joe: Yes, it's possible to remove that. I could make that an option. Personally, I disagree with that policy, but...

---

I'm with Joe regards the use of UK.  I have yet to find that written in any form in any actual document I have seen* -- and I have seen Salop in documents.

* And it appears nowhere on an official death certificate purchased very recently from the GRO. 
The seeming "insistence" to use UK or United Kingdom appears to come from American transcribers at ancestry and FamilySearch.

---

Hi Melanie.  I disagree with that policy because the UK did not come into being in 1921. It was 1801.  The year 1921 saw a slight change in the name, but that was not the start of the UK.  The UK has been a political and geographical entity since 1801.

---

Political entity or not - the wording is not found in documents.

---

True, many just contain the county or parish which they are in. However since we are creating information in a world wide family tree we need to add the missing information. Back in the day the scribe had no forethought to who would be looking at the information 2-300 years in the future.

---

Dave, I really don't think "Sunderland, County Durham, England" is likely to be confused with somewhere in Australia (for example).  If I were to simply use "Sunderland" on its own, maybe, depending on how many other places have that same name.  "County Durham"?  Are there any in the USA?  Canada?  "County Durham, England" pretty much says it.  In my opinion, there's no need to add anything after.
Now if I were to use "Salop" as I have seen on census documents, that could be problematic.

---

The same is true about not using Southampton as the county for Hampshire even though it appears in the documents. Using Southampton as the county in England when the county has a place with that name is too confusing.

Answer 1

Would you please add ”Steyning, Stogursey, Somerset, England” to the list ? I’ve had to correct a few profiles where Steyning, Sussex has been chosen in error, presumably because it was the only choice.

Comments

Happy to. 

---

Thanks!

Answer 2

I'd like to see the following added:

Australian Colonies and territories from colonial times. e.g. Colony of Victoria, Swan River Colony, Van Diemen's Land, Colony of New South Wales &c.

Also note that there are scores of "Tasmanian" place names that were common in the 1850s missing from the system. Peppermint Bay is an example.

Comments

Note that use of the "Colony" names is completely at the discretion of the Profile Manager, so nobody should be editing profiles just to change location fields that are accepted by the Project as correct.

---

I'm not sure if I've been clear.  I'm just trying to correct what is actually there right now, not add new things.  If you can tell me what can/could be replaced by what, maybe I can do something. Controversial things can be added as options.

---

Ian, I'm not sure whether this will help, because of the number of alternatives allowed, but the acceptable formats Melanie mentioned (and the stipulation that the choice is up to the profile manager) are at this link.

---

I'm trying (though maybe failing) not to touch controversial things.

---

I'll look into this and see what I can do.

Answer 3

Do you also want names not presently in the drop-down lists?  I've come across a few in the past, but cannot (of course) remember them now.  

If that's what you want, I'll send a trickle as they occur.  (Seems like you might want to establish a repository space page. But if you do, I'll forget where it is, so forget that.)

"Aunt Peggy"

Comments

Hi Peggy.  No. I do have a plan to make a good location database, but for the moment, I just want to correct things that are given by the location drop-downs that we have.

---

Hi Ian,

I would be VERY interested in your "plan to make a good location database". If you would like a sounding board / collaborator, let me know.

Answer 4

Change the date range for Massachusetts Bay Colony from 1628-1776 to 1628-1691 and add Province of Massachusetts Bay (1691-1776).

Comments

I think I've already done that (if that's what was asked for in the post I linked to above).  (It's not live yet, because 'fix the Massachusetts problem' isn't really a feature.)

Answer 5

Wouldn't it be easier to just make our own database with  at least correct country names.

The FamilySearch API was written to store records by country sections, that is why you get so many old names with the modern country added.

Comments

Yes and no.  I mean... Yes, our own database would be better, but... It's not an easy thing to do.

Answer 6

The Germany Project would like to have the county names like here and below (repeating myself to have a thread starting point for other Germany suggestions and opinions) ... where one could maybe skip the automatic translation to German, if one wants.

Comments

OK. Thanks, Florian. 

---

Considering today's Hesse: There was the Großherzogtum Hessen from 1806 to 1918, the Kurfürstentum Hessen from 1803 to 1866, the Herzogtum Nassau from 1806 to 1866 and the Freie Stadt Frankfurt from 1815 to 1866 From 1866 the Kurfürstentum, Frankfurt and Nassau were annexed by Prussia and 1868 as Provinz Hessen-Nassau incorporated into Prussia. They stayed there until 1945. (Well Prussia as state was abolished only in 1947, but effectively ceased to exist after the end of WWII in Germany).

---

Hesse is good example of the confusion. I am still learning about Kurfürstentum Hessen which is translated in English as the Electorate of Hesse. I thought it was part of the Holy Roman Empire. But no - I was wrong. As you say it survived until 1866.

Answer 7

Hi Ian,

For location in British Columbia, Canada, I'd like it if the regional district names were dropped. No one actually uses these in the place name, including government sources. Unfortunately FamilySearch and Find a Grave both use these.

If you need further information on this, let me know.

Comments

Thanks, please send me more information.

---

I have sent you a message on discord.

Answer 8

I have come across

Brisbane City in Queensland, Australia.

I have lived in Brisbane most of my life and NEVER referred to it as Brisbane City Just Brisbane.

Comments

Thanks. I'll fix that.

Answer 9

District of Columbia Impound Lot, Washington, District of Columbia, United States. I keep getting that when I'm trying to enter simple "District of Columbia, United States".

I don't know if this one's something you're able to fix through this -- when I'm typing Indiana and don't let go of the shift fast enough (INdiana), the place picker gives me places named Diana (e.g. Diana, Madagascar) rather than offering "Indiana, United States" as an option.

Comments

The first one sounds like a problem I have.  I'm looking for my hometown, but it always puts a church to the top of the list. I'll think about this.

The second one is also a challenge... I'm not sure what to do about that.

Answer 10

Could you change all County Durham, England locations to use County Durham, and not simply Durham? Note that the city of Durham would be Durham, County Durham, England

Comments

OK. Thanks.

Answer 11

Any  more?

Comments

It has taken me several years to figure out the problem.

Its a FS mistake, there are hundreds of records indexed under Home Township, Algoma, Ontario, that location is north of Lake Superior. It was not established until 1858.

They should be in the Home District, created in 1788 in the western reaches of the Montreal District and detached in 1791 to create the new colony of Upper Canada. It was abolished with the adoption of the county system in 1849.

I don't know what happens if Home District is entered as location on WT and if it shows up on the drop down list because I never use it.

It would nice to have some sort of warning that Home Township is not the same place as the Home District.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_District

---

Sorry for replying very late, but... I don't really understand what you want me to do here.  I've looked at the dropdown, and it gives "Home Township, Algoma, Ontario, Canada (1867 - )".  "Home District" gives no results.  There's a result for "Home": "Home, Canada West (1841 - 1849)".  What exactly is the problem that I could fix?

---

Thanks for asking Ian, 

In 1788 the government of the Province of Quebec and its successors (Upper Canada, Province of Canada and Ontario) began creating districts and counties to serve administrative needs at the local level.

These are the first districts created in 1788. 

In 1792 the districts were renamed and some counties were created 

https://www.archives.gov.on.ca/en/maps/ontario-districts.aspx

This is what Family Search has done with marriage records for the Home District, they are all categorised as Home Township, Algoma, Canada West. 

You are correct Family Search calls the Home District 'Home". but that isn't what it was called, if you look at the tag/title/label of the records at the bottom of the page it says Home District, not just Home. Plus the Home District existed for much longer than the (1841 - 1849) given by FS.

FS has done the same for all 12 of the Ontario/ Upper Canada Districts between 1801 and 1858, removed the District from the name and left only the names, which is confusing because some of the District names are the same as towns, places etc within the district. This creates the same type of problem as counties that have the same name as towns or States and the word County is left off the description. 

All the records for the various districts are in books titled as an example Newcastle District Marriage Register not Newcastle Marriage Register

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-996W-JH1D?wc=Q8XV-2JC%3A1589662583%2C1589662582&cc=2569151

The Home District appears to be the only one where the location for almost all the records is wrong. Whatever you can do to make other WikiTreers aware of this issue would be great!

If you want to see these screenshots in more detail they are the newest pictures in my miscellaneous images Free Space https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Miscellaneous_images

---

Thanks.  I'll think about this and see what I can do.

---

Ian, Sorry I forgot there is another one, marriages in Wellington County, Ontario, listed on FS as taking place in the town of Wellington, Prince Edward County.

I'll look for an example,

---

Looking at the maps, an example of a correct location would be something like "York, Home District, Upper Canada"?

If I were to add a short warning, what would be the best wording?

Edit: Added 'an example of' for clarification.

---

I'm not sure, the Home District included more than York.

It included the current  counties of York, Ontario, Durham, Peel, Simcoe, Wentworth, Halton and Brant. In March 1816, the Counties of Halton, Wentworth and Brant were separated out of Home District to become the Gore District. In January 1843 the County of Simcoe became the Simcoe District. There were about 45 places where marriages happened and were recorded in the Home District Register.

I'll look at some other records mostly birth for the area and see what areas they use.

Answer 12

Hello Ian,

Below is an example of a village called Wallenhorst in Germany. I am currently adding many profiles to that place

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Wallenhorst%2C_Niedersachsen

Is this something that could be added? ;)

Thanks

Sven

Comments

I'll see what I can do.

---

I've added this.

Answer 13

Here's one for you:

Ferintosh, Nairn, Scotland is not in the list in any time period.

There is Ferintosh, Ross and Cromarty, Scotland, United Kingdom, a Ferintosh Parish Church in modern day Cononbridge and a couple of other places.

But until 1892, Ferintosh was an exclave of Nairn. I can't give you an exact start date. Certainly since 1476.

Someone with a better grip on Scottish history than I have would be able to tell you when and whether it's Great Britain or United Kingdom or none of the above. I think it's something like:

• Ferintosh, Nairn, Scotland (–1707)
• Ferintosh, Nairn, Scotland, Great Britain (1707–1800)
• Ferintosh, Nairn, Scotland, United Kingdom (1901–1891)
• Ferintosh, Ross and Cromarty, Scotland, United Kingdom (1892– ) [yes, this is not the same date and the rest of the counties realignment in 1890]

There are a bunch of villages in Ferintosh including: Alcag, Mulchaich, Urquhart, Dunvornie, Easter Kinkell, Smithfield and Logie Wester. Spellings vary. There's another Kinkell, but I don't know if it's plain or Wester or what. The drop down list doesn't include anything at this level, but the parish records do.

There is also a Ferintosh parish church in Conon Bridge in the dropdown list. I'm not sure what the point of having a specific church in the location list is, but it would be: Ferintosh Parish Church, Conon Bridge, Ross and Cromarty, Scotland, United Kingdom (1906–)

Comments

OK. Thanks. I'll look into it.

---

I've added this.

Answer 14

The location suggestion for Workeim, Heilsberg, East Prussia has a typo, it suggests Workheim with an "h".  I've searched to verify, and there isn't a Workheim with an "h" in Heilsberg only Workeim.  I submitted a request to FamilySearch and it was also suggested I add it here as well.  Thanks!

Comments

Thanks. I can probably fix that in WBE.

---

Thank you!

---

This seems to have been fixed(?)

---

Yes, FamilySearch notified me they corrected it.  So I guess it's been updated on WT?  Haven't checked to verify.

Answer 15

Hi Ian,

1 place comes to mind,

Appleton, Cheshire, England, United Kingdom

thanks,

Allan

Comments

Thanks, Allan.  It seems that Appleton was in Runcorn until 1974 and then Warrington after that?  This page says it was also part of Great Budworth (maybe until 1866?): https://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/CHS/Appleton .
Can you help me with this?

---

Hi Ian,

You are correct, my 3-x-great grandfather [[Entwistle-642|James Entwistle (1821-1845)]] was born in Appleton and was married at the parish church at Great Budworth in 1843.

Technically 'Appleton' was then actually 'Hull and Appleton'

Appleton then became part of the registration district of Runcorn and more recently of Warrington.

I see that 'Stockton Heath, Cheshire, England, United Kingdom' exists in the drop down menu, as does 

'Stretton, Cheshire, England, United Kingdom'

Appleton is located between those two places.

thanks, Allan

---

And when do you think Hull and Appleton split up?

---

the word on the streets is that it was 1764.

there was an enclosure act in 1765 which in effect named the whole place 'Appleton', part of the parish of Great Budworth, which was relatively a very large parish.

source :-

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/changes/chron-tables/private/14

c. 45    Appleton and Lymm (Cheshire) inclosure.

'Hull' no longer existed as a separate entity

---

OK. Thanks.

---

I've added Appleton locations.