Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Entering place names, deja-vu all over again
89 views
Skip to first unread message
singhals
Aug 31, 2012, 9:25:26 AM8/31/12
to gen...@rootsweb.com
A few weeks ago (or was it months?) we had another round of
"the best way to enter place names".
I came down firmly against including the parish name. This
week that viewpoint hardened even more, thanks to a
relative-by-marriage who died about a year ago.
Aunt Ett (NOT her real name) shared data on her Swedish line
with me, so someone else would have it. The Swedish data
was found for her by a professional researcher who charged
her dearly about 15-20 years ago. He did NOT provide her
copies (I'm guessing microfilm copiers weren't prolific yet
or maybe she told him she didn't need official copies and he
didn't want to make plain ones; dunno), just the prose
reports. So, when I entered it into a genie program for her,
I typed what was there. What else could I do?
Now that a lot of Swedish records are on-line, I've been
trying to confirm what he gave her. First off, let me say,
yeah, he earned his money. And, no, so far he doesn't seem
to have made anything up, precisely. He does seem to have
reported things as "fact" when I would have labelled them
"alleged facts" if I'd been charging for 'em, but that could
be /my/ problem rather than /a/ problem.
Anyway, in confirming the material at hand, I'm discovering
that in some instances, he reported places as Parish, State;
in some it was district, state; in some it was parish,
district. I'm sure HE knew where they were, but after a
week of intense digging, /I'm/ still not sure. I'll put
money on the notion that Aunt Ett didn't know either!
The research isn't made easier by the local guvvmint's
geographic changes in 1952 (about half-a-century after the
last contact over there died), or by the lack of
cross-references in catalogues to those pre- and post-
locales. I can only be grateful I'm not looking in the
early 1700s and dealing with that episode of Swedish
independence vis-a-vis calendars!
It wouldn't have /killed/ that researcher to have added
Parish to the parish name. Nor so I see that it would have
diminished his machismo any to have hand-added the flaming
diacriticals! (eye-roll)
Cheryl
[Yeah, it would have helped if I'd've kept the documents
Aunt Ett had, but like a good little thing, I returned them
to her.
"the best way to enter place names".
I came down firmly against including the parish name. This
week that viewpoint hardened even more, thanks to a
relative-by-marriage who died about a year ago.
Aunt Ett (NOT her real name) shared data on her Swedish line
with me, so someone else would have it. The Swedish data
was found for her by a professional researcher who charged
her dearly about 15-20 years ago. He did NOT provide her
copies (I'm guessing microfilm copiers weren't prolific yet
or maybe she told him she didn't need official copies and he
didn't want to make plain ones; dunno), just the prose
reports. So, when I entered it into a genie program for her,
I typed what was there. What else could I do?
Now that a lot of Swedish records are on-line, I've been
trying to confirm what he gave her. First off, let me say,
yeah, he earned his money. And, no, so far he doesn't seem
to have made anything up, precisely. He does seem to have
reported things as "fact" when I would have labelled them
"alleged facts" if I'd been charging for 'em, but that could
be /my/ problem rather than /a/ problem.
Anyway, in confirming the material at hand, I'm discovering
that in some instances, he reported places as Parish, State;
in some it was district, state; in some it was parish,
district. I'm sure HE knew where they were, but after a
week of intense digging, /I'm/ still not sure. I'll put
money on the notion that Aunt Ett didn't know either!
The research isn't made easier by the local guvvmint's
geographic changes in 1952 (about half-a-century after the
last contact over there died), or by the lack of
cross-references in catalogues to those pre- and post-
locales. I can only be grateful I'm not looking in the
early 1700s and dealing with that episode of Swedish
independence vis-a-vis calendars!
It wouldn't have /killed/ that researcher to have added
Parish to the parish name. Nor so I see that it would have
diminished his machismo any to have hand-added the flaming
diacriticals! (eye-roll)
Cheryl
[Yeah, it would have helped if I'd've kept the documents
Aunt Ett had, but like a good little thing, I returned them
to her.
Dennis
Aug 31, 2012, 10:01:18 AM8/31/12
to
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 09:25:26 -0400, singhals <sing...@erols.com>
opined:
>He does seem to have
>reported things as "fact" when I would have labelled them
>"alleged facts" if I'd been charging for 'em, but that could
>be /my/ problem rather than /a/ problem.
(Most) everything in genealogy is an "alleged fact" (i.e. an assertion).
Some just have a higher degree of confidence.
--
Dennis
opined:
>He does seem to have
>reported things as "fact" when I would have labelled them
>"alleged facts" if I'd been charging for 'em, but that could
>be /my/ problem rather than /a/ problem.
Some just have a higher degree of confidence.
--
Dennis
Ian Goddard
Aug 31, 2012, 10:38:32 AM8/31/12
to
time* and to have the flexibility to enter it that way into the genie
program & not be restricted to some US-centric fixed format.
> Nor so I see that it would have diminished his machismo any
> to have hand-added the flaming diacriticals!
--
Ian
The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang
at austonley org uk
Kurt F
Aug 31, 2012, 10:46:39 AM8/31/12
to
Hello Cheryl
As a Swede I am puzzled about a few words below.
What do you mean by "parish, state"
What do you mean by "district, state"
What do you mean by "parish, district"
In Swedish research you have to record "parish" and "län" as there are
some parishes with the same name in different län.
Is "län" the same as "district" in your notes?
What is "state"?
A typical source notation in my research is:
"Skeda, C:4, Birth,Marriage,Death, 1792-1831, page 233"
In my database this person is noted as born 21-04-1818 in "Syrorp,
Skeda, E" as I also includes the farm name. The "E" notates
"Östergötlands län". We don´t bother to use the newly introduced
"regions" as the church books uses the old names. This source makes it
possible for me to go back and look it up again, if I so wishes.
The birth, marriage and death records are written at the time of the
event, and must be considered as facts (unless the person who wrote the
record made an error, which is possible to overcome if you do a proper
research).
The household examination books can be in error, as they were copied
mostly every five year.
There is no need to have copies of the relevant pages in the church
books. It is always possible to find the right book on the internet.
(You have Genline, Arkiv Digital and SVAR to look at.)
I don´t know what you mean by the geografic changes 1952. I must admit
this is news to me. Everyone I know uses the "old" designations.
The censuses are harder to read and contain less indormation than the
church books. Remember that is was the State church resposibility to
keep record of every Swede. Today it is the resposibility of the IRS, so
future researchers will have more trouble to do a reliable research.
Do you have any examples to share with us. I am always willing to help.
You can email me direct if you wish. My email address is, as always, valid.
Kurt F
As a Swede I am puzzled about a few words below.
What do you mean by "parish, state"
What do you mean by "district, state"
What do you mean by "parish, district"
In Swedish research you have to record "parish" and "län" as there are
some parishes with the same name in different län.
Is "län" the same as "district" in your notes?
What is "state"?
A typical source notation in my research is:
"Skeda, C:4, Birth,Marriage,Death, 1792-1831, page 233"
In my database this person is noted as born 21-04-1818 in "Syrorp,
Skeda, E" as I also includes the farm name. The "E" notates
"Östergötlands län". We don´t bother to use the newly introduced
"regions" as the church books uses the old names. This source makes it
possible for me to go back and look it up again, if I so wishes.
The birth, marriage and death records are written at the time of the
event, and must be considered as facts (unless the person who wrote the
record made an error, which is possible to overcome if you do a proper
research).
The household examination books can be in error, as they were copied
mostly every five year.
There is no need to have copies of the relevant pages in the church
books. It is always possible to find the right book on the internet.
(You have Genline, Arkiv Digital and SVAR to look at.)
I don´t know what you mean by the geografic changes 1952. I must admit
this is news to me. Everyone I know uses the "old" designations.
The censuses are harder to read and contain less indormation than the
church books. Remember that is was the State church resposibility to
keep record of every Swede. Today it is the resposibility of the IRS, so
future researchers will have more trouble to do a reliable research.
Do you have any examples to share with us. I am always willing to help.
You can email me direct if you wish. My email address is, as always, valid.
Kurt F
singhals
Aug 31, 2012, 6:13:27 PM8/31/12
to kurt.fre...@ieee.org, gen...@rootsweb.com
Hello, Kurt.
This was more of a complaint that a paid researcher failed
to provide in his report to a paying client sufficient
identifying information for anyone to follow his trail.
Perhaps he was thinking that "any idiot knows xyz is a
"län", I don't need to say so"; perhaps he wasn't.
Impossible to know at this point. But because he failed to
SAY what level of records he was looking at, it's difficult
to reproduce his results. Kind of like a astronomer failing
to note which constellation he's looking at when he comments
on the 2nd star in it, or an astrophysicist failing to
mention whether his unit of measurement is a parsec or an A.U.
In one place he said it was in "Brunnby parish." Period. In
another, he says something is in "Allerum, Malmö". In yet
another he specified "Ryhus, Välinge, Malmöhus".
Cheryl
This was more of a complaint that a paid researcher failed
to provide in his report to a paying client sufficient
identifying information for anyone to follow his trail.
Perhaps he was thinking that "any idiot knows xyz is a
"län", I don't need to say so"; perhaps he wasn't.
Impossible to know at this point. But because he failed to
SAY what level of records he was looking at, it's difficult
to reproduce his results. Kind of like a astronomer failing
to note which constellation he's looking at when he comments
on the 2nd star in it, or an astrophysicist failing to
mention whether his unit of measurement is a parsec or an A.U.
In one place he said it was in "Brunnby parish." Period. In
another, he says something is in "Allerum, Malmö". In yet
another he specified "Ryhus, Välinge, Malmöhus".
Cheryl
Tom Wetmore
Sep 24, 2012, 2:42:03 PM9/24/12
to kurt.fre...@ieee.org, gen...@rootsweb.com
One should ALWAYS record everything found about places, dates, names, events, relationships.
There is NEVER a reason to omit recording a parish name.
There is NEVER a reason to omit recording a parish name.
Kurt F
Sep 24, 2012, 3:15:04 PM9/24/12
to
< One should ALWAYS record everything found about places, dates, names,
< events, relationships.
< There is NEVER a reason to omit recording a parish name.
We are in total agreement.
< events, relationships.
< There is NEVER a reason to omit recording a parish name.
Kurt F
Denis Beauregard
Sep 24, 2012, 5:29:20 PM9/24/12
to
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:42:03 -0700 (PDT), Tom Wetmore
<tt...@verizon.net> wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:
>One should ALWAYS record everything found about places, dates, names, events, relationships.
>
>There is NEVER a reason to omit recording a parish name.
There is at least one reason : rebuilding the families of a specific
parish, i.e. all unnamed places with an accurate date are supposed
to be about records found in that place. When someone copy a page
of a such book, without keeping the title, then you may have some
problem to confirm this data.
Denis
--
Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/
French in North America before 1722 - www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/
Sur cédérom à 1780 - On CD-ROM to 1780
<tt...@verizon.net> wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:
>One should ALWAYS record everything found about places, dates, names, events, relationships.
>
>There is NEVER a reason to omit recording a parish name.
parish, i.e. all unnamed places with an accurate date are supposed
to be about records found in that place. When someone copy a page
of a such book, without keeping the title, then you may have some
problem to confirm this data.
Denis
--
Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/
French in North America before 1722 - www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/
Sur cédérom à 1780 - On CD-ROM to 1780
Tom Wetmore
Sep 25, 2012, 2:46:31 AM9/25/12
to
Denis: > There is at least one reason : ...
That's not a reason you shouldn't record everything. You are describing a problem caused by using data extracted by others who didn't record everything. You either go back and get the missing data yourself or you live with it.
Sorry, Kurt I was not disagreeing with you. I was disagreeing with the thread's author whose post was a tirade about someone who didn't record everything, and who then tried to take the position that the problems were caused somehow by the recording of parish names. Though I didn't find any cogent argument for that position. I completely disagree and think the statement is egregious. If parish names are available of course they should be recorded.
That's not a reason you shouldn't record everything. You are describing a problem caused by using data extracted by others who didn't record everything. You either go back and get the missing data yourself or you live with it.
Sorry, Kurt I was not disagreeing with you. I was disagreeing with the thread's author whose post was a tirade about someone who didn't record everything, and who then tried to take the position that the problems were caused somehow by the recording of parish names. Though I didn't find any cogent argument for that position. I completely disagree and think the statement is egregious. If parish names are available of course they should be recorded.
singhals
Sep 25, 2012, 9:55:04 AM9/25/12
to gen...@rootsweb.com
to you without introducing the Board of Education.
The OP (me) was complaining that a narrative written by
someone else specified a parish with no further geographic
information in one place and no where else in the document
specified a parish. I was advocating CONSISTENCY which
generally aids comprehension...or so those who gripe about
my inconsistencies claim at least.
My stand was (and is) -- (1) if you're going to give the
parish you should ALSO give the rest of the locale (St.
John's Parish is not a unique GPS point, after all). (2) if
you give a parish (or Parish) in one place, give it in all
places or at the very least say (parish not known). Giving
a baptismal record from St Worrisom Parish, then a Marriage
record from Alimony-upon-Thames, and a burial from London,
Middlesex, England, UK causes those not familiar with the
ins and outs of London civil and ecclesiastical geography
untold --and unnecessary-- grief.
cheryl
Ian Goddard
Sep 25, 2012, 11:36:14 AM9/25/12
to
singhals wrote:
> My stand was (and is) -- (1) if you're going to give the parish you
> should ALSO give the rest of the locale (St. John's Parish is not a
> unique GPS point, after all). (2) if you give a parish (or Parish) in
> one place, give it in all places or at the very least say (parish not
> known). Giving a baptismal record from St Worrisom Parish, then a
> Marriage record from Alimony-upon-Thames, and a burial from London,
> Middlesex, England, UK causes those not familiar with the ins and outs
> of London civil and ecclesiastical geography untold --and unnecessary--
> grief.
Sadly, it may well be that parish is all there is in the original. IME
> My stand was (and is) -- (1) if you're going to give the parish you
> should ALSO give the rest of the locale (St. John's Parish is not a
> unique GPS point, after all). (2) if you give a parish (or Parish) in
> one place, give it in all places or at the very least say (parish not
> known). Giving a baptismal record from St Worrisom Parish, then a
> Marriage record from Alimony-upon-Thames, and a burial from London,
> Middlesex, England, UK causes those not familiar with the ins and outs
> of London civil and ecclesiastical geography untold --and unnecessary--
> grief.
in the Lord Hardwicke Act registers only the parish is named.
It would be quite possible for someone to have their marriage recorded
as simply All Hallows, Almondbury, and their children's baptisms as Holy
Trinity, Holmfirth. Holmfirth was a chapel-of-ease serving parts of two
parishes and held baptisms for both but not marriages. I've seen that
actual circumstance cause confusion to someone posting in an online forum.
Just to add to the confusion it would be quite consistent have then been
buried in yet another church when the larger parish was split up in the
C19th.
In such cases there's not substitute for becoming familiar with those
ins and outs. That's why I think there needs to be a standard and
sufficiently complex data model for dealing with civil and
ecclesiastical hierarchies of places and the way they change with time,
so that they can be posted online by those who are familiar with them.
Your genie program of choice would then be able to download and parse
the data to show the affiliations of the place at the appropriate time.
Kurt F
Sep 25, 2012, 2:36:34 PM9/25/12
to
I will only state that, when it comes to sources, the main point is to
give enough information about the source that anybody else could find it
and check it out by themself.
If you call that a sufficiently complex data model, it´s OK for me.
Kurt F
Tom Wetmore
Sep 27, 2012, 9:50:29 AM9/27/12
to gen...@rootsweb.com
Cheryl: "I came down firmly against including the parish name. This week that viewpoint hardened even more, thanks to a relative-by-marriage who died about a year ago."
Tom's translation: "Don't record parish names."
Tom's translation: "Don't record parish names."
singhals
Sep 27, 2012, 8:02:35 PM9/27/12
to gen...@rootsweb.com
Tom Wetmore wrote:
> Cheryl: "I came down firmly against including the parish name. This week that viewpoint hardened even more, thanks to a relative-by-marriage who died about a year ago."
>
> Tom's translation: "Don't record parish names."
I believe the last paragraph of that OP mentioned the
> Cheryl: "I came down firmly against including the parish name. This week that viewpoint hardened even more, thanks to a relative-by-marriage who died about a year ago."
>
> Tom's translation: "Don't record parish names."
inclusion or omission of the word "parish"?
Cheryl
Bob Melson
Sep 27, 2012, 9:52:05 PM9/27/12
to
On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 20:02:35 -0400 singhals opined:
Of course, here in the US we have to distinguish between church
parishes and those occupying the place of counties in the Pelican
State. A flat "prohibition" is bound to turn around and byte you on
the nether regions. And let's not forget the Old Dominion, which has
cities and counties as separate-but-equal political entities.
Yeah, I understand, your problem is with Swedish
political/ecclesiastical subdivisions, about which I have no opinion
(Hey, I've got enough problems with Finnish places and surnames - which
followed (or maybe not) Swedish practices up to about 1900.)
I guess what I'm saying is that so long as you are (able to be)
consistent in how you enter place names, it doesn't really appear to
make much of a difference. Yeah, it'd be nice to be able to enter
city, political subdivision, higher political subdivision, still higher
ps, country, or some such, but ... Explanatory notes are always
helpful to the reader.
My US$0.02 and I'm sticking to it.
Sufferin' Ol' Bob
--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
parishes and those occupying the place of counties in the Pelican
State. A flat "prohibition" is bound to turn around and byte you on
the nether regions. And let's not forget the Old Dominion, which has
cities and counties as separate-but-equal political entities.
Yeah, I understand, your problem is with Swedish
political/ecclesiastical subdivisions, about which I have no opinion
(Hey, I've got enough problems with Finnish places and surnames - which
followed (or maybe not) Swedish practices up to about 1900.)
I guess what I'm saying is that so long as you are (able to be)
consistent in how you enter place names, it doesn't really appear to
make much of a difference. Yeah, it'd be nice to be able to enter
city, political subdivision, higher political subdivision, still higher
ps, country, or some such, but ... Explanatory notes are always
helpful to the reader.
My US$0.02 and I'm sticking to it.
Sufferin' Ol' Bob
--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Tom Wetmore
Sep 27, 2012, 10:07:05 PM9/27/12
to gen...@rootsweb.com
Cheryl, Sorry to have been confused by your post. Thanks for pointing out which part you meant and which part you didn't. Just to be sure, you do think we should record parish names?
Harrison Genealogy
Sep 28, 2012, 4:50:52 AM9/28/12
to gen...@rootsweb.com
All
Just giving my view here as a UK researcher being "doing" it for the past
40+ years !....
You MUST if at all possible give the Parish .... That's the way you find
Baptisms, Marriages and Burials in UK Church records. NB you will not
specifically find Births or Deaths in Parish records, the dates of birth or
death maybe noted in a Baptism
or burial record but will not be a specific entry.
You need to understand that Parish boundaries had NO relationship to
villages or towns. A town or village might lie in more than one parish. (Ex
- Oakamoor in north staffs ... a village of about 500 people lies in 3
parishes)
The only thing about parishes is they did NOT stray across county
boundaries. The only exception to that is METHODIST records which are
recorded in Circuits rather than Parishes and Methodist Circuits can stray
across county boundaries.
Remember that Register Office marriages (from 1837) are ONLY recorded in the
Registrar's Office books and will NOT be found in any church records.
Also at certain times large parishes were split up into smaller ones and
called by other names.
Hope this helps !
Regards
Bill
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GENCMP-...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
in the subject and the body of the message
Just giving my view here as a UK researcher being "doing" it for the past
40+ years !....
You MUST if at all possible give the Parish .... That's the way you find
Baptisms, Marriages and Burials in UK Church records. NB you will not
specifically find Births or Deaths in Parish records, the dates of birth or
death maybe noted in a Baptism
or burial record but will not be a specific entry.
You need to understand that Parish boundaries had NO relationship to
villages or towns. A town or village might lie in more than one parish. (Ex
- Oakamoor in north staffs ... a village of about 500 people lies in 3
parishes)
The only thing about parishes is they did NOT stray across county
boundaries. The only exception to that is METHODIST records which are
recorded in Circuits rather than Parishes and Methodist Circuits can stray
across county boundaries.
Remember that Register Office marriages (from 1837) are ONLY recorded in the
Registrar's Office books and will NOT be found in any church records.
Also at certain times large parishes were split up into smaller ones and
called by other names.
Hope this helps !
Regards
Bill
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GENCMP-...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
in the subject and the body of the message
Ian Goddard
Sep 28, 2012, 6:30:05 AM9/28/12
to
Harrison Genealogy wrote:
> The only thing about parishes is they did NOT stray across county
> boundaries.
Oh yes they did:
> The only thing about parishes is they did NOT stray across county
> boundaries.
http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/Misc/Maps/WRYParishes.gif
It's pre-1974 as can be seen by the fact that Cheshire extends to border
Almondbury & Penistone.
Note parts of Whalley & Rochdale.
singhals
Sep 28, 2012, 10:54:32 AM9/28/12
to gen...@rootsweb.com
Tom Wetmore wrote:
> Cheryl, Sorry to have been confused by your post. Thanks for pointing out which part you meant and which part you didn't. Just to be sure, you do think we should record parish names?
For clarity:
> Cheryl, Sorry to have been confused by your post. Thanks for pointing out which part you meant and which part you didn't. Just to be sure, you do think we should record parish names?
Let's agree on what the argument is about first.
There is a difference between recording a fact at all and
designating where it is to be recorded.
IF you have a church parish, and IF you know whether that
particular record is from a Catholic, CofE, or Lutheran
parish, it's useful to know in the future, so yes, it should
be recorded and kept. I disagree that it should merit a spot
in the PLACE-NAME slot of any program.
IF you insist on putting it in the Place-name slot, then all
I asked was that you include the word Parish after the
parish name, so the casual reader could tell whether he was
looking at (or for) a town, a parish, a district, a county,
or a chimera.
If it makes you feel any better (probably won't), I have the
same testy reaction to a record that tells me the place is
Willing township, Massachusetts. This requires the reader
first to ascertain whether this is a unique identifier (it
isn't), then to determine which of the possible Willing twps
it might reference. By contrast, "Whitmore County
Massachusetts" IS a unique identifier -- there is only
one...and finding the townships within a county is a whale
of a lot faster than finding the counties that have a
specific township. [N.B.: place names in THIS post are
fictional and do not, AFAIK, exist in reality.]
Just as some fixate on townships, some fixate on the parish
name. This is fine so long as those so-fixated never
attempt to communicate in any way with someone fixated on
the other or on some 3rd system.
But, RECORDING something and including it in (specific
field) are separate issues. So, to answer the question:
Yes, I favor /recording/ it; No, I do not favor /including/
it in the place-name field because putting it there clouds
communication.
Cheryl
singhals
Sep 28, 2012, 11:08:32 AM9/28/12
to gen...@rootsweb.com
Bob Melson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 20:02:35 -0400 singhals opined:
>
>> Tom Wetmore wrote:
>>> Cheryl: "I came down firmly against including the parish name. This
>>> week that viewpoint hardened even more, thanks to a
>>> relative-by-marriage who died about a year ago."
>>>
>>> Tom's translation: "Don't record parish names."
>>
>> I believe the last paragraph of that OP mentioned the
>> inclusion or omission of the word "parish"?
>>
>> Cheryl
>>
>
> Of course, here in the US we have to distinguish between church
> parishes and those occupying the place of counties in the Pelican
> State. A flat "prohibition" is bound to turn around and byte you on
> the nether regions. And let's not forget the Old Dominion, which has
> cities and counties as separate-but-equal political entities.
>
(g) And hail to the soul who can tell a parish from a Parish
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 20:02:35 -0400 singhals opined:
>
>> Tom Wetmore wrote:
>>> Cheryl: "I came down firmly against including the parish name. This
>>> week that viewpoint hardened even more, thanks to a
>>> relative-by-marriage who died about a year ago."
>>>
>>> Tom's translation: "Don't record parish names."
>>
>> I believe the last paragraph of that OP mentioned the
>> inclusion or omission of the word "parish"?
>>
>> Cheryl
>>
>
> Of course, here in the US we have to distinguish between church
> parishes and those occupying the place of counties in the Pelican
> State. A flat "prohibition" is bound to turn around and byte you on
> the nether regions. And let's not forget the Old Dominion, which has
> cities and counties as separate-but-equal political entities.
>
while speaking!
Stipulated on Virginia. And you cannot imagine how tired I
get of trying to convince people accustomed to using
township records (rather than county or state records) that
despite the designation on the census page, Virginia and
West Virginia do not have townships. We have districts, and
if those districts are used for anything other than
reporting filters and real-estate designators, I've never
known a Virginian who could tell me what that use is!
Or the number of times I've had to explain that in
Washington DC, the letters NW, SW, NE, and NW *MUST* be
included in addresses if you want the thing delivered. (or,
the number of times I've had to have North South Temple West
translated!)
> Yeah, I understand, your problem is with Swedish
> political/ecclesiastical subdivisions, about which I have no opinion
> (Hey, I've got enough problems with Finnish places and surnames - which
> followed (or maybe not) Swedish practices up to about 1900.)
>
> I guess what I'm saying is that so long as you are (able to be)
> consistent in how you enter place names, it doesn't really appear to
> make much of a difference. Yeah, it'd be nice to be able to enter
> city, political subdivision, higher political subdivision, still higher
> ps, country, or some such, but ... Explanatory notes are always
> helpful to the reader.
address is (religiously) in 3 church parishes, an LDS Ward,
is "served" by 8 other Christian denominations and a couple
independent congregations, as well as three Jewish
congregations and two Hindu temples. It has a EMT
designation, a real estate designation, a water-company
designation, an electric company designation, a natural-gas
company designation, a postal address. However unique that
combination of designations IS, no one wants them in a PLACE
NAME field. And, I'm blinked if I can see the usefulness of
any of 'em 80 years from now...when they will ALL have
changed. But, if you want to put them in the notes (i.e.,
record them), your time, your database. But for the love of
Mike don't send me "4t7s49" as a place and expect me to know
at a glance which company uses it as a designator.
Cheryl
Tony Proctor
Sep 29, 2012, 9:23:28 AM9/29/12
to
"Tom Wetmore" <tt...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:a241c9d3-c06b-4c45...@googlegroups.com...
parish' is an administrative subdivision below county and distinct. Hence, a
civil parish should always be recorded.
I'm ambivalent about church parishes, having come from a long line of
atheists who probably didn't care (at least since civil registrations were
introduced).
Tony Proctor
Harrison Genealogy
Sep 30, 2012, 5:56:06 AM9/30/12
to gen...@rootsweb.com
Ian
ORIGINALLY Parishes were contained within the County boundary. What happens
is from time to time they change the COUNTY Boundary ..... this happened
even in the recent past where parts of Staffs, Warwickshire and
Worcestershire were "lumped together to make the "West Midlands"
Perhaps I wasn't too clear in what I meant ..... probably I should have
said " ..... they did NOT originally stray across county boundarys ....."
Sorry for that
Regards
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: gencmp-...@rootsweb.com [mailto:gencmp-...@rootsweb.com] On
Behalf Of Ian Goddard
Sent: 28 September 2012 11:30
To: gen...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Entering place names, deja-vu all over again
ORIGINALLY Parishes were contained within the County boundary. What happens
is from time to time they change the COUNTY Boundary ..... this happened
even in the recent past where parts of Staffs, Warwickshire and
Worcestershire were "lumped together to make the "West Midlands"
Perhaps I wasn't too clear in what I meant ..... probably I should have
said " ..... they did NOT originally stray across county boundarys ....."
Sorry for that
Regards
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: gencmp-...@rootsweb.com [mailto:gencmp-...@rootsweb.com] On
Behalf Of Ian Goddard
Sent: 28 September 2012 11:30
To: gen...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Entering place names, deja-vu all over again
Steven Gibbs
Sep 30, 2012, 6:13:25 AM9/30/12
to
"Harrison Genealogy" <bi...@harrisongenealogy.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mailman.0.134899...@rootsweb.com...
> ORIGINALLY Parishes were contained within the County boundary. What
> happens
> is from time to time they change the COUNTY Boundary ..... this happened
> even in the recent past where parts of Staffs, Warwickshire and
> Worcestershire were "lumped together to make the "West Midlands"
>
> Perhaps I wasn't too clear in what I meant ..... probably I should have
> said " ..... they did NOT originally stray across county boundarys ....."
I don't think you are right. For example, Studham, Kensworth and Caddington
are all traditional parishes that straddle the traditional
Bedfordshire/Hertfordshire border.
Steven
news:mailman.0.134899...@rootsweb.com...
> ORIGINALLY Parishes were contained within the County boundary. What
> happens
> is from time to time they change the COUNTY Boundary ..... this happened
> even in the recent past where parts of Staffs, Warwickshire and
> Worcestershire were "lumped together to make the "West Midlands"
>
> Perhaps I wasn't too clear in what I meant ..... probably I should have
> said " ..... they did NOT originally stray across county boundarys ....."
are all traditional parishes that straddle the traditional
Bedfordshire/Hertfordshire border.
Steven
Harrison Genealogy
Sep 30, 2012, 6:34:00 AM9/30/12
to gen...@rootsweb.com
Steven
Thanks for that Steve .... You learn something every day ......
Regards
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: gencmp-...@rootsweb.com [mailto:gencmp-...@rootsweb.com] On
Behalf Of Steven Gibbs
Sent: 30 September 2012 11:13
To: gen...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Entering place names, deja-vu all over again
Thanks for that Steve .... You learn something every day ......
Regards
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: gencmp-...@rootsweb.com [mailto:gencmp-...@rootsweb.com] On
Behalf Of Steven Gibbs
Sent: 30 September 2012 11:13
To: gen...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Entering place names, deja-vu all over again
Ian Goddard
Sep 30, 2012, 6:36:09 AM9/30/12
to
Harrison Genealogy wrote:
> Ian
>
> ORIGINALLY Parishes were contained within the County boundary. What happens
> is from time to time they change the COUNTY Boundary ..... this happened
> even in the recent past where parts of Staffs, Warwickshire and
> Worcestershire were "lumped together to make the "West Midlands"
>
> Perhaps I wasn't too clear in what I meant ..... probably I should have
> said " ..... they did NOT originally stray across county boundarys ....."
Saddleworth was part of the West Riding until the recent past of 1974.
> Ian
>
> ORIGINALLY Parishes were contained within the County boundary. What happens
> is from time to time they change the COUNTY Boundary ..... this happened
> even in the recent past where parts of Staffs, Warwickshire and
> Worcestershire were "lumped together to make the "West Midlands"
>
> Perhaps I wasn't too clear in what I meant ..... probably I should have
> said " ..... they did NOT originally stray across county boundarys ....."
It was part of Yorkshire wappentake (Agbrigg & Morley) & I recall
reading that Domesday assessed the woodlands of Quick with those of
Holme (goodness knows why, Holme's cross-Pennine connections are with
Mottram in Cheshire, the obvious connection for Quick would have been
Marsden). So the COUNTY boundary rearrangement is late.
http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/WRY/Rochdale/SaddleworthHistory.html explains
how it came to be attached to Rochdale but
http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/Misc/CBW/WRY/Saddleworth.html
suggests that its original connection was with Yorkshire.
So we're both wrong. It was the PARISH boundary which changed.
Ian
Denis Beauregard
Oct 3, 2012, 2:23:41 PM10/3/12
to
Entering in the thread after it is overdebatted...
I tried to build a database with old places in France.
For your information, France was divided in provinces on the basis
of formation (i.e. province of Britain was acquired as a whole at
some time) or regionalism, in generalites for tax purposes, in
government for military control, in religious dioceses, etc. Then,
in 1790, everything was structured into departements.
Moreover, the borders of the entities were changed. At some time,
there were 14 generalites, later 15, 16, etc. Some religious dioceses
were created from parts of 2 or more existing dioceses.
And you have many places with the same name and located in the same
area.
So, I tried to do something with that. I got something like :
- modern name of town "commune"
- modern code for towns (INSEE)
- previous name(s) of the same or of a part
- diocese, encoded with dates, i.e. Langres>1731>Dijon
to mean this place was moved to another diocese in 1731
- arcdeaconry
- deanery
- source of that information
- parishes in that town
- no. of departement
- no. and name of arrondissement
- no. and name of canton (township)
etc.
I think when you build some kind of gazeeters, you will get a lot
of possible structures, with time frames, name changes, etc.
Subdivisions of generalites depend on the area (i.e. can be
election, civil dioceses, vigueries, etc.), so even the name of
area can be different.
The time frames can be fuzzy. We know that in a source from 1635,
that place was in that diocese, but in 1725, it is in another, perhaps
because the sources are wrong, or the bishops made some land
exchanges.
My conclusion would be it is not possible to get a universal model.
Even if limited to one country, this is not possible.
Denis
--
Denis Beauregard - g�n�alogiste �m�rite (FQSG)
Les Fran�ais d'Am�rique du Nord - www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/
I tried to build a database with old places in France.
For your information, France was divided in provinces on the basis
of formation (i.e. province of Britain was acquired as a whole at
some time) or regionalism, in generalites for tax purposes, in
government for military control, in religious dioceses, etc. Then,
in 1790, everything was structured into departements.
Moreover, the borders of the entities were changed. At some time,
there were 14 generalites, later 15, 16, etc. Some religious dioceses
were created from parts of 2 or more existing dioceses.
And you have many places with the same name and located in the same
area.
So, I tried to do something with that. I got something like :
- modern name of town "commune"
- modern code for towns (INSEE)
- previous name(s) of the same or of a part
- diocese, encoded with dates, i.e. Langres>1731>Dijon
to mean this place was moved to another diocese in 1731
- arcdeaconry
- deanery
- source of that information
- parishes in that town
- no. of departement
- no. and name of arrondissement
- no. and name of canton (township)
etc.
I think when you build some kind of gazeeters, you will get a lot
of possible structures, with time frames, name changes, etc.
Subdivisions of generalites depend on the area (i.e. can be
election, civil dioceses, vigueries, etc.), so even the name of
area can be different.
The time frames can be fuzzy. We know that in a source from 1635,
that place was in that diocese, but in 1725, it is in another, perhaps
because the sources are wrong, or the bishops made some land
exchanges.
My conclusion would be it is not possible to get a universal model.
Even if limited to one country, this is not possible.
Denis
--
Denis Beauregard - g�n�alogiste �m�rite (FQSG)
Les Fran�ais d'Am�rique du Nord - www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/
French in North America before 1722 - www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/
Sur c�d�rom � 1780 - On CD-ROM to 1780
0 new messages