Norwegian Location Field Style

Question

I have two related questions:

(1) Are there any guidelines for entering Norwegian place names in the location field? There was discussion in the past about the structure of categorization for Norwegian locations. I can understand using the set form for category names - it keeps things organized, and doesn't cause a large number of odd-looking categories from being created. Does that structure also apply to location fields? If a profile is linked to the category (using the approved "farm, parish/municipality, county/fylke, Norway" category), but has a location field name which is more contemporary to the profile, would that be organized enough or cause too much confusion?

Based on profiles I've see (and I imagine is going to be the supported answer), the categorization style tends to be the format entered for location fields.

I'm wondering if for earlier profiles more contemporary names should be used - ie. Kristians (amt) instead of Oppland. Or if the fogderi should also be included? Like "Gran (the prestegield), Hadeland (the fogderi), Akershus (the stiftamt, as opposed to Kristians or Oppland), Norge" for entries in the late 1600s. The Wikitree Location Field Style Guide is to "use their conventions instead of ours." This can get quite confusing to figure out the jurisdictional hierarchy over the years, though helpful in locating and understanding records.

I'm not wanting to argue the case one way or the other - I'm just wondering if there's been conversation about the location field specifically (as opposed to the categorization), and to have written clarification before I start editing Norwegian profiles.

(2) And the related point, if a parish split (ie. Toten into Østre Toten and Vestre Toten in 1825-1826), should those earlier profiles just use Toten in the categorization? And assuming the consensus is/was to use the categorization style in the location fields, should that earlier parish name be used for those earlier profiles?

Answer 1

This matter hasn't really been discussed thoroughly in the Norway Project. Personally I think that using either the old "amt" names or the modern "fylke" names should be allowed. If we were to enforce one or the other forms, I'd expect a lot of fallout.

Personally I prefer the modern "fylke" names, - that's also what the Norwegian archival authorities use, so you might say that's the Norwegian convention. And actually, few Norwegians know the Pre-1919 name of their home county anyway.

The style that I'm personally using in the location fields, is the "farm, parish/municipality, county/fylke, Norge" similar to the category structure (but observe "Norge", not "Norway"). I don't think that it's meaningful to include the fogderi/bailiwick, although that should be specified in the source citation if it's from a probate, court protocol etc.

Comments

I tend not to put the farm into the location field in most instances.  Usually it is accurate for births, but not always for deaths and other activities.  Rather than the actual location of the death, the records tend to give the farm attached to the individual.   Same with marriages, etc.  I usually put farm information in the bio.

---

Thanks for your input!