Scotland Project Location Field Update

Question

Hi Everybody,

It pains me to bring the whole painful subject up, as it probably means some slight adjustments to the pop-up location fields, and extra work, however it is necessary.

When one goes to add a location during data entry, there is a particular popup which has "Liff, Angus, Scotland, United Kingdom 1801..."...this is incorrect, as Angus, during that period, was known as Forfarshire, and did not become known Angus until 1928.

[[Wikipedia:Angus_Scotland|Angus, Scotland]]

FamilySearch

Regards,

David.

Comments

Hi David. The location field suggestions come from FamilySearch and are not under WikiTree control. See my earlier answer at this link. You can ignore the suggestions.

---

Hi Jim,

Thank you for your reply, however my thoughts are that the field suggestions should not come under FS control, mostly because they do not have a clue...

Besides the fact that members are following these hints, and they are incorrect, which leaves me/others to correct them.

Cheers.

---

Yes, WikiTree acknowledges they can sometimes be unsatisfactory, David:

You do not need to accept any of the place name suggestions. They may not be the ideal way to record the place name on WikiTree.

You can prevent them from appearing with

hide placename suggestions

on any edit tab. However, in some regions they are fairly accurate, and save a lot of typing. Without them, people would make other kinds of errors you'd still need to correct :-)

---

Hi Jim,

Thank you for your input.

However, I personally, am getting a little tired of correcting these fields for new members who know no better.

Firstly, it takes time out of my own tree research, and secondly, I think that it is an unneccessary time waster.

You may enjoy filling in time when you have nothing else to do, however I do not.

Here's a thought??..how about I send you links  to all these profiles with incorrect fields, for you to personally correct, as it certainly appears that you enjoy doing nothing with your own tree, and love spending time making corrections to our perfect WT tree???

Cheers...

---

Neither you nor I is obliged to make corrections, David. We're free to contribute to WikiTree to the extent and in the way we choose. If you don't like cleaning up, the remedy is in your own hands.

If you wish, you can make a G2G post with the tag "improvements" suggesting that WikiTree construct its own place name database and abandon the FamilySearch one, but whether such a major undertaking would ever be implemented would be quite a question.

Answer 1

The FamilySearch location suggestions are utterly useless for German locations before 1806 (end of Holy Roman Empire). When I started working on German profiles during the HRE I finally switched them off. The best decision ever.

I also agree that WikiTree should stop using that location list. The list causes in my opinion more confusion than clarity.

Comments

The FamilySearch locations for Australia (and some other places and times) are for the most part quite good, and as I suggested above save a lot of typing, not to mention possible mistyping. It's fine Jelena for you to make the decision for yourself to turn the suggestions off, as long as you also leave to me the option to have them turned on during my own editing. A mixed approach is to have them on and use them in cases where they are helpful, but ignore them when they're not. I think it would be a backward step if WikiTree withdrew them altogether.

---

Hi Jim,

Taking into consideration, your own personal lack of knowledge regarding Scotland, would you please step back from this discussion, if it is not too much of a problem. My own paternal grandmother who emigrated from Forfarshire/Angus in 1928 referred to it as Forfarshire, so without personal knowledge, I would ask that you step back from this conversation.

The WT Scotland data fields need a review. That is the problem. And your argument will not fix the issue, when new members cannot select the correct data field.

---

I have at no stage disputed your specific point about Forfarshire; rather I'm requesting that an atypical error in the FamilySearch data not become an excuse to discard an aid which has much utility for many people. I also ask that you not make assumptions about the depth of my connections to or knowledge of Scotland.

---

I switched the suggestion list on, just for a little test on a Canadian profile. I opted for a profile in today's Quebec:

The first birthplace option started with the ending "Canada". Well, historically, in 1809, the place was named "Province de Bas-Canada". The term "Bas-Canada" also appears in the list, but with the time frame "1838-1841". At least the ending point is correct, but it was called "Bas-Canada" from 1791.

There are in my opinion too many small errors that accumulate to a huge mountain of errors we at WikiTree have to clean because FamilySearch doesn't (want to) correct their list.

---

It's not hard to give examples of failure (though this FamilySearch link shows Lower Canada with alternate name Bas-Canada from 1791 to 1841). But it isn't possible to judge from such examples what proportion of FamilySearch's place name database is wrong. There are also many many instances where it's right, and useful. What it offers should be verified against the sources available, but in cases where it's correct it's a valuable tool. I've used it thousands of times in Australia with overwhelmingly helpful and convenient results. No one is forced to use it, but nor should anyone who wants it be deprived of it. If WikiTree had the resources to create and maintain a better version, that would be great, but there's no evidence that it does.

---

Well, I know that Aleš keeps and updates a list of historical place names. Otherwise it wouldn't be possible to have Data Suggestions like "United Kingdom too early" or similar error.

---

That's at a country level. Does Aleš's data include cases at county, town and suburb levels, worldwide or at least widespread, with dates? If so, it could be a good start; if not, it wouldn't replace FamilySearch Places.

---

For Germany he has lists at regional (comparable to US States) level at least. For the time during HRE you actually need it at a smaller level, which is why I look at the German Wikipedia for that.

Answer 2

I belong to several volunteer organisations all of which have the same requirements, if you feel that the organisation should do something you must be willing to be a part of the process. 

I believe that if a person feels that the group should do something that the suggester must be willing to be in charge of; be the leader of; be involved in the continuing task and its administration or operation. We regularly see WT members saying this or that should be done however few if any of the suggesters appear willing to step up and be in charge of or involved in the operation, administration or organisation of the proposed process. 

In other words, if you want other people to do all the work, think again. 

Comments

I am willing and able to correct for certain areas the locations. But why should WikiTree get thousands of profiles with historically wrong locations because the service they use doesn't give the correct locations? That is my question. WikiTree users complain for years about the list and point to the company that really is responsible. FamilySearch does not react when you want the locations corrected. So when they don't correct it, why does WikiTree still use it?

---

I'm not sure that I have a complete answer.

Two thoughts:

1. Is there a complete and accurate database somewhere out there? It would need to be one WikiTree could use with some sort of affiliation with the group that created the database. I don't have any personal experience with this topic. Would WT have to pay to use such a database?

2. If no such database exists then someone or a group of people would have to create it. Are there enough WT members/unpaid volunteers with the right qualifications to do that task? Or would WT need to pay some qualified people to do that? How long would it take to create an accurate location database? If we discontinue use of the FS database completely because it has many inaccuracies what do we do until the 'new' database is completed?

Someone, many someones or a large group of people would be needed to monitor any changes needed, and any omissions that needed to be added, and make corrections to any errors.

Don't misinterpret this, I am not happy with the FS location database, or the Ancestry location database, which has many of the same errors

I am mostly happy with the Find My Past locations for places in Britain, and with FreeReg, FreeCen FreeBMD for places in Britain and with Parish Clerks on line. There are many other sites with records most of them I have not used enough to have an opinion about the accuracy of the place names that are used.