Who to include in a one-place study

Question

My Sturminster Newton one place study is coming along. More than 4,000 profiles (all sourced) have been added to Wikitree and I've had several people contact me about relatives they've seen for the first time. So far, so good.

As the project grows, I've started to give some thought about who should be included. At the moment I'm working to these rules.

Anyone who has a life event (birth / baptism / christening; marriage; death / burial; or appears in a census) in Sturminster is a "primary" person. So, for example, someone born in London but recorded in a census as a visitor is regarded as a primary person.

For every primary person I will also try to capture their parents and children, their spouse, and their spouse's parents, whether they have any connection to Sturminster or not. They will be regarded as "secondary" people, unless they are primary people in their own right. The purpose of this is to show connections to the rest of the world (to help researchers from elsewhere), without introducing too much creep in the scope.

Does that seem a sensible approach? Or do people have other ideas?

I'm aware that not all families will be treated the same as a result. For example
A (born in Sturminster) marries B (born in Blandford). The marriage takes place in Blandford. A is primary. B is secondary.
A (born in Sturminster) marries B (born in Blandford). The marriage takes place in Sturminster. Both are primary.

The easy way to address this anomaly would be to decide that if either person in a marriage is primary then both are. But that might introduce a little more creep.

I'm also thinking that a Sturminster Newton one place study category should only be applied to primary people.

Steve

Comments

Good definition.  I have also found that emphasing a particular time frame or event such as those who served in a war helps make things manageable and keeps you from getting overwhelmed.  I use the one place sparingly on profile but more so on spaces and categories about the place.  It is probably more important to have categories included, such as cemeteries, notables, local politicians, military service, etc.

---

That's a good point that has set me thinking.
At the moment I just have one category [Sturminster Newton] for everyone, regardless of whether they were born, married, appeared in a census...
There are going to be a lot of people in that category.
So I've just started thinking about whether it would be sensible to have sub-categories. For example:
[Sturminster Newton] [Born]
[Sturminster Newton] [Married]
...
Steve

---

If you would like to join the One Place Studies Project, Steve, you could categorise away - although I would not recommend something like
[[Category:Married, Sturminster Newton One Place Study]]

as you are just asking for trouble down the line when you have to categorise somebody into a separate category!

 

BTW, you shouldn't really be using the name "One Place Study" if you are not a member of the One Place Study Project.

Answer 1

I've just been including the "primary" people in my study, but I do research the "secondary" people as well. I wouldn't count someone who married a "primary" as a primary unless they lived in my place at some point.

Comments

Thanks,
That pretty much fits in with what I'm doing at the moment. It's good to have confirmation that this is probably the best approach.
Steve

Answer 2

Several places have books on their town, but only include your A people if they remained in the town. Wrong idea to me, since most of these went to school there. Yes they married and left, but why not say so. That way a researcher would not wonder if you just left them out or did not like them so left out. I say if they were there say so. So they left. Many towns have those who left and many who moved there such as workers or teachers and Ministers. Good Luck.

Jon P Czarowitz