Challenge of the week: Clean up as many location names as possible [closed]

Question

Hi WikiTreers,

Will you join our "Data Doctors" Challenge of the week?

This week's challenge focuses on location fields.

Aleš has prepared a report of profiles from around the tree that have potential errors in their locations. These are usually simple typos that are easy to fix. But a thinking genealogist needs to give them a quick "reality check" and consider the intent of the original member and the sources before making any changes. Will you try some?

Click here for the list.

After making a change, click the "challenge tracker" button and then the edit the status. This will record a point. The member with the most points at 11:59pm EDT on Sunday night will get the badge and the bragging rights. But we'll all benefit from a neater, cleaner shared tree.

If you're participating, please post here to let us know. It's nice to cheer each other on. Or post if you have any questions about how to participate.

Thanks for helping!

Real-time tracking results: See your stats 
alongside other participants here.

UPDATE:

Top 10 Participants

• NJ Penny - 1.189
• Esmé G. van der Westhuizen - 1.051
• Bill E. White - 931
• Doug R. McCallum - 704
• Sheila x - 485
• Graeme R. Olney - 430
• John Hodson - 363
• Erin M. Quinn Valcho - 293
• Kathy Zipperer - 292

Comments

Challenge is active

---

There seems to be no clickable link to the suggestions?

---

I added the link.

---

Thanks Aleš :-)

---

I had to sleep. Sorry. Sheet is updated if anyone wants to use it.

https://tinyurl.com/weekchallenge Week Challenge
http://prntscr.com/hk72jy instructions

---

Clean-up is a great idea, but very few members of WikiTree seem to be aware that they are provided with a list of things they need to clean up. The best thing to do is send each and every wikitree member an e-mail pointing out where their list is.  Simply tell them to log in, click "My WikiTree', then click "Suggestions".  Then clean up.

---

This is why I will no longer add profiles to WikiTree. If someone is looking for their ancestors' grave sites they want to know where they are now. Are you really going to call Texas, Mexico? What are you going to do with Northern Ireland? Are you going to use Yugoslavia, a place that doesn't exist anymore? What about all the countries that have changed borders many times? Do you expect people to get a history of the world from ancient times to the present and use ancient maps to decide where to put a profile? Why don't you use the present location and have a way to put, formerly such and such a place, if it's even known?

---

If it in what is now the United States but before 1776 what do you put?  I have ancestors in america with dates in the 1600's.

---

I'd like to participate.

---

Regarding the American data of 1776 this only relates to the Declaration of Independence. One should really go back to the earliest records around Jamestown around 1625 and the earliest settlers if there are records. The size of the task really means each and every member should review their locations and correct with aftersight. The same lack of diligence is prevalent on other tree sites.

---

This is not as simple as it seems.  You can’t just substitute “British Colonial America” or some such for “United Stares” and think the job is done because town, county and even state lines have been adjusted over the last 200 years.  You need to have a comprehensive directory of all the changes and the dates they took effect in order to know the proper identification for that location in, say, 1640 vs 1760 vs 1850 vs 1990.  Otherwise you will wind up with ridiculous entries like “Bronx County, New York, British Colonial America” when Bronx County was not formed until sometime around 1890-1910, and in colonial times the location where the event took place was in Westchester County.  Similar problems occur when people try to colonialize Orange and Rockland or Nassau and Queens counties in NY, Windham and Tolland Counties in CT and numerous other places, not to mention pre-confederation Canada (Upper and Lower Canada, Nova Scotia vs. New Brunswick and so on.). I wouldn’t even think of undertaking such a task unless I were intimately familiar with the specific location involved.

---

Great idea!

---

Participating

---

We need to pin a post at the top so people can list what they are doing, or encourage use of the spreadsheet. I don't have a lot of time and most of it is spent hunting for entries others haven't done yet.

---

I'm new and just reading about all this pre USA thing. It would be a lot of work. What about people who were born in the American South during the civil war (war between the states.) Were they then in the Confederate States even if the US refused to recognize. A lot of people would say they were outside the US at that time. I'm not American but am interested in US history and in particular the south. I've been to the US a long time ago. It's got some really lovely places. I was not in the south.

---

Jim makes another good point as to why this attempt is ridiculous. Use the current place name and add "formerly" if you know what a place was formerly.

---

Great Idea!  Glenda

---

I've updated a few profiles, but the tracker hasn't changed to include anything I've updated.  What's up with that?

---

Aye, Aye, Jim...... And the western part of Virginia seceded from the Confederacy and joined the Union as the US State of West Virginia in 1863.   For some real fun, let’s try to figure out what to call Vermont, which prior to the revolution was known as either “The New Hampshire Grants” or “Charlotte County, New York,” depending on who was talking, and after the revolution was first the “Republic of New Connecticut “ and then the independent “Republic of Vermont” (while still being claimed by New York) before finally becoming the US State of Vermont.

---

I wish someone could put better instructions for how to do these challenges before the next one starts. I wanted to help here but couldn't figure out how to do it. All I got to do was scroll down the list and click on the numbers in the table. I still had no idea.

---

If you go to say 661 wrong word in marriage location and click ON it, it shows you what kind of errors that covers. Lets say you decide to do 1800-1899 years and click on the number 311 (which is how many there are) you get this report in a separate tab.

This gives you the profile link to fix it, what it thinks is wrong, name, religion?, birth, death, gender, privacy level, manager, marriage, and status.

Since this is a marriage category look at the info. "According is not a location" is shown. Now look under marriage. I see the date and HOLY COW, this person put a bio section instead of a location. THIS must be the error.So go to one of the 2 profiles, and edit the marriage to the other profile. 

Now I would probably copy all of this into the wife's bio section if it isn't already there. Then delete out all the text that doesn't belong there leaving it blank. If there is any marriage info on either profile, see if it contains a place. Then add THAT location into the field. Note on the profile you put all that info into that you are fixing the marriage location under "Explain Your Changes".

Once you are finished for tracking purposes, hit the status button in that report and document what you did. 

There will be some differences by type of suggestion but this is pretty much the same for all.

(BTW if someone has done something on the profile since June 3, 2018 they may have already fixed the suggestion.)

Answer 1

I will be working on France

Answer 2

I'm in - I've done a few already :-)

Comments

Nice Graeme :-)

Answer 3

I'll do some. I'll mostly deal with some of the Canadian issues.

Answer 4

Okay.  You can put me to work.

Answer 5

I'll give it a go, Mate.  Doing some work on Australia.

Answer 6

I am in for Team Tennessee Volunteers as their fearless leader.

Answer 7

I will cover Australia

Answer 8

Came across a profile with birth location "At Sea" - it showed as a 611 error location in lower case - each word was capitalised

Births at sea were a common occurrence in the 1800's for migrants coming to Australia and I am sure elsewhere

Comments

check 'Changes' - did someone correct the error before this report was published.

---

Roger, we would need the Wiki-ID to look at it.  It might be a technical glitch or something else going on.

---

Just checked the changes on Whitbread-250 - the words were capitilised on 20 March but change not recorded in the Status bar

Is At Sea ok for a location without error?

---

Yes, At Sea is on the OK list for locations. Thanks :-)

---

Cheers Emma

Answer 9

Hi!  I'll do a few, error 603 and 633, USA too early in birth/death dates, in the 1500-1699 group.

Answer 10

I am in for this week, as much as I can.

Answer 11

Count me in.  I"m working on

643 () in death location and

663: USA too early in marriage location

Answer 12

I will join. I'm partial to Ireland.

Answer 13

I'll do what I can with Canada.

Answer 14

As I work on profiles I make the correction and have found several.

Answer 15

I'll help out with what I can :)

Answer 16

I'm in, again.  Took some time off, but I'm back and using Steven's wonderful spreadsheet.

Comments

That spreadsheet is amazing!  So helpful and easy to coordinate who is doing what!

---

I'm glad people are finding it useful. I started the whole thing initially for the source-a-thon.

Answer 17

I'm in. Pre-1700 mostly. Starting now, but I won't get credit till it's updated and I can click the box, right?

Comments

You get credit as soon as you successfully update the status. It won't get updated on the report until the next one comes out.

Answer 18

I'm changing some Death locations from uppercase to mixed case

Answer 19

I’ll work on them and do what I can.

Answer 20

I'm working on all those pesky USA too early locations.  In the Georgia locations, I make a note on the profiles if the county listed wasn't actually formed until after the date given.