Renaming Category South African Roots - communication

+8 votes
481 views

This proposed change is to more clearly define the difference between the  Category: The Dutch Cape Colony 1652-1806 and the Category:Cape of Good Hope Colony, British 1806-1910. The category was, until recently devoid of place names (aside from the camps)."

Firstly, I believe Andrew Field to be the right person to [re]-categorize place names, as he has personal knowlegde and experience of living in those [then] colonial places. There is a high resolution map available of the Cape Colony under British rule at this page on opening  this link with many place names of that period (many dating back to the Dutch period).

There is already a list of area names [lesser known small areas that became part of the 4 provinces] here (some also spanning the pre-1806 period of Britsh Rule).

The main category page for this new category could be https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:South_African_Projects (however, many of the profiles concerned will not be open or will be private due to the time period, so actual categorization will depend on the privacy settings of the profiles after 1868 up to 1910).

The main project page will have to be edited in the case of adding a new category. I'm of the opinion that {{South African Roots}} - the "Roots" in the category combined with the newest (South African flag) is more a category for the 20th and 21st century South Africa profiles. So this is an excellent demarcation of the pre-1910 colonial period, before the Union of South Africa was formed.

I have issue with the renaming of the entire {{South African Roots}} project though. There is no need for that. The new category could nestle quite comfortably between the old Dutch Cape Colony and the newer South African Roots periods. Having said this - perhaps there will be more room under the general "African Projects" for the first people / indigenous peoples later.

Also I have issue with Dutch as a parallel language category but not Afrikaans. Perhaps it could be made clear on the project home page that in future Afrikaans will also be a parallel language category.

in Policy and Style by Philip van der Walt G2G6 Pilot (171k points)
edited by Mindy Silva

3 Answers

+11 votes

Hi Philip

I agree that the main category page for this new category should rather be https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:South_African_Projects

My concern is just that there is so much work that still needs to be done on the current categories/projects that by changing things now will just add more work.

WHO WILL BE DOING ALL THIS ADDITIONAL WORK???

The Leaders of the "Cape of Good Hope" and "South African Roots" projects are trying their best to get on top of all that is required on these projects.

 

by Esmé van der Westhuizen G2G6 Pilot (149k points)

Hi Esmé, that is the rub all along. I agree completely. In the past I have warned about the creation of categories too quickly, because of precisely this aspect. Once one has chosen for a classifiscation in the line of the UDC-system of Library classification, the possiblities are endless. And the work that follows as well. In true Victorian fashion.

That is also one of the reasons that I'm not a leader. It sounds arrogant I know but there is so much work to be done, Yet leadership is not happy with large bulky projects and this is one option and it makes perfect sense - 1806-1910. A new category. Perhaps we need more leaders who do have the time to shift all this work.

+10 votes

The bottom line right now is for me to stop the bot from changing [[Category:Cape Colony]] to [[Category:Cape of Good Hope Colony, British 1806-1910]] until your projects hash this out. Is this correct?

by Natalie Trott G2G Astronaut (1.3m points)

Though I'm not a leader, I see no issue with that. I mean let the bot do it's job. It is only the name change of an otherwise now rather unused / defunct category, and for the better. As far as I can see the current {{South African Roots}} project will stay uneffected. As long as the category [[Category:The_Dutch_Cape_Colony_1652-1806]] and the underlying maintanance categories aren't affected.

+7 votes

Thank you Philip for raising this in G2G (and your confidence in me J).  My interests are in developing clear cut understandable place name categorizations for South Africa, taking into account the geo-political history of the nation, the Boer Republics and the earlier Dutch and British interests, before Union and eventually Republic.  

Why?  I am presently categorizing some 1,000 Rhodesian/Southern Rhodesian profiles, many of whom have origins in the Cape.  The other half of my family I am beginning to research have deep South African roots and origins (principally the Mullers and the Pietersens).  Many profiles in my Rhodesian Rolls of Honour (personal) project are of South African origin.  Little work has been done on South African Place name categorization, and hence little categorisation exists on Cemeteries (there are only about 5 South African cemeteries listed!) and other genealogical significant categories.  As it stands, I can see a little of what has been done to be incorrect, there are duplications, or categorization has not followed the place name guidelines of the Categorization Project, of which I am a member.

That said, I understand the deep concerns of those in the various South African projects.   As I see it, this ‘mini-project’ is an iterative process and it shall see gradual introduction of place names over a period of time, as and when required.   I also accept the need for collaboration with the projects, hence my joining the South African Roots Project.  I am happy to join others for purpose of collaboration.   I did message the SA Roots Project through its Google Group, but am yet to receive a response.  My concern is that if nobody starts working place name categories, hence my initiative, then nothing will happen.  That means the cemeteries work cannot be done.

To Esme van der Westhuisen, might I fully agree that there so much work to do, but as I say above it’s a gradual and iterative process.  Someone needs to kick start it.  I am volunteering to do the work on South African place names, working on accepted guidelines of the Categorisation Project.  I should also stress the point, that we must not set up hundreds of categories which remain unused, but we must have a logical, understandable structure for everybody to work with.  So this should not be seen as a ‘large bulk project’ .  Philip well knows the dangers of creating categories too quickly.

Might I suggest that all the South African Projects, get their heads together and agree a strategy on place names.  I am happy to volunteer leading a sub-project on place names.

I do not believe Natalie should stop the bot, but I shall ask if rather than a ‘rename category’ we do a ‘merge category’ for exactly the reasons first proposed by me.  Agreed that perhaps it can go on the back burner for now.  I have requested the change based on historic fact.  The category, Cape Colony, will be easily misconstrued as either the Dutch or the British Cape Colonies.  The category, The Dutch Cape Colony 1652-1806 was specifically set up to avoid the confusion.  Natalie and I have communicated on the 'back channel' on this matter.

Andrew Field.

by Andrew Field G2G6 Mach 3 (36.7k points)

A few responses:

"Might I suggest that all the South African Projects, get their heads together and agree a strategy on place names." - There is only 1 project SAR (short for South African Roots) of which the COGH (shorthand for Dutch Cape Colony) is also a sub-/slash sister project. There are at this moment 1 assistant leader (from the Dutch Roots Project), and then 2 leaders, one of which is now retired as leader and one who has amid very taxing personal circumstances only time to focus on creating a sub-project Progenitors (separating profiles from the COGH in order to get the watchlist down below 5000). So "getting heads together" to discuss place names (elsewhere often hashed out in G2G-discussions also concerning the COGH-project) is not only very difficult, but certainly not a priority. A place name is not the same as a project name or category - or said otherwise - as you understand well, a project - even a [sub] category - a district - is the total of collective place names within a certain agreed on time frame.

To start with - renaming this redundant [[Cape Category]] to a different name, so as to make the difference clear, is just the start. Easy. 

The real hard work happens (and this is where Esmé quite rightly has concerns) - begins when you make a project out of it. Because this is what this  [[new category]] eventually will have to be "merged" into. There is a lot that happens there. An immense amount of work. That is also the reason why we are still busy with work that previous decisions on categories, projects and data base errors, have produced. 

So yes - it would be nice, but step by step and with consent and understanding what is meant / what the aim is, and also a clear understanding of the consequences, and a plan of action that will fit alongside the other priorities that we are still working on.

In my personal Gmail I see a mail from you with categories with a lot of "provinces". I always remove these automated place names in pre-1900 profiles because it is simply not historically accurate. The Cape Province was only decided on after 1910 (if I remember correctly in 1927). From roughly (!) 1806-1900 the Cape Colony existed. So if I see a 17th or 18th century profile with "Cape Town, Cape Province, South Africa", I change that place name into de Caep de Goede Hoop, Dutch Cape Colony. If you scroll through this data base, you see just how many farms have recurring names and even named after European places and cities: And that within districts hundreds of square miles wide, such as Swellendam, Tulbagh, Graaff-Reinet [etc.].

For example from the SAR project (the biography is not yet fully integrated to our collatory standards - for the COGH project we also have a maintanance category [[Category:Cape_of_Good_Hope_Project_Needs_Bio_Integration]] ) https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Visser-35. If you click on the changes tab, you'll see the place name changes I just edited in.

Thank you Philip... nothing set in stone, and in that GMail to Categorisation Project, I did state “The <province> Province, Places category might be superfluous in some instances.”   The impression I have is that Cape Province came into being in 1910 with Union, but if it continued to be named Cape Colony until 17 years later, I am unaware of that.  I would be grateful for a source on that, please.  Whatever the historic facts, I am a proponent, like most of us here, of getting it right...  I am merely trying to initiate a little progress, offer my assistance, and am happy with the collaborative process...   If there are other priorities so be it... I am willing to help in this area.
Re Visser-35... seen, noted and agreed...

Just to make a clarification on this matter, Natalie has not stopped EditBOT, and that was never the intent.

What we have here is a case of a single category rename (or possible merger of categories) and while it seems simplistic in nature, it is actually a bit more complicated in the processing of the category itself.

The way the rename, merger and deletion templates are designed, small categories with very few links and attachments can be processed by anyone, while categories with more links and attachments have to be reviewed and confirmed since they pose a chance for major rework if not handled correctly.

In the case being discussed now, the action proposed (the pending rename) is not as simple since there are multiple attachments that would be affected by the rename, which makes this action fall into the second instance above. When the bot processed the first time, it noted the multiple attachments and flagged the category for review. This is a fail safe action of the template to prevent vandalism or other unintended consequences of the using the template by less experienced users.

Now that the category is flagged for review, it falls on one of a small number of people to review the change and either deny the change or confirm it to be processed. Since this a category falling under the auspices of the South African Roots project, that project would provide the guidance back to the category reviewer on whether or not to proceed with the action.


Reading through the post and responses, it appears that the category and intent of the category is still a question at this point. This should be discussed thoroughly within the South African Roots project, then when a decision or change had been identified, brought to G2G (if the structure is changing from a previously approved structure).

@ Andrew … I confused the adoption of the South African flag in 1928 [see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_South_Africa_(1928–1994)] with the creation of the Provinces in 1910 with the forming of the Union of South Africa. I saw that you applied for membership of the COGH project in order to discuss place names; pending the answer I wish to inform you that that should not be the reason to join the COGH project; we are already discussing this topic here in the G2G and both projects are tagged in it - the renaming of the category concerns the period 1806-1910 - the SAR project. I see that you already have membership of that project. This is where you are needed most. 

@ Steven - indeed there should be a thorough discussion. I looked at the Category in question - there seems little practical ramifications if the name is changed now. But then I tend to steer clear from categories as I find the logic difficult to follow at times, even though classifying books, information and data is my occupation. You are correct - as soon as this re-named category merges into and becomes a project, it will become way more than we can handle now, even with the best of intentions of Andrew. Discussing this will be difficult as I have stated that there is little room for discussion in the SAR project, not for lack of will or intention but for lack of (as Esmé stated) personel. The one leader is only supporting leader (she has done a lot to help create this SAR project but also has other priorities, least of all the {{Dutch Roots Project}} [though she is very experienced as far as categorization goes]; another leader has taken a sabbatical indefinitely {{Emiritus}}, and the other leader is otherwise engaged and when she has time it she mostly steers it towards re-categorization priorities generated by the error data base, assisted be me and two or three others. I'm connected to the COGH as research coordinator. The SAR project as I understand only has Esmé as research coordinator on certain sub-projects. For now it seems sensible to take a breather.

So, when time permits, perhaps we can discuss the name change as a SAR Project - I did indeed, a few days back, commenced the discussion on the SAR Google Group (which I believe to be the place for SAR related discussions and resolution) on place name categorization and I still await a response to that.  Seasonal and personnel considerations suggest that perhaps this is best left to the New Year.   I shall, however, re-iterate the matter in Google Groups.
I have messaged the SAR Project in Google Groups.
The SAR Google group is not that active and when it is, it can be tumultuous and passionate. I for one am not that interested in the SAR googlegroup (it will lie in my Google group settings but I for one have not seen this message coming by). I agree with postponing until after the festive season.
Hence my actions in requesting the name change review...

Appreciated, thanks Andrew. smiley

Its not the time to answer in detail but as the manager of almost half of the profiles at present lodged in the present top level Cape Colony category,(there are only 27), I put them there hey are because the individuals were members of the British Cape colony.They aren't in narrower location fields because there weren't any ( was I have to say rather put off by the fact it waa populated with concentration camps and nothing else) I don't see any problem with renaming this category to make differentiation clearer.

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/History_of_South_Africa_from_1795_to_1872/Volume_1 Gives maps and dates of the  boundaries and naming of  the major locations from the British view. I suspect that you wouldn't want people to categorise down to the farm level, just as in England the smallest level is not the Hamlet but the village or parish (Tyumie where there was a church  rather than Binfield farm Tyumie) for this at present uncategorised profile https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Edkins-138 Surely these would, as in other parts of wiki tree be added when needed. 

I don't know if I am misunderstanding Philip, but whilst it is a good idea to differenciate more clearly between the Dutch and Cape Colony categories; there are those who arrived from 179 onwards  where the use of the 'British' category  in addition (or even  at times in replacement of the Dutch one for those who  time there was  short lived) might be  legitimate .So Thomas West from Bristol who arrived with the Navy before 1797  and  died  as a member of the community in Grahamstown might , as he does now, belong in both categories.

Indeed. The short answer is arrival (even though the Cape was also intermittently British from 1795 onwards, and then again Dutch) before 1806 will sort the profile to the {{COGH Progenitors}} (if married and procreated offspring before 1807). Arrival after 1806 (as many British did, also en masse from 1820 onwards) - will sort them under the {{SAR Progenitors}}, and their off-spring merely under the {{SAR}}. Place names: it is a sticky dilemma. Because for example Swellendam is a town, but was also for a long time a huge administrative district (where other towns and farms would sort under) as well as a short-lived renegade colony. At this moment we are still just trying to keep it simple. For example "Swellendam, Dutch Cape Colony" or "Swellendam, Cape Colony". In the profile above that I edited the place names in, the names of the farms or more local places were already in the Data Fields. It is not always appropriate to edit data - remove data I mean - in those fields. But then the profile is still in progress of being validated, along with all the thousands of other profiles.

Yes, the combination of town names and districts might seem sticky... I have the same problem in Southern Rhodesia - which seems to follow the Cape trend...  perhaps we should see the town and surrounding District as one, but I realise it’s not that simple.  I am fortunate to ‘get away’ with in Zimbabwe where I worked off a clean slate.  It’s not insurmountable.
Thanks Helen... I also stumbled upon just the camps - time is right, to slowly think about towns and settlements... perhaps that needs definition.  There may be districts which do not follow town names, or are without a major settlement...  Can’t imagine going down to farm level though...

Hi Andrew, just to make it clear - the project acount googlegroups are not used for communication on issues such as categorization, they are project tools and we only use them as our ''project inbox'' (it's where all project members that also joined the group, can read the notifications of messages posted on profiles or send to the project account and we all are communicating through follow up posts on those profiles...not in the google groups) (this way no one wil receive any email from the google group). The way to communicate is through G2G (as we are doing now) and then appropriately tagging the questions / issues. 

I suggest as an afterthought that you start a G2G feed after the festive season on (as you already suggested) not only on the categorization issue (figuring out with others from that project the historical country / area / territory categories in relation to the higher level categories and what the amount of work will entail and what is needed), but also helping out with the leadership of the SAR project - joining in with co-leading - which is now in need of staff. In the mean time you'll have to acquaint yourself with the editing protocols of the SAR (which is slightly different from the COGH and project specific - we collate data for example: that comes before narrative). Bea (who has so graciously assisted in many aspects and with a lot of hard work with the setup of this project - which came after the launch of the Dutch Cape Colony project in which other leaders such as Liz & Abby also gave a lot of their time and expertise), can give input on general project working and categorisation; Ronel (she is though retired as leader) well informed about place names and history spanning the period of both the Dutch Cape Colony and Cape Colony periods, as well as sources, as does Susan (but as said - even though she is very active also in the SAR project, her main priorities lie with the COGh and with categorisation issues stemming from policy decisions and the error data base output). There are members working intensively on the resources pages of both projects (thanks Dirk, Gordon!), and others again are actively & tirelessly spotting the inevitable duplicates (thanks Esmé!) and proposing mergers, so that is covered. Perhaps Helen would also be willing to share the leadership of the SAR project?

Just thinking out loud. My 1 cent before signing off for the festive holidays. Wishing everyone on WikiTree a less eventful and more calm and productive 2019.

Philip, I really appreciate your guidance... yes let’s resume in the New Year. Wishing you and all a great festive season...

Andrew
Thank you Andrew, and Philip of course for all your wonderful help and wishing everyone a wonderful happy and healthy 2019 also !

Related questions

+11 votes
4 answers
+6 votes
0 answers
+13 votes
5 answers
+6 votes
1 answer
+6 votes
4 answers

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...