We Need a means of Alternative Welsh Names for records using Place name in English (and TWYS on non-Place names)

[Sherlock21]

This issue was raised by Howdy.

In Welsh Counties, where both languages are in use, It is suggested that ALL Place Names be in English, with the Welsh language equivalent of Place name being available and searchable to get the one English version of the record. This could be achieved for example by having the list of Welsh Language Place names just carrying a text note showing (for example): in English - CONWAY and in Welsh: CONWY see CONWAY Other examples are not as obvious as this but I don't know them right now.

And the records are only there once, under the English name version.

Unless the coders can think of an easy way to get to the same point by having BOTLH variants in the Place names table, and the researcher can therefore select either version, and get direct to the same record?.

[Captainkirkdawson]

This is what the Alias field in the Place collection was designed to achieve. It was not implemented because there was not an agreement on the specification.

[Sherlock21]

At that time there was not the perceived need amongst those in the Review team and no one responded to my request to demonstrate what "Alternative Name" actually meant. But now, Howard has indicated for the Welsh Place names, something is necessary.

As I say in the first item, English must be the language of FreeReg (as Ben Laurie has indicated.) So: what way forward please? Can you set up one of your test zones to let us have a tryout?

How would you envisage the thing working for the best please? is yours significantly different to my user-wordy description?

[Captainkirkdawson]

Implementation of an Alias field in the place selection list is feasible.

The issue is likely to be the sort order of entries

Kirk Dawson Fairmont Hot Springs, B.C. V0B 1L1

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Sherlock21 notifications@github.com wrote:

At that time there was not the perceived need amongst those in the Review team and no one responded to my request to demonstrate what "Alternative Name" actually meant. But now, Howard has indicated for the Welsh Place names, something is necessary.

As I say in the first item, English must be the language of FreeReg (as Ben Laurie has indicated.) So: what way forward please? Can you set up one of your test zones to let us have a tryout?

How would you envisage the thing working for the best please? is yours significantly different to my user-wordy description?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/issues/487#issuecomment-101296055 .

[Sherlock21]

In which manner would it work then please? Is it worth considering exactly how it would appear in the application - like put it into your test site for a demo please? Is it worth then running the demo past Howard ( who saw it as essential because he has many of the Welsh records with the Welsh version of the Place name and was about to change them all again I believe)?

[Captainkirkdawson]

Cannot do as suggested until the story becomes active.

I would suggest that Howard not try to "fix" this by adapting to the current setup when there is a system solution,

Kirk Dawson Fairmont Hot Springs, B.C. V0B 1L1

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Sherlock21 notifications@github.com wrote:

In which manner would it work then please? Is it worth considering exactly how it would appear in the application - like put it into your test site for a demo please? Is it worth then running the demo past Howard ( who saw it as essential because he has many of the Welsh records with the Welsh version of the Place name and was about to change them all again I believe)?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/issues/487#issuecomment-101309624 .

[Sherlock21]

OK,I will await the task getting approval.

thanks EB On 12 May 2015, at 17:19, Kirk Dawson wrote:

Cannot do as suggested until the story becomes active.

I would suggest that Howard not try to "fix" this by adapting to the current setup when there is a system solution,

Kirk Dawson Fairmont Hot Springs, B.C. V0B 1L1

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Sherlock21 notifications@github.com wrote:

In which manner would it work then please? Is it worth considering exactly how it would appear in the application - like put it into your test site for a demo please? Is it worth then running the demo past Howard ( who saw it as essential because he has many of the Welsh records with the Welsh version of the Place name and was about to change them all again I believe)?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/issues/487#issuecomment-101309624 .

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[benlaurie]

On 12 May 2015 at 15:09, Sherlock21 notifications@github.com wrote:

At that time there was not the perceived need amongst those in the Review team and no one responded to my request to demonstrate what "Alternative Name" actually meant. But now, Howard has indicated for the Welsh Place names, something is necessary.

As I say in the first item, English must be the language of FreeReg (as Ben Laurie has indicated.)

I don't remember indicating that. I thought I said that there does need to be a way to use Welsh names.

BTW, a better example is Swansea, which is Abertawe in Welsh.

So: what way forward please?

Can you set up one of your test zones to let us have a tryout?

How would you envisage the thing working for the best please? is yours significantly different to my user-wordy description?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/issues/487#issuecomment-101296055 .

[Captainkirkdawson]

Proposed solution is for the coordinator to assign an alternate place name to the place entry in the Place collection. That alternate name is added to the search list options and links to the same place entry. Will work for Welsh or any other similar situation. Will be actioned when the scrum adds it to the sprint.

Kirk Dawson Fairmont Hot Springs, B.C. V0B 1L1

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 2:17 AM, Ben Laurie notifications@github.com wrote:

On 12 May 2015 at 15:09, Sherlock21 notifications@github.com wrote:

At that time there was not the perceived need amongst those in the Review team and no one responded to my request to demonstrate what "Alternative Name" actually meant. But now, Howard has indicated for the Welsh Place names, something is necessary.

As I say in the first item, English must be the language of FreeReg (as Ben Laurie has indicated.)

I don't remember indicating that. I thought I said that there does need to be a way to use Welsh names.

BTW, a better example is Swansea, which is Abertawe in Welsh.

So: what way forward please?

Can you set up one of your test zones to let us have a tryout?

How would you envisage the thing working for the best please? is yours significantly different to my user-wordy description?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub < https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/issues/487#issuecomment-101296055

.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/issues/487#issuecomment-101566895 .

[PatReynolds]

See also 313 (one of 2) and 316

[ghost]

I would propose this be closed now. For Wales, we use the name which the location is best known for, be it the English or Welsh name. The alternate is put in to the Alternate name box.

[PatReynolds]

This is perhaps two stories. Story one: Welsh search option - possibly even Welsh language search, in version 2 point something - picklist shows Caerdydd, search returns against place Cardiff. Story two: enable TWYS of places mentioned in documents (e.g. parish of groom and bride).

- -

Dr Pat Reynolds Executive Director Free UK Genealogy http://www.freeukgenealogy.org.uk/ A charity registered in England and Wales, number 1096940, transitioning to a Charitable Incorporated Organisation registered in England and Wales, number 1167484 VAT registration: 233 0105 70

​+44 ​1904 541411​ +44 7943 145387

36 Albemarle Road, York, YO23 1ER, UK

On 3 September 2016 at 10:26, CommsCoord notifications@github.com wrote:

I would propose this be closed now. For Wales, we use the name which the location is best known for, be it the English or Welsh name. The alternate is put in to the Alternate name box.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/issues/487#issuecomment-244536681, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGC5BoIOq951pevdCd8CIkUGhPRHw7ueks5qmT1UgaJpZM4EXu-A .

[Sherlock21]

The Parish of Groom and Bride are not validated against anything so there is no issue with doing TWYS - and there are no instructions to my knowledge.

Except there is a different request by me to Validate those 2 fields against the Place Names Table, AND add into the search spec, and find ALL the Out of Area marriages and burials. - a feature the others can't do. - e.g.: a Groom from York, marrying a Bride from Cardiff, will never get found by anyone researching the Groom's line because the records will only be found in a search of Cardiff.

[PatReynolds]

They aren't validated against place, because they are not 'places' as FreeREG has them now. #548 is the issue that will tie Caerdydd to Cardiff to a marriage taking place in York. Probably as part of a larger, externally funded project on maps/localities.

- -

Dr Pat Reynolds Executive Director Free UK Genealogy http://www.freeukgenealogy.org.uk/ A charity registered in England and Wales, number 1096940, transitioning to a Charitable Incorporated Organisation registered in England and Wales, number 1167484 VAT registration: 233 0105 70

​+44 ​1904 541411​ +44 7943 145387

36 Albemarle Road, York, YO23 1ER, UK

On 5 September 2016 at 10:22, Sherlock21 notifications@github.com wrote:

The Parish of Groom and Bride are not validated against anything so there is no issue with doing TWYS - and there are no instructions to my knowledge.

Except there is a different request by me to Validate those 2 fields against the Place Names Table, AND add into the search spec, and find ALL the Out of Area marriages and burials. - a feature the others can't do. - e.g.: a Groom from York, marrying a Bride from Cardiff, will never get found by anyone researching the Groom's line because the records will only be found in a search of Cardiff.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/issues/487#issuecomment-244700225, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGC5BjJZ6qkI35WOvPi7DPFTP34kJVhuks5qm99ngaJpZM4EXu-A .

[PatReynolds]

I have added the TWYS and changed the milestone, as this is also needed so that (for example) extra-parochial mariages can have TWYS place recording (i.e. this story is about the recording of locality names which are not Place names and searching by both Place and locality names

[Sherlock21]

If you are proposing to use names that are NOT Place Names, as Primary Place names, then this amounts to a total change of Policy.

This is not the same issue as Sandra agreed will work ( 6 comments above)

Without all the full details of what you propose, and proper examples, I cannot support this on the face to it.

This topic should NOT have been renamed for Welsh Place Names unless you are really proposing that it will ONLY be used for Welsh Places? - what about Gaelic places?

And if you are to use the present Alt Place name, ( as Kirk suggests) then what about those Records which already have real Alternative Spellings of the Real Place name?

Finally, to find out of extra-parochial marriages as Pat mentions above: then use the Abode field, which will need to be a validated field. - this is in a different Request of mine already.

[edickens]

Please clarify. Is this just the Parish residency fields, not the main Place of the entry?

E

[ghost]

This is getting hard to wrap my head around. I think if what I am reading is correct, then anytime a place name (i.e in its Welsh or English spelling) is searched, it should show returns if they are linked or are in the system, is that right?

Using the example of Swansea/Abertawe, are they considered linked if one is entered as the place name and the other is the alternate (Other) on the Place information page?

Can the parish of the bride and groom fields be linked to the place names. Only problem I can see is using TWYS (especially here in Wales) when the register showing an altogether different spelling there could be an issue, You would not believe how often it is seem in Wales, especially when dealing with the Welsh names and vicars who did not really have a clue.

Would creating a new story to focus on this central topic be better, because I think the issue is getting muddied as it has moved away from the original issue of Welsh place names

[Sherlock21]

A good point by Eric D

In Marriages, we have: Place of Marriage: Parish of Groom, Abode of Groom, Parish of Bride; Abode of Bride.

[edickens]

Abode is easy because it is an address and cannot be standardised.

But Parish is not a Place.  However, there are people who want to
analyse our database by Parish of the person, or may wish to switch
to registers of that Parish to look up more information.  So should
we link a Parish with Places?  Yes, a Parish can cover many places. 
However this is a lot of work and so is it really necessary?

In the Parish fields that EricB has defined here it is acceptable to
put both English and Welsh names.  These are not searchable fields.

E

On 22/11/2016 12:32, Sherlock21 wrote:

  A good point by Eric D
  In Marriages, we have: Place of Marriage: Parish of Groom,
    Abode of Groom, Parish of Bride; Abode of Bride.

  {"api_version":"1.0","publisher":{"api_key":"05dde50f1d1a384dd78767c55493e4bb","name":"GitHub"},"entity":{"external_key":"github/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar","title":"FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar","subtitle":"GitHub repository","main_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/17495839/a5054eac-5d88-11e6-95fc-7290892c7bb5.png","avatar_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/15842166/7c72db34-2c0b-11e6-9aed-b52498112777.png","action":{"name":"Open in GitHub","url":"https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar"}},"updates":{"snippets":[{"icon":"PERSON","message":"@Sherlock21 in #487: A good point by Eric D\r\n\r\nIn Marriages, we have: Place of Marriage: Parish of Groom, Abode of Groom, Parish of Bride; Abode of Bride.\r\n\r\n"}],"action":{"name":"View Issue","url":"https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/issues/487#issuecomment-262229309"}}}

[PatReynolds]

Please rest assured - no change of policy. This is not about changing how Place works now (and will continue to work). It is about how people search, and how TWYS locality names (e.g. the parish of a bride/groom if not the parish where a marriage takes place) is recorded.

On 22 November 2016 at 12:11, Sherlock21 notifications@github.com wrote:

If you are proposing to use names that are NOT Place Names, as Primary Place names, then this amounts to a total change of Policy.

This is not the same issue as Sandra agreed will work ( 6 comments above)

Without all the full details of what you propose, and proper examples, I cannot support this on the face to it.

This topic should NOT have been renamed for Welsh Place Names unless you are really proposing that it will ONLY be used for Welsh Places? - what about Gaelic places?

And if you are to use the present Alt Place name, ( as Kirk suggests) then what about those Records which already have real Alternative Spellings of the Real Place name?

Finally, to find out of extra-parochial marriages as Pat mentions above: then use the Abode field, which will need to be a validated field. - this is in a different Request of mine already.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/issues/487#issuecomment-262225353, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGC5Bv6dtCCKUy5KLAfjK62lTFTRZX0qks5rAtv5gaJpZM4EXu-A .

- -

Dr Pat Reynolds Executive Director Free UK Genealogy http://www.freeukgenealogy.org.uk/ A charity registered in England and Wales, number 1096940, transitioning to a Charitable Incorporated Organisation registered in England and Wales, number 1167484 VAT registration: 233 0105 70

​+44 ​1904 541411​ +44 7943 145387

36 Albemarle Road, York, YO23 1ER, UK

[edickens]

Would it help if our list of "Transcriptions", after you have selected the County and you get the list of places, that the Alternate name is displayed. There is room. This could be used as a "Conversion table" for someone to look up is they cannot understand a name.

But again, do not confuse Places and Parishes.

E

[ghost]

I think one thing that may confuse with the difference in place and parish, often on a register it will say otp so we know the Parish is the church which is being transcribed (Say St Mary in Cardiff) but it some might say St Mary, Cardiff, again no issue, But if the place given is say Llannon, we know it is the place Llannon, but no idea of the church name. In abode that can be given as a physical address (11 Main St) or placename (Llannon) and either works. It will be a bit tricky.

An option could be if given the situation above, could it be possible for someone to see the name of the parish church in Llannon and it would be entered as such? although it somewhat circumvents the TWYS rule, it could work if there was only one church in the village, it would be a given.

Moves us into murky waters.

[PatReynolds]

I suggest we use something like 'locality' or 'geographic entity' to refer to a TWYS / searched-for place, to minimise confusion with Place (metadata).

On 22 November 2016 at 13:37, CommsCoord notifications@github.com wrote:

I think one thing that may confuse with the difference in place and parish, often on a register it will say otp so we know the Parish is the church which is being transcribed (Say St Mary in Cardiff) but it some might say St Mary, Cardiff, again no issue, But if the place given is say Llannon, we know it is the place Llannon, but no idea of the church name. In abode that can be given as a physical address (11 Main St) or placename (Llannon) and either works. It will be a bit tricky.

An option could be if given the situation above, could it be possible for someone to see the name of the parish church in Llannon and it would be entered as such? although it somewhat circumvents the TWYS rule, it could work if there was only one church in the village, it would be a given.

Moves us into murky waters.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/issues/487#issuecomment-262242181, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGC5Bn-eox3guCyMK4FG5pUKqcBbQYrPks5rAvAUgaJpZM4EXu-A .

- -

Dr Pat Reynolds Executive Director Free UK Genealogy http://www.freeukgenealogy.org.uk/ A charity registered in England and Wales, number 1096940, transitioning to a Charitable Incorporated Organisation registered in England and Wales, number 1167484 VAT registration: 233 0105 70

​+44 ​1904 541411​ +44 7943 145387

36 Albemarle Road, York, YO23 1ER, UK

[Sherlock21]

Hi, Eric D

ctually, in the present Burials Register that I am transribing - 1584 to 1710 so far - the record shows: “”John smith of XXXXXX”

where XXXx is the present Abode in tems of their village or their House name + village - so it would be easy to make Village a into a Place Name ( already in the system) and have a seperate address field for the house name.

It’s surprising how many are from villages that are not the Place name of the event.

Now off the cuff I would say it would be impossible to either find all the Parishes that are in A Place Name or obtain a list of Parishes + their Place + Geo Code. so one could get back to our Plac names.

and of course that would need to be preceeeded by sorting out which definition of Parish they are talking about.

Civil / Administrative for the Local Government? C of E Religious? RC religious?

other denominations’ equivalents?

It’s not worth the effort even if you could afford to do it in my view.

EB On 22 Nov 2016, at 12:39, Eric Dickens notifications@github.com wrote:

Abode is easy because it is an address and cannot be standardised.

But Parish is not a Place. However, there are people who want to analyse our database by Parish of the person, or may wish to switch to registers of that Parish to look up more information. So should we link a Parish with Places? Yes, a Parish can cover many places. However this is a lot of work and so is it really necessary?

In the Parish fields that EricB has defined here it is acceptable to put both English and Welsh names. These are not searchable fields.

E

On 22/11/2016 12:32, Sherlock21 wrote:

A good point by Eric D In Marriages, we have: Place of Marriage: Parish of Groom, Abode of Groom, Parish of Bride; Abode of Bride.

{"api_version":"1.0","publisher":{"api_key":"05dde50f1d1a384dd78767c55493e4bb","name":"GitHub"},"entity":{"external_key":"github/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar","title":"FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar","subtitle":"GitHub repository","main_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/17495839/a5054eac-5d88-11e6-95fc-7290892c7bb5.png","avatar_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/15842166/7c72db34-2c0b-11e6-9aed-b52498112777.png","action":{"name":"Open in GitHub","url":"https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar"}},"updates":{"snippets":[{"icon":"PERSON","message":"@Sherlock21 in #487: A good point by Eric D\r\n\r\nIn Marriages, we have: Place of Marriage: Parish of Groom, Abode of Groom, Parish of Bride; Abode of Bride.\r\n\r\n"}],"action":{"name":"View Issue","url":"https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/issues/487#issuecomment-262229309"}}} — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[edickens]

Definitely not worth the effort and would be another that was not
TWYS.  E
_____________________________________

Eric J Dickens FreeREG Chairman On 23/11/2016 16:29, Sherlock21 wrote:

Hi, Eric D

  ctually, in the present Burials Register that I am transribing -
  1584 to 1710 so far - the record shows: “”John smith of XXXXXX”

  where XXXx is the present Abode in tems of their village or their
  House name + village - so it would be easy to make Village a into
  a Place Name ( already in the system) and have a seperate address
  field for the house name.

  It’s surprising how many are from villages that are not the Place
  name of the event.

  Now off the cuff I would say it would be impossible to either find
  all the Parishes that are in A Place Name
  or obtain a list of Parishes + their Place + Geo Code. so one
  could get back to our Plac names.

  and of course that would need to be preceeeded by sorting out
  which definition of Parish they are talking about.

  Civil / Administrative for the Local Government?
  C of E Religious?
  RC religious?

  other denominations’ equivalents?

  It’s not worth the effort even if you could afford to do it in my
  view.

  EB
  On 22 Nov 2016, at 12:39, Eric Dickens
  <notifications@github.com> wrote:

  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > Abode is easy because it is an address and cannot be
  standardised.
  > 
  > But Parish is not a Place. However, there are people who want
  to
  > analyse our database by Parish of the person, or may wish to
  switch
  > to registers of that Parish to look up more information. So
  should
  > we link a Parish with Places? Yes, a Parish can cover many
  places. 
  > However this is a lot of work and so is it really necessary?
  > 
  > In the Parish fields that EricB has defined here it is
  acceptable to
  > put both English and Welsh names. These are not searchable
  fields.
  > 
  > E
  > 
  > 
  > On 22/11/2016 12:32, Sherlock21 wrote:
  > 
  > 
  > A good point by Eric D
  > In Marriages, we have: Place of Marriage: Parish of Groom,
  > Abode of Groom, Parish of Bride; Abode of Bride.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  >

{"api_version":"1.0","publisher":{"api_key":"05dde50f1d1a384dd78767c55493e4bb","name":"GitHub"},"entity":{"external_key":"github/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar","title":"FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar","subtitle":"GitHub repository","main_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/17495839/a5054eac-5d88-11e6-95fc-7290892c7bb5.png","avatar_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/15842166/7c72db34-2c0b-11e6-9aed-b52498112777.png","action":{"name":"Open in GitHub","url":"https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar"}},"updates":{"snippets":[{"icon":"PERSON","message":"@Sherlock21 in #487: A good point by Eric D\r\n\r\nIn Marriages, we have: Place of Marriage: Parish of Groom, Abode of Groom, Parish of Bride; Abode of Bride.\r\n\r\n"}],"action":{"name":"View Issue","url":"https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/issues/487#issuecomment-262229309"}}}

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

  —
    You are receiving this because you commented.
    Reply to this email directly, view
      it on GitHub, or mute
      the thread.

  {"api_version":"1.0","publisher":{"api_key":"05dde50f1d1a384dd78767c55493e4bb","name":"GitHub"},"entity":{"external_key":"github/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar","title":"FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar","subtitle":"GitHub repository","main_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/17495839/a5054eac-5d88-11e6-95fc-7290892c7bb5.png","avatar_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/15842166/7c72db34-2c0b-11e6-9aed-b52498112777.png","action":{"name":"Open in GitHub","url":"https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar"}},"updates":{"snippets":[{"icon":"PERSON","message":"@Sherlock21 in #487: Hi, Eric D\n\nctually, in the present Burials Register that I am transribing - 1584 to 1710 so far - the record shows: “”John smith of  XXXXXX”\n\n\nwhere XXXx is the present Abode in tems of their village or their House name + village - so it would be easy  to make Village a into a Place Name ( already in the system) and have a seperate address field for the house name.\n\nIt’s surprising how many are  from villages that are not the Place name of the event.\n\nNow off the cuff I would say it would be impossible to either find all the Parishes that are in A Place Name\nor obtain a list of Parishes + their Place + Geo Code. so one could get back to our Plac names.\n\nand of course that would need to be preceeeded by sorting out which definition of Parish they are talking about.\n\nCivil / Administrative for the Local Government?\nC of E Religious?\nRC religious?\n\nother denominations’ equivalents?\n\nIt’s not worth the effort even if you could afford to do it in my view.\n \n\nEB\nOn 22 Nov 2016, at 12:39, Eric Dickens \u003cnotifications@github.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e Abode is easy because it is an address and cannot be standardised.\n\u003e \n\u003e But Parish is not a Place.  However, there are people who want to\n\u003e analyse our database by Parish of the person, or may wish to switch\n\u003e to registers of that Parish to look up more information.  So should\n\u003e we link a Parish with Places?  Yes, a Parish can cover many places. \n\u003e However this is a lot of work and so is it really necessary?\n\u003e \n\u003e In the Parish fields that EricB has defined here it is acceptable to\n\u003e put both English and Welsh names.  These are not searchable fields.\n\u003e \n\u003e E\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e On 22/11/2016 12:32, Sherlock21 wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e A good point by Eric D\n\u003e In Marriages, we have: Place of Marriage: Parish of Groom,\n\u003e Abode of Groom, Parish of Bride; Abode of Bride.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e {\"api_version\":\"1.0\",\"publisher\":{\"api_key\":\"05dde50f1d1a384dd78767c55493e4bb\",\"name\":\"GitHub\"},\"entity\":{\"external_key\":\"github/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar\",\"title\":\"FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar\",\"subtitle\":\"GitHub repository\",\"main_image_url\":\"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/17495839/a5054eac-5d88-11e6-95fc-7290892c7bb5.png\",\"avatar_image_url\":\"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/15842166/7c72db34-2c0b-11e6-9aed-b52498112777.png\",\"action\":{\"name\":\"Open in GitHub\",\"url\":\"https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar\"}},\"updates\":{\"snippets\":[{\"icon\":\"PERSON\",\"message\":\"@Sherlock21 in #487: A good point by Eric D\\r\\n\\r\\nIn Marriages, we have: Place of Marriage: Parish of Groom, Abode of Groom, Parish of Bride; Abode of Bride.\\r\\n\\r\\n\"}],\"action\":{\"name\":\"View Issue\",\"url\":\"https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/issues/487#issuecomment-262229309\"}}}\n\u003e —\n\u003e You are receiving this because you authored the thread.\n\u003e Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.\n\u003e \n\n"}],"action":{"name":"View Issue","url":"https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/issues/487#issuecomment-262564045"}}}

[ghost]

​Just so I am clear (note I give examples):

Abode would mean the address given where the person lives or lived, which may include a street address (123 Main Street; Mill House) or a location (Four Winds Farm; Grant Arms Pub) or their village/hamlet (Melyn, Felinfoel).

Parish is the church/chapel (St Mary's - Swansea) or simply given as the place where their home church is (Briton Ferry).

I think the issue stems from parish (in marriages) being written in the way I noted above. Can the parish field be searchable, because more often then not a placename is given unless the person is of the parish being transcribed.

Sandra

---

Sandra Adams-West FreeREG Communications Coordinator

---

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Sherlock21 notifications@github.com wrote:

Hi, Eric D

ctually, in the present Burials Register that I am transribing - 1584 to 1710 so far - the record shows: “”John smith of XXXXXX”

where XXXx is the present Abode in tems of their village or their House name + village - so it would be easy to make Village a into a Place Name ( already in the system) and have a seperate address field for the house name.

It’s surprising how many are from villages that are not the Place name of the event.

Now off the cuff I would say it would be impossible to either find all the Parishes that are in A Place Name or obtain a list of Parishes + their Place + Geo Code. so one could get back to our Plac names.

and of course that would need to be preceeeded by sorting out which definition of Parish they are talking about.

Civil / Administrative for the Local Government? C of E Religious? RC religious?

other denominations’ equivalents?

It’s not worth the effort even if you could afford to do it in my view.

EB On 22 Nov 2016, at 12:39, Eric Dickens notifications@github.com wrote:

Abode is easy because it is an address and cannot be standardised.

But Parish is not a Place. However, there are people who want to analyse our database by Parish of the person, or may wish to switch to registers of that Parish to look up more information. So should we link a Parish with Places? Yes, a Parish can cover many places. However this is a lot of work and so is it really necessary?

In the Parish fields that EricB has defined here it is acceptable to put both English and Welsh names. These are not searchable fields.

E

On 22/11/2016 12:32, Sherlock21 wrote:

A good point by Eric D In Marriages, we have: Place of Marriage: Parish of Groom, Abode of Groom, Parish of Bride; Abode of Bride.

{"api_version":"1.0","publisher":{"api_key":" 05dde50f1d1a384dd78767c55493e4bb","name":"GitHub"},"entity": {"external_key":"github/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar","title" :"FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar","subtitle":"GitHub repository","main_image_url":" https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/17495839/a5054eac-5d88- 11e6-95fc-7290892c7bb5.png","avatar_image_url":"https:// cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/15842166/ 7c72db34-2c0b-11e6-9aed-b52498112777.png","action":{"name":"Open in GitHub","url":"https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar"}}," updates":{"snippets":[{"icon":"PERSON","message":"@Sherlock21 in #487: A good point by Eric D\r\n\r\nIn Marriages, we have: Place of Marriage: Parish of Groom, Abode of Groom, Parish of Bride; Abode of Bride.\r\n\r\n"}],"action":{"name":"View Issue","url":"https://github. com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/issues/487#issuecomment-262229309"}}} — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/issues/487#issuecomment-262564045, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ATmwDocUQLw_Yea6UZT5w-aDYt8KD5pxks5rBGnsgaJpZM4EXu-A .

[edickens]

Very useful Sandra. That is how I see those fields should be used.

But do you really mean that Parish should be "Searchable"? Or are you saying that we should have the option to be able to look up a Place if that is what was stated? We can't look up Parish because we do not have a list of them.

E

On 23/11/2016 17:58, CommsCoord wrote:

​Just so I am clear (note I give examples):

Abode would mean the address given where the person lives or lived, which may include a street address (123 Main Street; Mill House) or a location (Four Winds Farm; Grant Arms Pub) or their village/hamlet (Melyn, Felinfoel).

Parish is the church/chapel (St Mary's - Swansea) or simply given as the place where their home church is (Briton Ferry).

I think the issue stems from parish (in marriages) being written in the way I noted above. Can the parish field be searchable, because more often then not a placename is given unless the person is of the parish being transcribed.

Sandra

[ghost]

I guess parish would be a hard one to search in some cases.

In my experience, when transcribing marriages, for the most part bride and groom are from the same parish, which the vicar may indicate by writing 'of this parish' or 'otp'.

There are time however, that the bride or groom are from a different parish, and usually the vicar would write the name of the place, usually because there was only one parish church in that place, so for example, they might write 'parish of Briton Ferry'. If the bride or groom lived in a place that has multiple parish churches, like Swansea, the vicar would write 'parish of St Mary, Swansea.

Would it be possible to include a field along parish for the church name to be entered if given, and then the place name in the parish field, which then could be searched?

If that is put into place, then a researcher could click on Swansea, and they would have the church name already to go on, and they could search records of St Mary, say for baptism records for the bride or groom.

Does that make sense, even if something like this cannot be implemented?

Sandra

---

Sandra Adams-West FreeREG Communications Coordinator

---

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 6:07 PM, Eric Dickens notifications@github.com wrote:

Very useful Sandra. That is how I see those fields should be used.

But do you really mean that Parish should be "Searchable"? Or are you saying that we should have the option to be able to look up a Place if that is what was stated? We can't look up Parish because we do not have a list of them.

E

On 23/11/2016 17:58, CommsCoord wrote:

​Just so I am clear (note I give examples):

Abode would mean the address given where the person lives or lived, which may include a street address (123 Main Street; Mill House) or a location (Four Winds Farm; Grant Arms Pub) or their village/hamlet (Melyn, Felinfoel).

Parish is the church/chapel (St Mary's - Swansea) or simply given as the place where their home church is (Briton Ferry).

I think the issue stems from parish (in marriages) being written in the way I noted above. Can the parish field be searchable, because more often then not a placename is given unless the person is of the parish being transcribed.

Sandra

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/issues/487#issuecomment-262589843, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ATmwDvbsF15shtrMri4DE5_-8VCd0XONks5rBIDFgaJpZM4EXu-A .

[edickens]

Interesting.

There is a TWYS problem, but perhaps this should be superseded by the need for a researcher to follow the information given in the marriage record. The "Parish" is very useful to know where to look next, usually for the groom's family. So, if the recent discussion is followed, the "Parish" field needs a TWYS field, and a "Place" field that is picked from our Place list. The actual Church is not so important and that can be stated in the TWYS.

In the very long term we can then let the researcher use the "Place" version to revise their search.

This also raises an interesting question. Do we need a TWYS and a Transcriber version for every field? This would allow for Latin translations and other unreadable fields. But I am still of the view that what we transcribe should NOT always be TWYS, but what is useful to find the record. However, that is really only possible if we can then show the researcher the original image (even if this is a link to FamilySearch) so that they can then see the original which would be the TWYS. All we need is a marker to say that the transcriber has had to interpret what they saw and the researcher should look at the original image.

E

---

Eric J Dickens FreeREG Chairman

On 23/11/2016 18:32, CommsCoord wrote:

I guess parish would be a hard one to search in some cases.

In my experience, when transcribing marriages, for the most part bride and groom are from the same parish, which the vicar may indicate by writing 'of this parish' or 'otp'.

There are time however, that the bride or groom are from a different parish, and usually the vicar would write the name of the place, usually because there was only one parish church in that place, so for example, they might write 'parish of Briton Ferry'. If the bride or groom lived in a place that has multiple parish churches, like Swansea, the vicar would write 'parish of St Mary, Swansea.

Would it be possible to include a field along parish for the church name to be entered if given, and then the place name in the parish field, which then could be searched?

If that is put into place, then a researcher could click on Swansea, and they would have the church name already to go on, and they could search records of St Mary, say for baptism records for the bride or groom.

Does that make sense, even if something like this cannot be implemented?

Sandra

[Sherlock21]

These discussions only really mean something, if there are examples - as Sandra is doing. But think from the Parish start point. Lets take Parish = St John. there will be thousands in the UK Even if I say its in WRY, there are 10 that we have transcribed already and that's just a tiny percentage of the County. So you would have no idea which one was intended based on these 2 fields alone.

Nothing works, unless its Place name based as we currently know it. FR is build around Place Names. And nothing will ever work as searchable if its a free form field either

[Sherlock21]

Eric D's post ( 2 up from this one ) hits the nail on the head -so as to speak - in his ultimate para: What we type should be what is really useful to the Transcriber. Nothing more, nothing Less. if we put the right information into our records, then the researcher will have the best there is available to enable themselves to go find the original Register text and read the TWYS version themselves. for themselves, and read

If we just do TWYS per row of register record, then those records will never come out in search report in the first place, so its been a pointless journey for all.

[ghost]

I am of the opinion that in the context of the parish (as in Groom's parish, say St John, Swansea) that if a separate field for the church name (does not need to be searchable) but in the parish field the place is entered and is searchable, then the researcher (if looking though our data) only needs to do a search of Swansea to see if we have data for St John's. If not they can then look elsewhere (familysearch.org for example.

If for the parish (place) the place name or alternate (if applicable) can be picked up in a search, then that sorts some issues, If in a record the parish recorded was an alternate (such as Abertawe for Swansea) then theoretically if that was searched it would point them to Swansea.

TWYS is a excellent concept, but I also think that common sense or experience needs to be brought into the fold. As I said in another post re the names (Thos for Thomas) I think that exception should be made in these cases to write the name out fully, only because researchers down the line might think their gggg grandpa was really named Thos. This is not applicable for everything, but again this is where I think the common sense comes into play. We need to make things as easy as possible for researchers.

And with Latin, there are certain things that common sense applies to . In Wales, we had the vicars 'Latinise' Welsh names (Jenkinus for Jenkin) and in cases like this we advise to record the name as Jenkin, with a note to say recorded as Jenkinus. This is because no one researching early Welsh names will search Jenkinus, because it is not Welsh. ON a lighter note, you should see how they mucked up names like Morgan ap Morgan or Gwenllian!

Just my thoughts.

---

Sandra Adams-West FreeREG Communications Coordinator

---

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 7:25 PM, Sherlock21 notifications@github.com wrote:

Eric D's post ( 2 up from this one ) hits the nail on the head -so as to speak - in his ultimate para: What we type should be what is really useful to the Transcriber. Nothing more, nothing Less. if we put the right information into our records, then the researcher will have the best there is available to enable themselves to go find the original Register text and read the TWYS version themselves. for themselves, and read

If we just do TWYS per row of register record, then those records will never come out in search report in the first place, so its been a pointless journey for all.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/issues/487#issuecomment-262608722, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ATmwDueWgy4OM3vKyAPDZn3SI4iUnW_mks5rBJMzgaJpZM4EXu-A .

[edickens]

The problem at present is that we cannot show them the original. At least not in FreeREG.

This is another reason why I want V1.5 as soon as possible. This includes image allocation and so we create the link to the image, even if we have to mark the image as not to be shown. At least the link is there for the Coordinator to check or answer a question, and we could give researchers access if they register and agree to a "for personal research only" clause.

E

[Sherlock21]

Until the Exec identify Exactly what they mean by TWYS, its going nowhere.

is it Per Record? i.e. if the year only appears on one row, can one count they as applying to ALL rows on that page? Its Not exactly TWYS is it.

and similar for Month, Even Activity ( like Burial is often written in Each row of data - but not always. So what then for TWYS? One needs that first to put the record int he right input file!)

example the attached image page.

Will Pat please Transcribe this - well the first 10 rows, this will give all the answers of How to translate your perception of TWYS.

[PatReynolds]

Not sure how we can show people images for anything other than transcription purposes, if that's the condition we've been given them under.

On 23 November 2016 at 21:32, Eric Dickens notifications@github.com wrote:

The problem at present is that we cannot show them the original. At least not in FreeREG.

This is another reason why I want V1.5 as soon as possible. This includes image allocation and so we create the link to the image, even if we have to mark the image as not to be shown. At least the link is there for the Coordinator to check or answer a question, and we could give researchers access if they register and agree to a "for personal research only" clause.

E

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/issues/487#issuecomment-262635086, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGC5Bgacc54GGGBcR0vf91stHcFgVXhYks5rBLEDgaJpZM4EXu-A .

-- - -

Dr Pat Reynolds Executive Director Free UK Genealogy http://www.freeukgenealogy.org.uk/ A charity registered in England and Wales, number 1096940, transitioning to a Charitable Incorporated Organisation registered in England and Wales, number 1167484 VAT registration: 233 0105 70

​+44 ​1904 541411​ +44 7943 145387

36 Albemarle Road, York, YO23 1ER, UK

[edickens]

The only slight glimmer of hope is that it is legal to take part of a document for research purposes. Copyright is in the whole document.

The other thing we could do is to put a watermark over it so that it is of no use other than to check the transcription. And that is why we are showing the researcher the original, not for them to print it out or use it elsewhere. And perhaps we could display the image in such a way that you have to scroll to see it, and there is no download or print option.

But without being able to show the original to the researcher, we have a real problem with TWYS versus being able to create a searchable record.

I may be labouring this point and trying to get around the problem, but it is crucial to how we transcribe and help researchers.

E

On 25/11/2016 15:32, PatReynolds wrote:

Not sure how we can show people images for anything other than transcription purposes, if that's the condition we've been given them under.

[benlaurie]

On 24 November 2016 at 11:15, Sherlock21 notifications@github.com wrote:

Until the Exec identify Exactly what they mean by TWYS, its going nowhere.

is it Per Record? i.e. if the year only appears on one row, can one count they as applying to ALL rows on that page? Its Not exactly TWYS is it.

There is a difference between what is seen on the page and what can be reasonably inferred as being the actual record. I don't see why we cannot capture both of these?

and similar for Month, Even Activity ( like Burial is often written in Each row of data - but not always. So what then for TWYS? One needs that first to put the record int he right input file!)

example the attached image page.

Will Pat please Transcribe this - well the first 10 rows, this will give all the answers of How to translate your perception of TWYS.

[image: wyk-dewsbury-gr-1753-1774-d9-6-1-015] https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/9368704/20596604/427b0660-b237-11e6-897c-0a244b30f88f.jpg

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/issues/487#issuecomment-262752329, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACcbIoAj0HOuvFYkNOM5q2NN_xAdQiAks5rBXHHgaJpZM4EXu-A .

[Sherlock21]

Thank you, Ben,

Reading your above decision to mean that the Transcriber can, if necessary, create a single Transcription record in the following circumstances, (with regard to Dates and Abode):-

Take an elastic version of your decision accepting the practice of "responsibly inferring from adjacent records' ( same page or a nearby page) to establish a proper date or just the year part as appropriate, then that is fine. I am content with that decision.

RATHER THAN having to create 2 rows for each such record - one being exactly TWYS per Row, and the other being a Reasonably inference of date or Abode.

---

It will go almost all the way to removing dateless records, and to relieve the coders of trying to work out something artificial for the year, in order to make those records appear in a search result list.

It will now also remove the need to consider having a TWYS row AND a Transcriber's best guess row for each noon complete actual Register row in my view, and we can move on.

And it will remove the need for many of the pre 1750 transcriptions to be taken off FR, as they would undoubtedly have contained come dates deploying such techniques. - most of mine do.

PERHAPS this decision should be moved to a more findable place, as in respect of Dates and Abodes, it is not quite the main subject of this reference.

The TWYS issue of the other parts of the Record, and of Alternative Place names, will need a different decision to that in the foregoing details in this comment of course.

[ghost]

I have to agree with Ben and EricB here. Especially with dates, using the date before and after a particular entry can at least establish a probable year and month (depending of course on how busy the parish was). We (Wales) tend to put at least the year. ​ Again, I think this boils down to common sense, rather than a hardline TWYS. I think that a happy marriage between the two would be much more palatable to transcribers and coordinators alike.

Just my opinion, mind you, but it has worked well for us in Wales.

Sandra

---

Sandra Adams-West FreeREG Communications Coordinator __

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Sherlock21 notifications@github.com wrote:

Thank you, Ben, (with regard to Dates and Abode) If we are able to have an elastic version of your decision accepting the practice of "responsibly inferring from adjacent records' ( same page or a nearby page) to establish a proper date or just the year part as appropriate, then that is fine. I am content with that decision.

It will go almost all the way to removing dateless records, and to relieve the coders of trying to work out something artificial for the year, in order to make those records appear in a search result list.

It will now also remove the need to consider having a TWYS row AND a Transcriber's best guess row for each noon complete actual Register row in my view, and we can move on.

And it will remove the need for many of the pre 1750 transcriptions to be taken off FR, as they would undoubtedly have contained come dates deploying such techniques. - most of mine do.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/issues/487#issuecomment-262998642, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ATmwDrqf_HAv1wIGyNekl0Dlnpk56mNRks5rBxUDgaJpZM4EXu-A .