Like everything else in FH, you can record data in more ways than one and the best way is your way because that is how you understand your entries. The advice about bearing in mind how you might want to extract information in the future and being consistent, is also valid but I believe you should remember that we are genealogists and what you are actually doing is transcribing another document. The genealogists rules of transcription are clear and cast in stone - you copy exactly what the document says. So shouldn't we copy exactly what our document says? So if the document gives an address as Birkenhead, Merseyside because that was the situation at the time, then isn't that what we should transcribe. Then add an explanatory comment in 'Notes' saying that prior to April 1974 Birkenhead was in the County of Cheshire and returned to Cheshire in X. Or follow Mike Tate's solution if you want the explanation to be really comprehensive. The commercial sources follow the same rules. eg Ancestry does not change its transcriptions when better information is brought to their attention - they add a note. Barry On 21 Feb 2012, at 21:54, family-historian-users-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > Message: 5 > Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 21:28:13 -0000 > From: "Beryl & Mike Tate" <post@tatewise.co.uk> > Subject: Re: [FHU] Which County? > To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <000901ccf0df$b7e56860$27b03920$@co.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hi Marlene, > > This may sound like a lot of effort, and I have not yet achieved everything I want yet, but this is my technique. > I will focus on Census returns, but the method should work for any events. > > In the Place field I record the GRO District, County & Country that was formally associated with the Census at that time. > In the Address field I record the House Address, but supplement it with a modern postal address, often including the postcode. > > This allows the location to be pinpointed using online tools such as Google Maps. > FH V5 offers some new features that allow automatic Geocoding to plot Addresses on maps using Place & Address details, but needs > modern Addresses. > > I am also in the process of creating a Source/Repository record for each location, which is cited by every Fact with the associated > location Place/Address. > This Source/Repository record provides one set of data for everything I discover about that location. > This includes its Postcode, Latitude & Longitude, alternative District/County over time, Internet hyperlinks to relevant websites, > photos of places like churches, phone & E-mail contact details, etc. > > Further details are at http://www.fhug.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=how_to:create_locations_database_details on the FHUG website. > > Regards, Mike Tate

<<snipped>> The genealogists rules of transcription are clear and cast in stone - you copy exactly what the document says. ... So if the document gives an address as Birkenhead, Merseyside because that was the situation at the time, then isn't that what we should transcribe. <<snipped>> An excellent rule, Barry. But the way I work is that my facts are my conclusions, in which I don't have transcripts but interpretations. The transcripts (which are exact) go into the source or the text-from-source. Otherwise, if I used the exact values for (say) age, I might need half a dozen birth events for each person taken from as many censuses and certificates, instead of one with a range that covered all the plausible values. So, for me, yes, the transcript should be exact but the conclusions only have to make sense. I think it is important to distinguish those two concepts. I have a great deal of sympathy with those who argue that contemporary names should apply - however, I keep running into as many anomalies (in my perception) with that idea as the other. For instance - what tells anyone that "Bournemouth, Hampshire" and "Bournemouth, Dorset" are the same place? What tells anyone that "Chorley, Cheshire" is the same as "Chorley, Lancashire"? Ooops - it isn't! Another anomalous pain would be not writing Australia before 1901. OK, there's a geographic expression before then - but that's all the historical counties are. Or that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.... Adrian B

<<snipped>> For instance - what tells anyone that "Bournemouth, Hampshire" and "Bournemouth, Dorset" are the same place? What tells anyone that "Chorley, Cheshire" is the same as "Chorley, Lancashire"? Ooops - it isn't! <<snipped>> That is where my locations Source/Repository database is particularly useful. Every Fact for "Bournemouth, Hampshire" and "Bournemouth, Dorset" would cite the same Source/Repository record that among other things gives dates when Bournemouth changed County. The Facts for "Chorley, Cheshire" and "Chorley, Lancashire" would cite two different Source/Repository records, identifying they are different locations with different Lat/Longitude, Postcode, etc. Conversely, from any locations Source/Repository record I can find all the linked Facts for the same location. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce Sent: 21 February 2012 23:56 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Which County <<snipped>> The genealogists rules of transcription are clear and cast in stone - you copy exactly what the document says. ... So if the document gives an address as Birkenhead, Merseyside because that was the situation at the time, then isn't that what we should transcribe. <<snipped>> An excellent rule, Barry. But the way I work is that my facts are my conclusions, in which I don't have transcripts but interpretations. The transcripts (which are exact) go into the source or the text-from-source. Otherwise, if I used the exact values for (say) age, I might need half a dozen birth events for each person taken from as many censuses and certificates, instead of one with a range that covered all the plausible values. So, for me, yes, the transcript should be exact but the conclusions only have to make sense. I think it is important to distinguish those two concepts. I have a great deal of sympathy with those who argue that contemporary names should apply - however, I keep running into as many anomalies (in my perception) with that idea as the other. For instance - what tells anyone that "Bournemouth, Hampshire" and "Bournemouth, Dorset" are the same place? What tells anyone that "Chorley, Cheshire" is the same as "Chorley, Lancashire"? Ooops - it isn't! Another anomalous pain would be not writing Australia before 1901. OK, there's a geographic expression before then - but that's all the historical counties are. Or that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.... Adrian B ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message