Cathy,
As another Australian, I can agree with your comments on the bias in this
thread to US records. That's understandable, as it would be where the
greater number of users are. I can cope with it as I have found I have
extensive family connections in the US and as a consequence have had to
become accustomed to entering counties. However, this caused a problem in my
records. Since I started entering records into my computer, I have used the
four place locations in this order: actual place, town, state/county (UK &
DE), country. This suited all my records quite nicely, until I discovered
all my US connections. What was I to do with the Counties? I compromised. In
my US records I have five "fields", while in the rest of the world I
continue with four "fields". So far I have not encountered any problems with
that method. I do make use of commas as I explained in an earlier message.
The term "township" is not quite the same as we use "town" in Australia, as
far as I can determine. It refers to "a subdivision of a county, usually
having some authority for local government". So, in that context it would be
the equivalent of what we call in Australia a "shire council". There are
many places in Australia for example where a "town" is situated within the
boundaries of a "shire" but has a different name, e.g. Ayr in Queensland is
in the Burdekin Shire Council area. You probably could name similar ones
over your way, I guess. Our US contributors may be able to explain more
accurately just what a "township" is in their usage today(?).
Commas - leading or otherwise - are an essential part of the database. Yes,
they do look slightly odd in reports. And if you do have "picky"
non-researching relatives, suggest that they start compiling their own
family records :-). However, persist with your use of "commas" just for the
consistency that they provide for your record keeping.
Lance in Brisbane
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Cathy
Pinner
Sent: Saturday, 2 December 2000 10:02 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Commas and Abbreviations
Hi List,
This discussion about commas and abbreviations in locations has been very
US based although it arose out of a discussion on making sure your
genealogy data was universally understood.
I don't live in the US and have a very hazy idea of what you mean by a
county. It is just not true that people will know you are talking about a
county just because of the position it has in an address (with or without
leading commas). You need to add the term or at least a page explaining
your location entries.
The added distinction made between a township and a village and the
suggestion that a township can't be found on a map is simply
incomprehensible. I live in a country town in Australia. Both the town and
the area around it are known as Beverley. If I wanted to indicate that
someone actually lives in the town and not on a farm I would say they live
in the township - which you can certainly find on a map.
Leading commas may be very helpful in the location field but in reports
printed for non-genealogists (like most of my reports are printed for
interested family members who will never actually do any research) leading
commas just indicate a mistake in proof reading (I can hear my brother's
scathing comments already :-)).
The expected readership really does make a difference to the way you print
and record your data.
Regards,
Cathy
Western Australia
>And, we also agree that there's NO ambiguity in Reports unless leading
>commas are suppressed. But, Tom wants to suppress leading commas, and
needs
>to add the word "County" so clarity can be maintained in Reports without
>them. My questions are "Why would one want to suppress leading commas?,"
>and "Is the gain worth the effort and potential confusion?"
>And getting back to the question, "Why would some people go to the trouble
>of adding the word "County" just so they could suppress leading commas? I
>can only guess that one reason might be that they were using Position-1 for
>DETAILS, (Church, Hospital & Cemetery names), which are mostly blank and
>cause a lot of leading commas.
>Well, I hope the explanation's been persuasive enough to convince some, if
>not everyone, to abandon the word, "County." But if not, I hope it's at
>least been enlightening, and shortens your enrollment in the "Genealogy
>School of Hard Knocks." While GSHK provides a good education, you want to
>graduate before you're too old and beat up to use the knowledge.
>
>Best regards,
>Clif
