Hi,
I'm sorry but in the interests of brevity, I was obviously not sufficiently
clear!
Of course you are right in that the prepositions are important. I was not
trying to suggest otherwise. I certainly do not think they should be done
away with, simply that *when you sort a Location List alphabetically*, the
proposition should not be the primary field in the sort order.
I think it would be better if the sort order (and only the sort order) is
first <place name>, then, possibly <preposition>.
Personally, I think that if I am going to (for example) Fletching so would
like to find all the people who came from that area, I would be more likely
to succeed in finding them if they all appeared under "F" (in Fletching),
rather than *also* having to remember to look under "N" (near Fletching) and
under "A" (at Fletching) .... and any other prepositions I have used.
In the sorted location list (and only in this list, and only after sorting)
you might thus see
Fallowfield
Fletching
at Fletching
near Fletching
possibly Fletching
Frogmorton
etc.
or maybe, even better,
Fallowfield
Fletching
Fletching (at)
Fletching (near)
Fletching (possibly)
Frogmorton
etc.
(and incidentally, I would not see a problem if At Sea were to be under "S"
... Sea (At) - but again, *only* in a *sorted* location list.)
Barrie.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 31 July 2001 18:25
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Location Prepositions
>
>
> On second thought, do you really want to ignore prepositions in
> alphabetizing locations??
> Being "near" a city is not the same location as being "in" the
> same city. Ancestors
> commonly used the name of the nearest well known larger location
> just so others would
> easily understand their general location. However, if we really
> knew the name of that
> village "near" Chicago or Hamburg, then we would prefer to enter
> the correct location and
> it would be different from the nearby city.
>
> Some of you may have found errors in your history because someone
> dropped the preposition
> in their records when they recorded the location. Then, years
> later you find it was a
> small village with its own name 50 miles from the better known
> city. Being "of" or
> "from" or "near" a location is not the same as being "in" that
> location for important
> events like birth, marriage, death. If "near Wismar" was
> actually "Stove" or "Niendorf"
> they would be alphabetized differently, so why not alphabetize
> the proposition locations
> differently from the known locations, since those prepositions
> are so important as the
> basis for this discussion?
>
> Now is the time to be sure, before the programmers do something
> that causes users to
> overlook important prepositions in the locations list. Larry
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Barrie Avis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 5:06 AM
> Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Location Prepositions
>
>
>
> Beth replied
> >
> >
> > LOCATION PREPOSITIONS:
> >
> <SNIP>
> >
> > Otherwise, our lists of locations will be alphabetized some by place
> > name, some by preposition.
>
> Unless of course, such sorting were also modified to ignore the
> prepositions.
>
> Would that be possible?
>
> Barrie.
>
> P.S. If a user could define the default to be something other than 'in',
> would that cause a problem when importing trees (or tree fragments) which
> have been prepared by other people using a different default?
>
> To unsubscribe: http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp
>
> To unsubscribe: http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp
>
To unsubscribe: http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp
