On 15/09/15 09:58, Lester Caine wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Weston-Sub-Edge
Am now working through the 'proof' that the Weston-Sub-Edge spelling was on of the mistakes in the Imperial Gazetteer and added a more authoritative link to the name section, but what is the correct way of handling this ... the name is a key element, and 'Weston Subedge' is the correct search term for mapping and genealogical data ... which is where I started :)
OK ... 'Reliable Authority'
As the main reference for spelling of names on OSM we use 'Office of National Statistics' as the standard. This is then reflected by the Ordnance Survey with the ONS data being master. (I'll dig out the citation to go with that when I can).
All of the statistical data is supplied on the whole by Parish or consolidated to a higher level, and it would be nice if there was an automatic process which took any new updates from ONS and automatically applied them ... via wikidata ... and I'm more than happy to work on code to make that happen.
Currently the correct reference here is 'Weston Subedge' and from what I can ascertain no request has been made to change that with ONS. I'll skip the hickup with the 1881 Census where the Weston-Sub-Edge has used rather than Weston Subedge which is used in every other census prior and since, and every current planning application has Weston Subedge as the address so that it can be married up with the Land Registry!
So until such time as an official change of name is registered 'Weston Subedge' should be used for this location, and the 'Imperial Gazetteer' can be ignored as the 'unreliable source' which it's wikipedia entry points out.
I have no doubt that the Parish Council would like to change the name to 'Weston-Sub-Edge', but until a motion to change has been passed and an official request made, the 'Weston Subedge' spelling is that which needs to be used. And once a citation is available to confirm a change then the use of the old name can be tagged for historic searches and the new one adopted.
Anything wrong with my provenance here?