TMG-L Archives

From: bob gillis <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Place Levels and "villages"
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 17:16:23 -0400
References: <3.0.5.32.20000930191147.007d1ba0@m2.sprynet.com> <B0000424708@millenni-iom342.millennium20.com> <3.0.5.32.20000929202236.007d0930@m2.sprynet.com> <2d.1872497.2705f6a5@cs.com> <3.0.5.32.20001001085257.007d0440@m2.sprynet.com>

Darrell A. Martin wrote:
>
snip

> You are correct, but it may be important to note that neither
> a native Yankee nor a New England researcher would usually
> think in those terms. In N.E., the town is PARAMOUNT. Only
> the state approaches it in importance. The county is a mere
> geographical reference, except for probate courts. Not only
> are vital records kept by the town, but schools and roads are
> also town functions. There are exceptions, and some recent
> changes, but that's the historical perspective (including up
> to at least my career in Social Studies classes in the school
> system of Springfield, VT -- SHS Class of '67).
>
If Vermont is like Massachusetts and i think it is there are two or more
municpalities: towns and cities the latter of which may be os several
categories

snip >
> That is a good suggestion for Saxtons River, which I
> believe is incorporated. But for the many places in
> Vermont which are recognized by the USGS but which are
> not incorporated, "Village of ..." is actually technically
> Incorrect and could lead a future researcher astray.
>
I believe there are no incorporated villages in MA and VT. If a town
divides the new part is another town or city.


> Yes, it does help a lot. But here is my problem. I
> like being able to scan my MPL (one of the big pluses
> of the UFT --> TMG move) and see "all the same places
> IN the same places". For most tags, Rockingham, VT is
> my place entry. Note that it is entirely possible
> that an event which has the place Rockingham, VT may
> have occurred in Saxtons River, but since that is not
> explicit in the records (it very often would not be)
> there is no way of knowing. My Rockingham MPL is:
>
> Detail: [n/a]
> City: Rockingham
> County: Windham County
> State: Vermont
> Short: Rockingham, VT
>
> Where I know that an event occurred in Saxtons
> River, I use the Saxtons River, VT place, for which
> my MPL is:
>
> Detail: Saxtons River
> City: Rockingham
> County: Windham County
> State: Vermont
> Short: Rockingham, VT
>
> These are both fine. But your alternative suggestion,
> which makes good sense within TMG,
>
> Detail: Gowdy Invalid Home
> City: Saxtons River
> County: Town of Rockingham, Windham County
> State: Vermont
> Short: Saxtons River, VT
>
> changes the detail (village in the previous example),
> city, *and* county fields even though all that is
> different is that I know the building! And I think
> that the MPL sort order would be changed, and your
> alternative wouldn't even be "in" the right county
> order any more, and could easily be missed.
>
As I mentioned in another message I put 'Gowdy Invalid Home, Saxtons
River' in rhe Detail.

As far as I know a village in New England is never an incorporated
municipality as is is in NY and NJ. A researcher has to have a little
knowledge of the municipaly organization.

bob gillis

This thread:

• Re: [TMG] Place Levels and "villages" by bob gillis <>