Commonwealth war graves commission
When CWGC is added as a contextural seed will fields such as date of death, theatre of war, memorial/cemetery, grave information, etc. be automatically populated?
If so, I would not like to use up time by manually feeding in all this data now.
CWGC records have now been added.
In a majority of cases this information has been auto-connected.
The records themselves can be viewed here – https://search.livesofthefirstworldwar.org/search/world-records/commonwealth-war-graves-commission-cwgc-casualty-records
Ros Haywood commented
Oh, come on! Surely CWGC data is vital to the site!
Alan Patchett commented
Agree because name I am searching for is not yet on list - KIA 26/8/14
Don Carr commented
would be nice! i tired to add details to relatives record to no avail . . . keep getting to watch crappy 60-second video.
In terms of anything being 'overwritten', all facts have their change history permanently recorded beside them - so you'll be able to see if, for example, there is contention.
Furthering my note, what happens when two sources disagree? Already I've seen one post about a regimental diary disagreeing with the CWGC record as to the date of death. The consensus there was that the RD trumps the CWGC - but that would be overridden if the CWGC data was auto-populated. So no vote for this idea!
I don't like the idea of anything being overwritten. Even the medal cards source does not populate which medals were issued - I've just added that info for my man from that source.
John Burt commented
Thanks Matt, at least you have answered my suggestion. Yes, it would be the right thing to do. I am adding, as "external sources", cwgc stuff as http://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/number/NAME - just wondering if this is not necessary as you will do a better job by automisation when you get round to it (and 101 other things).
We are looking into trying to do this. It would be the right thing to do but as you can imagine the list of "right things to do" is very long right now!
If/when we did some automatic fact population I think there would be a reasonable chance that we would overwrite anything entered in a target field. So whether you want to do any of the work is up to you right now. If we don't get time to auto-populate from that source, it will be a valuable contribution, but there's a chance it might be wasted work, if we do find time. Sorry I can't be less vague on this.