On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Nick Hall <email@example.com> wrote:
It has been suggested before that we add a date to locations.
> I'd have to think about that idea and see if there's a downside.
The downside is that there is no direct link between an event and an
alternative location. The actual place name would be inferred by the date.
There are a couple of problems with this approach.
You may have a source that records an event using a different place name
to the one you would expect. For example, a source may record
"Petrograd" in 1925 for some reason. If this was the case you would
want to record it.
Perhaps the solution would be for the location to default to whatever is
time appropriate, but with the option to select an alternative name for
any individual location in the hierarchy.
That way the user can select the actual name used. So for examply,
while I have an individual who came from "Jemtland", I can simply
select "Jämtland, Sweden" and then select "Jemtland" as an alternative
name. The visual display (and reports) could state something like
"Jemtland [Jämtland, Sweden]".
For research purposes, I could really like this idea, especially
if the name could be blank. That way, if I have a document that states
only one part of the location (city and nation, but not state), I could
accurately record only the information in the document.
A similar feature could work with events. So if a record shows
"J. C. Smith" dying on a certain date, then the user could add
that event for "John Charles Smith" and select the same name on