Timeline for When documenting location, should current or historical place names be used?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 16, 2017 at 22:28 | history | notice added | PolyGeo♦ | Needs detailed answers | |
| Oct 17, 2012 at 18:44 | comment | added | GeneJ | The edit suggested could be as simple as adding "because" to the end of your answer. Then use the list formatting option to add a few bullets. | |
| Oct 16, 2012 at 18:54 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| Oct 19, 2012 at 23:36 | |||||
| Oct 16, 2012 at 18:51 | comment | added | user104 | As jmort253 says, the reasons why you do this would improve the answer. | |
| Oct 16, 2012 at 17:49 | review | First posts | |||
| Oct 16, 2012 at 18:51 | |||||
| Oct 10, 2012 at 4:40 | comment | added | jmort253 | Hey Josh, can you please explain why using an edit to your post? As someone more on the new side of Genealogy, this really doesn't help me understand why I should use both. This will help your answer be useful to future visitors. Good luck! | |
| Oct 10, 2012 at 4:11 | comment | added | Sandra | This can still lead to confusion in (isolated) cases. One town in Australia was originally known as [Name1]. A town a few miles away was known as [Name2]. A locality nearby was known as [Name3]. Sometime later, [Name1] was changed to that of [Name2], [Name2] changed to [Name3] and [Name3] given a new name, [Name4]. This becomes difficult to record using cross references. | |
| Oct 10, 2012 at 1:43 | comment | added | Blake Christensen | I think you have just pointed out a problem with current genealogy software. They don't deal well with changing borders and names. | |
| Oct 9, 2012 at 23:43 | history | answered | Josh Curren | CC BY-SA 3.0 |