Thomas_Lerman wrote:I have heard rumor about cemetery names being allowed in place-names. I would hope we would not go down that road. If cemetery names are allowed for burial . . . Why not hospitals for birth or death? What about churches for marriages? What about nursing homes for death? Oh yes, some are born at home with a midwife so addresses too! And what about those that got married in their backyard or a park, should addresses be valid too? Okay, so I am being a little facetious!
Why allow cemeteries as a place and not the others? Because cemeteries don't usually get demolished and relocated like hospitals, houses, and nursing homes do.
Churches are also more permanent than hospitals are and can also be repositories for records.
For example, my wife has an ancestor whose birthplace is listed variously as:Zofingen, Aargau, Switzerland
Staffelbach, Aargau, Switzerland
Schöftland, Aargau, Switzerland
It turns out (pending research to the contrary) that this person was born in Zofingen, but was christened in the Staffelbach church (parish/village/borough/hamlet) in the nearby town of Schöftland. Therefore I have listed their birthplace as Zofingen, Aargau, Switzerland
and their christening place asStaffelbach, Schöftland, Aargau, Switzerland
I think this is the least confusing way of presenting the information that also requires the least amount of notes and sources. Anyone wanting to verify the information can see concisely where they need to begin to verify the information.Edit:
Of course, now that I can look at this in Google Maps, I think it might be more likely the church is in Schöftland instead of Staffelbach (the mother left Zofingen to give birth). So I might need to update the listing to
Schöftland,Staffelbach, Aargau, Switzerland
Now what was that point I was making about clarity and conciseness?