One should ALWAYS record everything found about places, dates, names, events, relationships. There is NEVER a reason to omit recording a parish name.

On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:42:03 -0700 (PDT), Tom Wetmore <ttw4@verizon.net> wrote in soc.genealogy.computing: >One should ALWAYS record everything found about places, dates, names, events, relationships. > >There is NEVER a reason to omit recording a parish name. There is at least one reason : rebuilding the families of a specific parish, i.e. all unnamed places with an accurate date are supposed to be about records found in that place. When someone copy a page of a such book, without keeping the title, then you may have some problem to confirm this data. Denis -- Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG) Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/ French in North America before 1722 - www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/ Sur cédérom à 1780 - On CD-ROM to 1780

Denis: > There is at least one reason : ... That's not a reason you shouldn't record everything. You are describing a problem caused by using data extracted by others who didn't record everything. You either go back and get the missing data yourself or you live with it. Sorry, Kurt I was not disagreeing with you. I was disagreeing with the thread's author whose post was a tirade about someone who didn't record everything, and who then tried to take the position that the problems were caused somehow by the recording of parish names. Though I didn't find any cogent argument for that position. I completely disagree and think the statement is egregious. If parish names are available of course they should be recorded.