Tom Wetmore wrote: > 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. Well, Tom, I don't know how I could have made it any plainer to you without introducing the Board of Education. The OP (me) was complaining that a narrative written by someone else specified a parish with no further geographic information in one place and no where else in the document specified a parish. I was advocating CONSISTENCY which generally aids comprehension...or so those who gripe about my inconsistencies claim at least. My stand was (and is) -- (1) if you're going to give the parish you should ALSO give the rest of the locale (St. John's Parish is not a unique GPS point, after all). (2) if you give a parish (or Parish) in one place, give it in all places or at the very least say (parish not known). Giving a baptismal record from St Worrisom Parish, then a Marriage record from Alimony-upon-Thames, and a burial from London, Middlesex, England, UK causes those not familiar with the ins and outs of London civil and ecclesiastical geography untold --and unnecessary-- grief. cheryl