Calling all genealogists and family historians:
Take my 3G Grandfather, William WATSON: baptised 3 April 1785, Sedlescombe SSX England; birthdate and birthplace unknown. In such cases, Reunion's "CUSTOM DATE" facility allows me to ACCURATELY record his birthdate and birthplace as ≤ 3 April 1875, Sedlescombe SSX; the "≤" serving to qualify both the date and the place.
(This notation is surely superior to giving his birthplace as Sedlescombe SSX England* and his birthdate as 3 April 1875*; or via such misleading approximations as 1875, April 1875, bef April 1875, ca 1875, etc.)
Thus, to my question: If this proposal is not already an accepted genealogical standard, why don't we make it so? Then Reunion could continue its world-leading offerings by including "≤" and "≥" in its ROUTINE dating procedures!
PS: Critical comments most welcome
* Widely recommended but misleading!
Take my 3G Grandfather, William WATSON: baptised 3 April 1785, Sedlescombe SSX England; birthdate and birthplace unknown. In such cases, Reunion's "CUSTOM DATE" facility allows me to ACCURATELY record his birthdate and birthplace as ≤ 3 April 1875, Sedlescombe SSX; the "≤" serving to qualify both the date and the place.
(This notation is surely superior to giving his birthplace as Sedlescombe SSX England* and his birthdate as 3 April 1875*; or via such misleading approximations as 1875, April 1875, bef April 1875, ca 1875, etc.)
Thus, to my question: If this proposal is not already an accepted genealogical standard, why don't we make it so? Then Reunion could continue its world-leading offerings by including "≤" and "≥" in its ROUTINE dating procedures!
PS: Critical comments most welcome
* Widely recommended but misleading!
Comment