Since we have checkboxes on the Search page for Family Members and for Witnesses, it will be confusing if we only offer alternative names for the primary people in the records. I think we should discuss this in the scrum. If we have an alternate_name field for each person in a record, I'm worried about how much time that will add to the creation of the search records (processing time) and to searching (since we will be approximately doubling the number of searchable forename fields). I think what both researchers and transcribers want is an alternate name field for every name in the record, but if implementing that will add too much to either the search time or the processing time, then we have to think of an alternative.

With titles and suffixes, it's not quite so bad because those won't be searchable fields, so there shouldn't be any increase to search time. But any name in the record could have a title or suffix associated with it, so we would want these fields to be available for every name in the record. Would there be any serious cost to this? I'm not sure. But I'm concerned that the sheer number of Flexible CSV fields is becoming excessive. I think this should also be discussed in the scrum. It might be worth sending an email to Coordinators at least and maybe even transcribers as well, explaining both the pros and cons and then asking everyone for their opinion.

Was 'burial_parish' part of #2737? I think this may be referring to the parish from which the body was removed, which is a field that appears in cemetery registers (not in church registers, as far as I know). So it's not the parish in which the person was buried, but the parish in which they died-- often the same, but not always. However, I found that we already have a field called 'place_of_death' for burial records, and that is adequate for recording where they died. If we add another field for the parish, I think most transcribers won't bother using it. Let's talk about this at the scrum also.