Thanks for the replies.
sbradshaw wrote:I would love to think that maybe someday someone in Russia (who will have an advantage in researching that branch of the family) would start working on their family history and connect their work into my section of the tree (which they'll only be able to do if they can find the person's name).
I would love to think so too. That's why I'm leaning toward the first bullet point I listed, although I would hope that alternate names also show up in searches. It will be interesting to see what prints out on the temple cards when I get that far, especially since my wife (who is proxy for the females) doesn't read Cyrillic.
russellhltn wrote:I know FamilySearch has locations set up such that the same location can be rendered in different languages. (That's why we have "standardized places".)
The system has the same thing for names as you describe for locations, even though names aren't "standardized". (Click on the name near the top of the Person screen, click Edit, then a Language dropdown appears, and if you change it to Russian you have fields for both Cyrillic and Roman. You can cancel the name change at this point if you're just looking.)
I agree that it would be helpful to show names in the user's script as long as the ancestor has a name in that script, or in the alternative, for there to be a user preference for whether to show names in their original script or in a particular script.
I'm glad you brought that up, because the locations I have are much more specific (in this case a named village) than the options given for standard location (in this case a 9000 square mile district). So if I enter the complete non-standard location I have to choose only one script and I don't get the automatic functionality of displaying the location in the user's script. Would it be better therefore to use the standard location, i.e. the 9000 square mile district, and put the complete location (in both Cyrillic and Roman) in the Notes?