Standard Place Names for old named places
As I logged in today, I was prompted to update the standard place name for Colombo, Ceylon for an 1801 event. At that time that was the name of the place. To substitute "Colombo, Western Sri Lanka District 1955 - Present" or the other option without a time period, but with the modern place name is historically incorrect, as that name was not in use until well after independence. (Kingdom of Kandy 1469 -1815 / [British] Crown Colony 1802 - Dominion of Ceylon 4 Feb 1948 - Republic of Sri Lanka 22 May 1972 - Present [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Kandy and https://archive.org/details/scott2018standar0001unse/page/n51/mode/2up?q=ceylon])
Why is there not the option for a place just as there is in the United States for example "New Haven, Connecticut Colony, British Colonial America" for events prior to 1776 and "New Haven, Connecticut, United States" for events after independence?
I realize that it will take time and research to formulate the options, and I would have been happy to generate a place name with the assistance of Wikipedia (or a stamp catalog) and a standard format (but might have gotten in wrong without an hour of research first).
I can see how there could also be an argument to use the language of the place for the place name. That does not bother me as I know enough of history (for example Poland's ever changing domination by their neighbors which makes the origins immigrants reported to the US Census changing from 1900 to 1950) to be able to find the information I seek. I however would not be able to use non-Latin alphabet place names.
Again time required, but as an assist, the English name could be added in parentheses following. As genealogy interests expand world-wide, English seems a fairly common second language.
There already seems to be a foreign user language preference, as I have seen United States' persons and records attached to the Tree by an apparent French user, as the records had French place names for US Places (États-Unis)!
And to add to even the current complexity. While a formal political change may have occurred, say New York County to City in 1898, that does not mean that the record keeping authorities made an immediate change. This has consequences in search strategies as I am not aware of how tolerant the search process is for a date such as 1898, and the difference in searching Manhattan, versus New York City (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan 19th century, last paragraph). Clearly the genealogist needs to know their local history and be adaptable, and should not expect FamilySearch to make the search process too easy. After all part of the fun is the hunt!