23,837
edits
Template talk:FHL: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
(Add comment) |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 128: | Line 128: | ||
:I am working on getting information from HQ that will dictate how we interface with the FHLC. Depending on their answers will depend on how this template will expand. It is not a problem with how it is written. I have asked for suggestions a while back and implemented what was requested. Recent requests require information that I am trying to request. Answers probably will not come until after NGS. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas_Lerman]] 05:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC) | :I am working on getting information from HQ that will dictate how we interface with the FHLC. Depending on their answers will depend on how this template will expand. It is not a problem with how it is written. I have asked for suggestions a while back and implemented what was requested. Recent requests require information that I am trying to request. Answers probably will not come until after NGS. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas_Lerman]] 05:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
== Which to keep and which to get rid of == | == Which to keep and which to get rid of == | ||
:Actually, it has been discussed to leave those "film" and "book" types and use the default as is for a couple of reasons. First, the Guiding Principles that were set for in meetings quite a while ago stated that they would refer to film & book numbers and the layout would be "FHL" followed by that number. Secondly, the way the FHL template has mostly been used is with the film / book number. As far as I have seen or heard, only two people have requested the "item" type. I do not have a problem with it any longer (the FHLC people gave me the information that I needed). The problem is that it goes against the Guiding Principles that were set for the use and layout of references to the FHLC. [[User: | Under "Are these needed?" section - first two items requires 2nd step to get to main record. They are not wanted or encouraged. The one named "FHL Collection", is the exact one we have been asking for long time because they are the main records we want to go to right away. Just get rid of "item", and add comment that nothing is to be added after the record id number at all. [[User:Dsammy|dsammy]] 20:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
:Actually, it has been discussed to leave those "film" and "book" types and use the default as is for a couple of reasons. First, the Guiding Principles that were set for in meetings quite a while ago stated that they would refer to film & book numbers and the layout would be "FHL" followed by that number. Secondly, the way the FHL template has mostly been used is with the film / book number. As far as I have seen or heard, only two people have requested the "item" type. I do not have a problem with it any longer (the FHLC people gave me the information that I needed). The problem is that it goes against the Guiding Principles that were set for the use and layout of references to the FHLC. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas_Lerman]] 21:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
::They can't win every time. Some times they have to yield to the reality of technology. [[User:Dsammy|dsammy]] 22:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC) | |||