23,837
edits
m
reply-comment
(Add comment) |
m (reply-comment) |
||
| Line 139: | Line 139: | ||
http://www.familysearch.org/eng/library/fhlcatalog/supermainframeset.asp?display=localitydetails&subject=207061 - FHL|207061|item - will take you to http://www.familysearch.org/eng/library/fhlcatalog/supermainframeset.asp?display=titledetails&titleno=207061 for Polk County, Missouri Land Sales. (Bleech!) Some work is needed to enable anyone to go to the whole county or whole state or province or country instead of being diverted to title-detail record.<br> If specific record is referred to, it works like it should be. | http://www.familysearch.org/eng/library/fhlcatalog/supermainframeset.asp?display=localitydetails&subject=207061 - FHL|207061|item - will take you to http://www.familysearch.org/eng/library/fhlcatalog/supermainframeset.asp?display=titledetails&titleno=207061 for Polk County, Missouri Land Sales. (Bleech!) Some work is needed to enable anyone to go to the whole county or whole state or province or country instead of being diverted to title-detail record.<br> If specific record is referred to, it works like it should be. | ||
::::Thank you Sammy for the comment. This is not a problem with the template, but how you are trying to use the template. One cannot, or should not, just take numbers from one implementation and think that all other numbers will magically work with it. It is not intended for doing locality searches. For almost a year, I have asked about other types of searches including locality searches (see above) and have not got any responses until now. It looks like you had searched for "Baker" as parts of "Oregon" within the current FHLC and selected "Oregon, Baker" to view those details. If you do the same thing in the beta FHLC, you would not get in the URL the same number as the titleno as in the current one. This tells me that the number is not likely a persistent number or at least not accessible the same way. I am not so sure that we should allow listing every single usage of the FHLC. This seems to go against many things talked about in meetings. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas_Lerman]] 14:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC) | ::::Thank you Sammy for the comment. This is not a problem with the template, but how you are trying to use the template. One cannot, or should not, just take numbers from one implementation and think that all other numbers will magically work with it. It is not intended for doing locality searches. For almost a year, I have asked about other types of searches including locality searches (see above) and have not got any responses until now. It looks like you had searched for "Baker" as parts of "Oregon" within the current FHLC and selected "Oregon, Baker" to view those details. If you do the same thing in the beta FHLC, you would not get in the URL the same number as the titleno as in the current one. This tells me that the number is not likely a persistent number or at least not accessible the same way. I am not so sure that we should allow listing every single usage of the FHLC. This seems to go against many things talked about in meetings. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas_Lerman]] 14:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::::We need to get together in person and look closely at the different type of records used in the Catalog and send report to those in Catalog section informing them of the problems we uncovered that do not work with the Guidelines they gave us. One is working but not as intended, and not the other ones. [[User:Dsammy|dsammy]] 16:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC) | :::::We need to get together in person and look closely at the different type of records used in the Catalog and send report to those in Catalog section informing them of the problems we uncovered that do not work with the Guidelines they gave us. One is working but not as intended, and not the other ones. [[User:Dsammy|dsammy]] 16:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::::I am not following you. All instances are working as intended & defined. They are working exactly as the FHLC folks have talked about as well. [[User: | :::::I am not following you. All instances are working as intended & defined. They are working exactly as the FHLC folks have talked about as well. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas_Lerman]] 20:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
naw! http://www.familysearch.org/eng/library/fhlcatalog/supermainframeset.asp?display=localitydetails&subject=207061&subject_disp=Oregon%2C++Baker&columns=*,0,0 {{FHL|207061|item}} | |||
http://www.familysearch.org/eng/library/fhlcatalog/supermainframeset.asp?display=topicdetails&subject=455439&subject_disp=Oregon%2C++Baker++-++Biography&columns=*,0,0 {{FHL|455439|item}} | |||
http://www.familysearch.org/eng/library/fhlcatalog/supermainframeset.asp?display=titledetails&titleno=508030&disp=The++History++of++Baker++County%2C++Oreg%20%20&columns=*,0,0 {{FHL|508030|item}} | |||
Guess which one is accurate? | |||
first one went to Polk County Missouri - "Land sales in area of Polk County, Missouri..."<br> | |||
2nd one went to "Registres paroissiaux, 1587-1792"<BR> | |||
3rd one went to "The History of Baker County, Oregon" (can't be book only because it is available on film, too, hence one link is sufficient, redundant linking - good grief!) | |||
As you ca see, some of them are not working as intended. [[User:Dsammy|dsammy]] 06:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Linking to books == | == Linking to books == | ||