3,961
edits
no edit summary
SummerhaysMV (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Name of this template == | == Name of this template == | ||
[[User: | [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas Lerman]] raised the question about the name of this template in a [http://forums.familysearchsupport.com/showpost.php?p=3014&postcount=6 forum post]. His suggestion was {{tl|RecordSearch}}. I would not object to a name change, but I think the reason I choose {{tl|CID}} still holds. | ||
Firstly I noticed that [[User:Horandm|Horandm]] was creating article for various record search collections, such as [[England Cheshire Nonconformist Church Records]] and including at the bottom of the article a line of code that included a CID ref. [[User talk:Horandm#CID_identification_numbers|Why this is being done and why the coding is in a particular format is still unclear to me]]. | Firstly I noticed that [[User:Horandm|Horandm]] was creating article for various record search collections, such as [[England Cheshire Nonconformist Church Records]] and including at the bottom of the article a line of code that included a CID ref. [[User talk:Horandm#CID_identification_numbers|Why this is being done and why the coding is in a particular format is still unclear to me]]. | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Finally, when coding an article, templates with short titles are easier to type. --[[User:Cottrells|Steve]] 20:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | Finally, when coding an article, templates with short titles are easier to type. --[[User:Cottrells|Steve]] 20:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
:Although I would agree that short titles are easier to type, I believe this may be a mistake. CID appears to be the name of the ID used in the URL to identify which collection is being used within the Record Search product (although it is still considered a pilot product at this time). To me, using this name to reference something within Record Search is not very intuitive nor user friendly . . . maybe even a bit geeky (I resemble that remark, by the way). Being not intuitive, I believe it will be harder for people to remember. It would be similar to referring to a record contained in Ancestry as {{tl|dbid}} since that is the database identifier they use in their URL. Similarly, the IGI uses recid and the new FamilySearch uses bookid. If a template was created for these (very unlikely), I would be opposed to them be called {{tl|recid}} and {{tl|bookid}} respectively. It would make more sense to me to use the actual source name rather than an identifier that is used for internal purposes. [[User: | :Although I would agree that short titles are easier to type, I believe this may be a mistake. CID appears to be the name of the ID used in the URL to identify which collection is being used within the Record Search product (although it is still considered a pilot product at this time). To me, using this name to reference something within Record Search is not very intuitive nor user friendly . . . maybe even a bit geeky (I resemble that remark, by the way). Being not intuitive, I believe it will be harder for people to remember. It would be similar to referring to a record contained in Ancestry as {{tl|dbid}} since that is the database identifier they use in their URL. Similarly, the IGI uses recid and the new FamilySearch uses bookid. If a template was created for these (very unlikely), I would be opposed to them be called {{tl|recid}} and {{tl|bookid}} respectively. It would make more sense to me to use the actual source name rather than an identifier that is used for internal purposes. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas Lerman]] 00:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
::I have moved the template from {{tl|CID}} to {{tl|RecordSearch}}. --[[User:Cottrells|Steve]] 17:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC) | ::I have moved the template from {{tl|CID}} to {{tl|RecordSearch}}. --[[User:Cottrells|Steve]] 17:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
::::Hmmm, I guess that is what I suggested. Do we want it to display the URL or [http://pilot.familysearch.org Record Search]? I believe we decided on the standard. Wait, that has not been completely decided yet. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas Lerman]] 03:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | ::::Hmmm, I guess that is what I suggested. Do we want it to display the URL or [http://pilot.familysearch.org Record Search]? I believe we decided on the standard. Wait, that has not been completely decided yet. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas Lerman]] 03:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
May I suggest that no parameters will display text instead of the link, for example {{tl|RecordSearch}} would display [https://beta.familysearch.org/s/collection/list Historical Records Collections]? I believe just displaying the URL may be kind of against the Manual of Style. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas_Lerman]] 18:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC) | May I suggest that no parameters will display text instead of the link, for example {{tl|RecordSearch}} would display [https://beta.familysearch.org/s/collection/list Historical Records Collections]? I believe just displaying the URL may be kind of against the Manual of Style. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas_Lerman]] 18:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
<br> | |||
The template currently being used in articles that describe digital publications published in FamilySearch.org is: {{ Family_ Search_ Collection}}. It links wiki articles to the FamilySearch site instead of the old RecordSearch Pilot site. | |||
Steve, Thanks for all of your work on these templates. They have been a lifesaver! | |||
Dorothy Horan 22 Jun3 2011 | |||
<br><br> | |||