90,866
edits
→No parameter: reply
(→No parameter: new section) |
(→No parameter: reply) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
I noticed at [[Pilot.familysearch.org]] (boy do I really dislike the name of that page), it accesses Record Search. Actually, too many people are getting "pilot" mixed up in the name . . . the product is "Record Search" and it happens to be a "pilot" site. We do not call this "beta wiki" because it is a "beta" site. Anyway, off of the soap box. A thought that I had was wondering what you thought about having the template go to the main page of Record Search if no collection ID is passed in? Side question: how do we get all references to use the template? [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas Lerman]] 14:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC) | I noticed at [[Pilot.familysearch.org]] (boy do I really dislike the name of that page), it accesses Record Search. Actually, too many people are getting "pilot" mixed up in the name . . . the product is "Record Search" and it happens to be a "pilot" site. We do not call this "beta wiki" because it is a "beta" site. Anyway, off of the soap box. A thought that I had was wondering what you thought about having the template go to the main page of Record Search if no collection ID is passed in? Side question: how do we get all references to use the template? [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas Lerman]] 14:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
:I have moved the article mentioned to [[FamilySearch Record Search]]. I agree that some people use ''pilot'' as part of the name of the site whereas the term is referring to it's status. In what circumstances do you think this template be used without an collection ID? With regards getting all references to use the template, I'm afraid unless someone [[Policy:Bots provisions|authorises a bot]] to do it, it would need to be done by hand. --[[User:CottrellS|Steve]] 19:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||