Template talk:FamilySearch Collection: Difference between revisions
(Apology) |
(→Other Discussion: no worries) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Steve, Sorry about the unintentional save. I was looking at this template as an example while I worked on another template. I got a 2 minute warning, and thought it was for the other template. I panicked, threw in a comment, and saved. I tried an undo but it didn't seem to work. I hope the changes are just formatting? [[User:RaymondRS|Robert]] 17:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC) | Steve, Sorry about the unintentional save. I was looking at this template as an example while I worked on another template. I got a 2 minute warning, and thought it was for the other template. I panicked, threw in a comment, and saved. I tried an undo but it didn't seem to work. I hope the changes are just formatting? [[User:RaymondRS|Robert]] 17:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
:No worries. Looking at the [https://wiki.familysearch.org/en/index.php?title=Template:Record_Search_article&diff=292493&oldid=277716 diff] all that has happened is that the FCKeditor has changed the first style attribute into a more verbose version. The result is the same. --[[User:Cottrells|Steve]] 17:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:55, 19 March 2010
Outstanding development[edit source]
Multi collection articles[edit source]
Some articles describe more than one collection see England Vital Records Index. Develop the ability to include more than one link back to FSRS. --Steve 14:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Other Discussion[edit source]
Steve, Sorry about the unintentional save. I was looking at this template as an example while I worked on another template. I got a 2 minute warning, and thought it was for the other template. I panicked, threw in a comment, and saved. I tried an undo but it didn't seem to work. I hope the changes are just formatting? Robert 17:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)