23,837
edits
m
comment after real trials
(Add comment) |
m (comment after real trials) |
||
| Line 132: | Line 132: | ||
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) | 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) | :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) | ::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) | ||
:::Ran into a problem, looks like "item" must be used if we are to link to the title subject, otherwise, without the "item", will take you to a record of film. Other problems turned up:<BR> | |||
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. | |||
== Linking to books == | == Linking to books == | ||