2,175
edits
Add comment
m (comment) |
(Add comment) |
||
| Line 141: | Line 141: | ||
::::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:Thomas_Lerman|Thomas_Lerman]] 20:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Linking to books == | == Linking to books == | ||