Community Meeting Agenda 6 October 2009

Be bold! Post your agenda items!
Feel free to post on the agenda any items you wish to cover during the meeting. If your item requires details or feedback, post some details on the discussion page and link to the discussion from the agenda.

Administrative items

 * 1) Assignment of time keeper and note taker
 * 2) Introduction of new members: 10 seconds for name and desired takeaways.
 * 3) Review of Minutes
 * 4) Today's agenda preview

Please report all instances of FCKeditor failing to open
We discussed last week the fact that several of us (Thomas, Lise, Jimmy, James and I) had had issues where FCKeditor failed to open. One member of the group said she had reported the issue through the Technical Support link. I was given the ticket number for this, however, the issue reported focused on FCKeditor's search failing to find a page in the wiki that the user knew existed. It was not about FCKeditor failing to open. So our engineers don't know that this is an oft-occurring problem, and won't know unless we report it every time it happens. Ritcheymt 19:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael playing Benevolent Dictator again
Please see last week's agenda for a ruling I made on external links. Ritcheymt 20:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles about Record Search Collections
Moved item to community meeting agenda 13 October. I am unable to attend the community meeting on October 6. --Steve 19:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

WorldCat
At the end of the 08Sep2009 meeting, we came up with a proposed solution for the question on Worldwide vs. Regional libraries. I believe we wanted Dsammy's input to make sure it satisfies his needs. I have posted to his talk page, but maybe it should be discussed here. The proposed solution may be viewed at this link. Thomas Lerman 18:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * MEETING NOTES from 29Sep: We briefly discussed this, but Sammy asked for it to be moved to next week. Password 17:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This one is giving me fits because there are three issues, one giving the patron the list of nearest libraries having such item, the libraries having inter-library loan program, meaning it will not always be the nearest library and special portions of WorldCat having more information on access to the items like summit.worldcat.org because the regions may have better collections than others. I know of one library having a huge collection of materials related to that area not listed in standard WorldCat at all. One solution would be to list both standard and special if found. dsammy 16:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sure I understand your issues completely. As has been discussed in previous meetings (I know you were not necessarily in all of the meetings):
 * ILL is a moot point as the library orders the resource according to their own methods. It has absolutely nothing to do with WorldCat.
 * In the case of regional libraries, the suggestion was made to put the regional link at the regional level (such as at the county level if that is the region) and not to put each resource. If someone was looking for a book, why would they want to know if it exists in New York when they live in California? The person would either want to know it is available locally or if they are visiting another location, change the location they want to search (as can be done through WorldCat).
 * Personally, I believe putting more than one link per resource could be rather confusing and not user friendly. Thomas Lerman 17:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC) P.S. Maybe it would be helpful to know exactly what extra information exists on the regional level that you feel is important to show. Also, it appears that the Summit libraries (Regional) is a beta site. Do you know of any other regional sites? Thomas Lerman 17:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This one region, I found by accident while search for specific book. That has me wondering about other regions because this region has more books listed not found in general WorldCat. dsammy 17:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have sent an e-mail to the WorldCat folks to find out more. That still makes me wonder what advantage this may have to know that some library across the country has a particular book instead of a local library (also knowing the ILL will use their own methods and will not get the book where you or WorldCat tells them)? Thank you for helping me to understand. Thomas Lerman 18:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * After a long discussion, the great majority of users seem to be of the opinion that adding multiple links to Worldcat from a book entry in the wiki would confuse users, and that therefore we should keep entries pared down to one WorldCat link. It was decided that this should be added to the MOS and voted on. Ritcheymt 20:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking notes on this for me. Does this mean that the one link will be the worldwide WorldCat and not the one "regional" one that we know about? Thomas Lerman 22:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct, Thomas. We discussed the links for a book should be 1) a link to a digitized copy available through the internet, probably giving preference to Google books (subject to further discussion), 2) The WorldCat number (general), and 3) the FHL reference (giving preference to a microfilm copy over a book number, for circulation to FHCs reasons). Jbparker 23:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleting Portal Pages
My name is Eduardo H Seoane I have been migrating the Portal pages to the Un-Portal, (New Pages) pages. At first I wanted to delete the Portal pages right away but saw a need for their continued existence, at least for the time being. Currently, Portal pages are being redirected to the New Pages and not deleted. However, this causes a problem when one wants to edit the New Page, by not allowing one to edit all of the content of the New Page. If one enters the new page directly without being redirected the problem does not exist. One would think that deleting the Portal page would solve the problem, but this is not so. Many wiki Users have added the URL of the Portal page to their Favorites list and automatically go to the Portal; once the Portal is deleted they will lose that link to the New Page and might not find it (they might get frustrated and play somewhere else). So, In hopes of resolving this issue, I have a proposal:


 * Do not delete the Portals for the time-being
 * Delete the redirect to the New Page
 * Add a hyperlink to the Portal page directing the user to the New Page
 * Give instruction to add the New Page to the users Favorites
 * Give indication as to when the Portal will be deleted
 * Lastly, after the allotted time has expired, delete the Portals

I hope we can discuss this soon before I get too far along in the migration process.


 * I wish that problem was fixed in the first place (edit a redirected page). It was talked about a while back, but never fixed. If I remember correctly, this does not happen in Wikipedia. Maybe we can get this fixed because other redirects will still exist. The saved URL extends more than just Favorites . . . anywhere someone has saved a URL such as possibly Facebook, Twitter, or anything added through the AddThis widget on the bottom of each page. With all of this said, I can see it would be nice to eventually get rid of the Portal namespace. Password 15:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolution: The community voted unanimously over the phone that we want each portal pages blown away after the links that lead to the portal page are directed toward the un-portal and the information on the portal page is copied to the un-portal. Ritcheymt 21:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been listening to the recording of meeting. Once the Portal namespace is deleted, if someone followed a previously bookmarked Portal page then they would not get an error but they would find that the page does not exist and will be invited to create the page. --Steve 19:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

" ~ " seems to not work right
I thought I added this somewhere, but cannot seem to find it. Relatively recently, I have noticed that " ~ " has started to put "Password" as the link text instead of my name. Since this is a substitution that happens on the server &amp; not the browser, it seems that this has to be a problem there. It happens whether in the Editor or Wikitext. Are others experiencing the same problem? I would guess so. Password 15:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's your browser's cache of user/password and/or settings in your "My preferences". I am having a major issue with logging in ever since the upgrade was made last week. It used to be automatic whenever I click into the FSWiki on my home computer. dsammy 16:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reset the cache and cookies. If this fixes the problem, then something still has changed on the server side to break it. I have not changed my preferences for quite a while and double checked it. It is all fine. It sounds like your other issue may be related to the same upgrade. I would suggest you delete at least your cache and cookies as well. Password 16:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that did not do it. I have ended up clearing all history, cache, cookies, everything . . . exit the browser completely, restart it, etc. and it still does not fix it. I also looked at the source of the page and see that "Save page" just submits the form without altering anything. This tells me, as I brought up in the original posting, that the substitution happens on the server, not the browser. I triple checked my preferences and found my "Signature" set to "Password". I have never done that, so am curious where that occurred and what else may have happened when that happened. Thomas Lerman 17:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem has been fixed. I would still like to know what I stated in the last sentence above (that will need to come from one of the engineers or at least someone in HQ). Thomas Lerman 17:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like the answer, too because in my case my signature was capitalized without explanation and I had to clear up everything and reset certain items. One continue to fail me is automatic logging in. dsammy 17:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Proper and Improper Usage of in url names
A problem came up and I already pointed out in discussion with that person about the usage of. He doesn't quite get what is acceptable practice or not.

There are two ways to use it properly and not properly....


 * Baden_Grossherzogtum_(grand_duchy), properly because it make proper identification.


 * Mount_Pleasant_Cemetery_(disambiguation) (one person created all of this) the county and state in are not considered acceptable by Wikipedia standards by any means.

We need to resolve this asap before it get too far to take any necessary corrections down the pike. dsammy 18:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please defer this to October 20th. Dsammy will be out of town on 13th. dsammy 21:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)