Template talk:FamilySearch Collection

Multi collection articles
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
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)


 * No worries. Looking at the 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. --Steve 17:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Eliminating "Record Search"
So it seems that the name "Record Search" is no longer going to be used. So is it possible to remove that phrase from this template? I am thinking for the logo just using the FamilySearch part as well as just using FamilySearch. I also have an official Familysearch logo uploaded if you want to use it. (you don't have to but here is one if you want it)

So I went ahead and changed the logo. I did not change the link name as I would prefer the link works. i am going to, in the near future perhaps move the FamilySearch Record Search article to a new name. Something like "FamilySearch Collections" same article new title.

Wording
I would suggest that the words "that is" and "for free online" be removed from the template. I'm concerned the word "free" may be misleading. There are "free index/for-pay image" collections and "free index/free image" collections. The template doesn't differentiate. The wording must either differentiate (and be absolutely accurate) or the word "free" should be removed. Also, stating that a collection is available at FamilySearch (a website) provides sufficient clarity so that people understand it's available online. Lise 20:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Done. --Steve 08:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Categorizing
I noticed that this template places adds all of the pages displaying this header into the category location FamilySearch Record Collections. It displays differently for scheduled collections and no CID entered, but does not categorize them differently. I was wondering if we should add the "scheduled" and "no CID" pages to a different category or more simply to the parent category of FamilySearch Record Collections where they can be easily found and updated or corrected. Lotje2 20:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that adding additional categories for scheduled situations would be better. Each article should be added to the location category, but a category for scheduled collections would useful and perhaps another maintenance category for collections without a CID. I think this is a good suggestion. --Steve 07:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think the way you explained it is best. Can you make the change? I noticed this because these articles are being translated to the Spanish wiki whether they are available or not. It appears that they are being translated by location and not availability, which means someone will have to find the scheduled ones later and update them. I didn't want to change the template on the Spanish wiki unless it was done here as well. I don't think there should be different versions of this template (other than translated display text and different categories, of course) on the different language wikis. Lotje2 23:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Note about space after CID
Is the following note in the instructions outdated. I tested this on a few collections and did not have any problems if the space was not there.

NOTE: There is a space after the reference and before the closing braces (or following parameters). It is important to include a space as this is the format used by FamilySearch to link to the article in question. If the space is missing the link will not be found.

Lotje2 00:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, When you say you tested it, unless the change was in place long enough for the FamilySearch database to redo it's list of links to articles in the wiki, I do not think you would have seen a change. The space is not important for creating links from the wiki to the online collections, but it is essential for the collection pages Learn more >> links to find the correct article in the wiki. --Steve 15:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)