User talk:Cottrells

Discussion Conventions


 * Please post new messages at the bottom of the page to prevent confusion.
 * Please sign your comments. Type  after your text.
 * Please use section headings to separate conversation topics.

See: Wikiquette, Be nice, and Talk page guidelines.

CID tags
Hello, Steve. I'm glad that you're willing to help with the wiki. Please don't add CID notes to the wiki however. We'll add them as each collection is ready. We do want wiki users to add contents to our pages, just not to that tag. We're still trying to get them to work.


 * I am curious about the CID references. I found a reference by Topher (now removed) that they are used in connection with the alpha version of the New Family Search.org site. Must they be embedded in a level 6 header? As they are now these references are listed in the Table of contents for each page they are added to. Is it important that the CID number included in the TOC? Is it important that the reference is displayed on the face of the page? If not could the CID number be included in comment tags for example  ? Must they be at the bottom of the article? Could a template be developed to include them in a way to suit both the technical needs and user experience of the wiki?


 * I think it would be useful for someone to document the purpose of these references, so that all users of the site will understand why they are included and how they help other processes. --Steve 23:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Steve, there is now a link, (What's this?) that explains the purpose of the CID notes. For now they will appear as they are. It looks like you marked one as "patrolled", What does that accomplish? Dorothy


 * Hi Dorothy. Yes I did notice some What's this? links (for example at the bottom of France, Protestant Church Records) that was linked to Collection ID. I also noted that they were not internal links but external links. As for marking something as patrolled that can only be done by a sysop. It wasn't me. --Steve 16:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If Wpd template works, why not same type of templates for two others?
http://www.genealogienetz.de/

http://wiki-de.genealogy.net/Hauptseite the home page of German based genealogy (has some English entries)

These ones are Wiki for German genealogy research and they are very sizeable sites, in German and Dsammy 20:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is possible to create templates like Wpd that will make it easy to create links to these or any other website. As was mentioned in the community meeting there is a German version of this wiki being developed see http://wiki.familysearch.org/de/ so it may be better to develop templates for linking to these sites there. The English language version is http://wiki-en.genealogy.net/ would you like me to help create GenWiki that could be used to link to this site? --Steve 11:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew there was an English version but couldn't find it in a pinch of time yesterday. Yes, please do create it for English version. German version is not ready for the public yet. Baerbel will love this. She's in Germany right now. Dsammy 15:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've created GenWiki, let me have your feedback. --Steve 18:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will wait for Baerbel to get back from Germany before making any feedback. She's supposed to be back in SLC by next week.

Work around possible for the templates
Is it possible to tweak the wpd, oclc, etc templates so that the template links will open into another window in accordance with the ruling made last Tuesday? At least this could eliminate the pesky problem - see: External links dsammy 16:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * got a problem - see Baker County, Oregon - check Edward Dickinson Baker info in the InfoBox - it's broken as a result of the modificiation.


 * Template WorldCat (OCLC) was already opened as an external link. The template wpd is not working right now due to the spaces in the name. I have requested an extension that would allow search and replace in parameters for this very reason. Maybe this will help bring up the priority? Thomas Lerman 00:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up on this. I have reverted the change so that the template uses the interwiki link once more. Once the StringFunctions are installed then I will rework the template to produce external links. --Steve 05:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Breslau Address Book Church and Civil Registration Jurisdictions.
Hello, CottrellS,

Hi, I had been looking in the Schlesien topics for an item that I had put under the Address book topic and couldn't find it there or under the other topic headings. After doing a title specific search, I found that it had been disconnected when you moved it. However the move did not put it in the topic that you had redirected it to. Had I not wondered where my article was, it may have been lost all together. Please check the destinations when you move things to make sure that they arrived there. Thanks so much for your help with the WIKI.

Thanks, Sonja


 * Hi Sonja, I was careful when moving the article Breslau address directories on July 10. I used the What links here tool and found that no articles where linking to it. Had I found any I would have updated the links. Even now there is only one article that links to Breslau address directories and that is the article Prussia-Schlesien Directories that you created today. I'm not sure what broken links/disconnects you are referring to. Are you reffering to a link from Portal:Prussia - Schlesien/Topics? If so then checking the page history I can see the link was broken as of 16:17, June 12, 2009 which was almost a whole month before the move was made. --Steve 16:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What should the Manual of Style include and how should it look?
I have moved the discussion items from the Manual of Style page to the discussion page, and begun an outline for items to be covered in the MOS. It is kind of a dramatic (read: VERY "bold") change, and I would appreciate feedback, contributions, suggestions, discussion. Lise 14:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines navigation template
We will be moving the Policy and Guideline pages from the Policy namespace back to the FamilySearch Wiki namespace. I noticed that you added the navigation template box at the bottom of the Policy page (FamilySearch Wiki Policies), so I was wondering how this project would impact the navigation links. Thanks, Fran 16:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and make the moves. The template can be easily amended to use the correct links. --Steve 17:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you know of a way to automate the moving of pages in the Policy namespace to the FamilySearch Wiki namespace? Franjensen 18:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a MediaWiki maintenance script Manual:MoveBatch.php . However there are less than 50 pages to move and so it wouldn't take long to this manually. The only potential problems would be where an article title already exists in the FamilySearch Wiki namespace. Unless a redirect has been edited they are no problem, but it take an administrators to . I can help by moving whatever I am able. --Steve 19:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I was more concerned about all the links to the pages in the Policy namespace that would require editing (like the Navigation template for Policy and Guideline). That's why I thought that an automated move process might help reduce the amount of links that need to be edited. Fran 19:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * When a page is moved a redirect is automatically produced. Then by using What links here from the toolbox you can find pages that are linked to the old page name and edit them so they link to the new location. --Steve 19:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I was aware of that functionality. I was under the impression that it was not possible to move pages from one namespace to another. I will test this out and then move forward as needed. Thanks for your help. Fran 19:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! I see that you've been helping with the moving of our policy pages from the policy namespace to the FamilySearch Wiki namespace. Your help is greatly appreciated! Fran 20:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Steve, it looks like we have double-redirect on the Privacy Policy page. The Privacy Policy link at the bottom of every page used to link to a Privacy Policy page in the Main namespace. It appears that there was a redirect on that page to the Policy:Privacy Policy page. Now when I click on the link at the bottom of the page I'm taken to the Policy:Privacy Policy page which only shows the redirect to FamilySearch Wiki: Privacy Policy. I was unaware that the original page was still on the Main namespace. I will try to fix it this afternoon if you are unavailable to do so. Thanks again for all your help. Fran 20:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Everything has been fixed.


 * The links for Conditions of Use; Privacy Policy (footers) and (navigation box links )Guiding Principles and Polices were updated to the FamilySearch Wiki namespace. Fran 21:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's great. The remaining pages in the policy namespace are mainly redirects. Each needs to be checked so that the What links here pages can be edited to link to the new pages. Some will need merging. --Steve 21:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Call for Feedback Re: Making Wiki Easier for New Users/Contributors
Steve, we need your feedback! Our goal is for wiki.familysearch.org to be a friendly, welcoming place that is easy to use and make contributions. Thank you for all you are doing to help it be such a place. Please share your comments. What is your experience? What challenges do new users face in using and contributing to the wiki? Where should they find help? When you notice problems, please go to Challenges Facing New Users. This is the page for making comments on challenges encountered.

Please post your comments and ideas for the solutions at What New Users and Contributors Want to Make Wiki Easier. Then, come add your "Vote" by listing and prioritizing those solutions that are most urgent and important for the entire community at Newbies Priorities. This is not only for newbies, we also need experienced user/contributor feedback on early, new user experiences. Thank you!

Kara aka CK Whipple 12:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Steve!
Steve, thanks for the information you dug up regarding displaying Featured Articles and the like -- the Skunks Needed item listed on Community Meeting Agenda 10 November 2009. I'll read about the stuff you linked so I can catch up with you, and then probably ask some more questions to get us closer to being able to do this. Ritcheymt 21:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Images on the wiki
Steve, do you know if there is a way to add an image to an article in the FamilySearch Wiki that is currently found at MediaWiki Commons without having to upload the file to the FSWiki? Fran 22:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Fran and Steve, I hope you do not mind me jumping in here. That would seem like a potentially bad idea due to opening up the system to unapproved, inappropriate images. I have done some testing and it appears it is not enabled. The information concerning this may be found on the MediaWiki website. Thomas Lerman 22:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Thomas has pointed you in the right direction. If the decision was made to allow contributors to add inline pictures from external sites then it would require some code to be added to file LocalSetting.php. The MediaWiki article on $wgAllowExternalImages explains what needs to be done and the pros and cons of allowing it. --Steve 13:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Duplicating technical/development requests

 * Thanks for your reply Thomas. In fact, your reply made me think of something else. Although I added several questions to Steve's talk page, the questions should be asked to all the community members. Instead of duplicating the same question on several talk pages, perhaps we need a way to post technical and development-type questions on one page for all to see and participate in. Sometimes the questions may actually turn into projects, large or small, and each with their own project page. Thoughts, anyone? --Fran 05:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that would be fantastic. If you did not notice, I jumped in on the next question you asked as well concerning the archives. Thomas Lerman 06:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It would be helpful to establish a place that can be used to co-ordinate requests and responses to a range of technical/development issues relating to the administration of this wiki. This was something that I suggested last month in response to Kara's What New Users and Contributors Want to Make Wiki Easier. --Steve 13:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive
I like the talkarchive template you added and implemented on your own talk page. I need to fix mine because I just created the archive as a subpage to my user page and did so by hand without the use of a template. I went ahead and added the archive template to my talk page by copying the code on your page. What I don't understand is how you got the link to "Archive 1" to appear on your current talk page. I don't see the link when I'm looking on the edit page. Your knowledge of wiki code is way beyond mine! Thanks for all you you to help make the Wiki the best it can be. -- Fran 22:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, I hope neither of you mind me jumping in here. If you click on the "Archives" link, you will go to an archives help page on Wikipedia. It has instructions there concerning how to do this. To get "Archive 1" to appear, you just need to create that page. Thomas Lerman 23:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's right the archives template will automatically create links if the subpage isa called Archive 1, Archive 2, etc. I really should add the documentation to the template. Anyways if you move your User:Franjensen/Archived_discussions to User:Franjensen/Archive 1 the link will magically appear. You can also use the also talkarchive template to mark the archive page as such --Steve 13:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Noticeboard pages
Is there an easy way to create a noticeboard page for some of the dispute resolution processes, or the maintenance flags such as Delete or DeleteASAP? I'm looking for a way to accomplish this task with wiki code, without having the need for engineers to program something. --Fran 22:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have started one some pages to help bring the Dispute resolution process together. The navbox still has some redlinks. Some of these are to pages which would list the Active disagreements. Without the use of bots these would need to be updated and patrolled manually.


 * For the maintainance tasks, I think you would like a page something like . Notice the side menu Resources for maintenance and collaboration. This is produced by the . I think if something similar was produced for this wiki, with links to each of the maintenance categories it would help raise the awareness of these tasks. --Steve 13:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Portal - un-portal page conversions
I don't know if you are aware that we no longer have someone who is actively working on the conversion of portals to un-portals. I created a project status page that will eventually make it possible for anyone to see what the current status is for the project. My question to you is related to the current design of the un-portal page. I've noticed that the topic template you created has been added to the bottom of many of the new un-portal pages and that the topics in the template are duplicates of the list of topics that appear in a long-narrow box on the page at the top-left. How do you feel about the design of the un-portal page that duplicates the list of topics? Do you have any ideas about how to avoid the duplication and also impove the design of the un-portal pages? Thanks in advance for your thoughts on this subject. --Fran 22:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * When I first developed the place template, (I think this is the one you are referring too), I only added it to the topic pages of the place. For example I did not add it to England but added it to England Census, England Civil Registration etc. I think that adding it to the main page of each location duplicates the links unnecessarily.


 * Around the same time I developed sidebar which I then added to each of the English county home/main pages. The idea being that it would be easy to maintain the links listed by editing one template. I thought at the time that this template could be used for all places, but I think local needs would require some regional variations and so can see the possibility of UK-sidebar, US-sidebar, Germany-sidebar etc. with each listing the standard topics for that country. --Steve 13:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI - With the conversion of portals to un-portals now in a state of limbo, I was looking for a way to speed up the conversion by simplifying the design. That's why I was asking about the place template being added to the home/main page. Maybe the sidebar would be more appropriate. Just removing the box or column where the Topics are currently listed and add the template(s) for sidebar and/or place, would possibly simplify the design and make it possible for more wiki user to get involved in the conversion. The original design of the un-portal page never considered the use of templates in the design. When the un-portal design was being worked on, we also considered using the Info box. We've wanted to implement the info box similar to what Wikipedia has, but the FCK editor conflicts with it. I don't remember the details of the conflict, so I'll have to ask around. -- Fran 16:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How would you like to convert the Utah portal page to an un-portal page and use a different layout than the one currently being used? I am the moderator of the Utah pages and would like to use that page as a test case for an alternate design that included the place template and/or the sidebar, plus any others that might help make the page more visually appealing and improve navigation. Just an idea. --Fran 16:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have created an un-portal page for Utah. I've not moved too far from the already established layout for these type of pages. I have created a template, US-sidebar to be a version of the sidebar which may help with the conversion process. Like I said before I think the place template is best used on the specific topic pages and not the main page for the place itself. My view is the main page should be fairly brief/short and so the sidebar layout works well. However the topic pages could be a lot longer and having the place navigation at the bottom, it helps a reader find related pages once they have read/skimmed the article. --Steve 23:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)