FamilySearch Wiki:Technical Meeting Agenda 28 September 2010

Join the meeting, the ID is 8853

= Agenda =

Recognition
Add your recognition items below


 * Kudos goes to ...

Announcements
News items can now be found on the Community News page in the Wiki.


 * Questions?
 * Comments?

From the Community

 * What's the holdup on MoS process for the navbox templates (discussion was started on Aug 24 and it has not been brought to a consensus, yet). Already there's some problems with the few who don't want to wait for the consensus and trying to impose on others.


 * Here's the quote from them "Nobody seemed to be coming to an agreement for over a month. If we are going to finally discuss it soon, fine. This Tuesday?" This was last Thursday. Yesterday I got this in email last night "We don't seem to have reached consensus on nav bars, so don't be too surprised if we just change them back the way we prefer." I have the rest of the message. The form they prefer is ... dsammy 14:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There was a thread in the forums that was closed when the discussion got a little overheated. I believe that the intention was to mock up some examples in the wiki and start a new thread to discuss the options. I offered to help Fran with this, and the following week Utah was used as an example. This issue was also discussed in the 7 September meeting. I think the main thing missing since then is a new forum thread and some feedback about the pro and cons about the suggested way forward. --Steve 19:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * MoS backlog of proposals still waiting for consensus. Category of Style guideline proposals. dsammy 14:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, the FHL templates are in a bit of a problem. The consensus has not been reached on this, contrary to the assumption of some. There's a technical problem as well which was explained to product manager staff last week. The problem centered on the transition to the digital age when there no books, microfilms or fiches in existence except in digital format. Also there are no templates yet for locality and subjects. The recommended template does not work as intended. The one for Baker, Baker, Oregon is 207062 and the template says FHL 207062, but it ends up as Church records, 1667-1890, Church of England. Parish Church of Sowe (Warwickshire). Only the template for "FHL Collections" is working as intended if for specific record in the FHL Catalog. The other templates using book, microfilm or fiche are more likely not to survive the transition to the digital because they are dependent on the call numbers or film/fiche numbers rather than the record id. WorldCat uses record ID, hence the WorldCat template does work because it is dependent on the record ID. (Thomas L., if you are reading this, is there a way to eliminate the word "Collections" from the FHL Collections template for good?) dsammy 14:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been trying to get information concerning localities and subjects from the FHLC people for quite a while now, but nothing. I have heard about errors with this template from you, but have only found misuse. I have found many other people using it and believe only one other person has requested an enhancement which cannot generate a persistent link from what I have seen. If you are putting in 207062 as the FILM number, that is exactly what it will show. I have no idea what number you are trying to pass in if it is not a film number. I tried to find the page, but could not find a page named "Baker, Baker, Oregon". For now, the book/microfilm/fiche/etc. number will not be going away. The record number (an internal database number) IS being used where the FHLC people have said that it is persistent. Several of the other numbers that I have seen are NOT persistent and therefore not guaranteed to work in even the near future. The format of the display came up through consensus. The "Collections" text was what several in the FamilySearch department strongly recommended. Thomas_Lerman 19:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it doable to default to left? Can both templates Wikipedia and Adoption sign be defaulted to the left? This would align the templates and display properly in new skin. Currently they are defaulted to the right, causing some problems with display of contents. dsammy 16:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The short answer is yes, but I'm not sure I agree that making the default alignment to the left would solve the issue with displaying the table of contents. Would you be able to give some specific examples where this change is needed. --Steve 16:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Santa Barbara County, California - this is the first one with adoption template, where the problem is noticed first time when infobox was added. The Wikipedia template is displaced by infobox, and some FHL prefer to put it way down in References section to avoid disruption. I already talked with some and they would like to see it go to the left and in proper sections if they can be defaulted to the left. dsammy 17:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia template includes a parameter called align that allows the box to be aligned to the left. I have made this change to the Santa Barbara County, California page. I have also moved the adoption sign to sit above the infobox. Any other examples? --Steve 17:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Adoption template came out right, hopefully this works throughout the Wiki. The shift of Wikipedia template created another problem, shifting the heading below it somewhat to the right in Firefox. When I viewed the same page in IE6 and same problem exists, likewise I get this message IENGFix: Children of positioned element are unclickable:&lt; DIV &gt; so I guess somebody else needs to view it in IE8 and see if IENGF is there or not. dsammy 18:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just remembered something else about Wikipedia template... I was asked if it is possible to stretch wide the template because the link itself inside the box is broken into 3 lines in new skin. This doesn't exist in classic skin. We're not getting there because if there is anything added to the section, the template is in odd position as shown for Baker County, Oregon . Shift the position to below the comment, it get worse. Obvious this one template is in need of some solution that can be applied without hassle. dsammy 18:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)