FamilySearch Wiki:Technical Meeting Agenda 1 June 2010

Join meeting, the ID is 1656

= Agenda =

News
News items can now be found on the Community News page in the Wiki.
 * The Stub-article project is ready for your review and participation. See the forum post for details
 * Another Forum thread that may interest you: issues with the breadcrumb trail
 * The FamilySearch Beta site has the current designs for the wiki content. Take a minute to review the West Virginia page and the Czech Republic pages for examples. Two items to make note of is the small topics content box is automatically being over to the right. Another thing to watch for on all pages is that the content is not going beyond the visual border of the page. I don't have an example page to look at because I think they were all fixed. Links to the Beta site and the Forum thread can be found at the top of the Forum screen:
 * The Wiki and Forums are part of a major renovation to the www.familysearch.org Web site. Try the new look and let us know what you think!


 * News page referenced above has not been updated since just before NGS. Anyone have additional information or udates to the items already shown?

Recognition
Add your recognition items below
 * Kudos goes to ...

From the Community

 * The article A genealogical glossary terms seems to me to be an all-inclusive genealogical word list. Rather than take that list apart to create a true glossary, would there be a way (template, maybe?) to identify each word's langauge of origin and definition/meaning in such a way as to be able to re-group words by language and/or by definition?  (For example, a way to change the view so as to see only Italian words.  Or a way to change the view so as to see all the words that may refer to "birth.")  As I see it, the wiki lacks a straight-forward glossary, but has a useful list of words for anyone attempting to translate a document from another language into English. The next step would then be a language-to-language listing of words and definitions where English wasn't in the equation.  Renaming the article would then free up the title "Glossary" to be used for a more traditional glossary.  Lise 16:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Related to that question, but a separate question, is how to make it possible for words in other articles to link to specific glossary entries. As I understand it now, a link can only be provided to the main letter of a glossary entry (i.e., "C") and not the actual term (e.g., "Chancery").  That is likely to cause confusion to someone who is unfamiliar with either genealogical terms and/or wikis.  Any suggestions? Lise 16:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

From FamilySearch Staff

 * A year ago, it was clear that many GenWeb contributors were wanting to find a new home for their content. Some like the idea of wikifying it because it would evolve faster that way and attract more contributors. We have a perishable opportunity to offer GenWeb contributors a good landing place before someone else does. The recent collaboration between this wiki's Idaho contributors and GenWeb's Idaho contributors raises an opportunity. Will we expand FamilySearch Wiki to include data sets like cemetery indexes or not? RitcheyMT 02:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Geocities? Lise 14:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Geocities, having been gone for some time, may to a degree have been archived by the Wayback Machine, so we could check there for stuff that didn't get moved over, and link to those until the updated data is found. Additionally, is there any update from the FamilySearch staff on what may be in process as far as something to place small databases such as the ones mentioned below, and what was on places like Geocities, so that people don't have to worry about moving whole chunks of data from one site to another based on the conditions of the commercial web hosting environment at any given time or company changes of focus at free hosting aggregator sites like Geocities was?  JamesAnderson 18:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Colfax County, New Mexico has good information, but it needs some editing help. What's the best way to flag an article to attract editors? I believe using a template isn't the answer because this would put a red flag at the top of the article that may offend or embarrass the article's major contributors. Would a category be less conspicuous? Would it also help to have a list of articles needing editing -- something like the Projects Seeking Contributors page? RitcheyMT 02:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)