Community Meeting Agenda 13 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

Articles about Record Search Collections
This is an item about presentation/style rather than content. The latest version of Record Search links to articles in this Research Wiki by using a Collection ID added to the bottom of the relevant articles (see Category:FamilySearch Record Collections). Back in August I asked one of the contributors some questions about these references. The first question has now been answered. I had guessed as much, but now the purpose for these IDs is clear. However some questions remain unanswered and I have repeated them in Talk:Collection ID. Personally I would prefer to have the ID included in such a way to at least remove them from the Table of Contents or even better hide them in comment tags, for example  (with or without the level 6 headers), so that they are hidden from readers (or is it important that they be seen?). From my point of view, unknown factors about this issue are; What is the process by which the Record Search links to the wiki aricticle? What are the requirements for the process to find the CID in the article?

On a secondary related issue, these articles include or will include, links back to Record Search. These links are currently pointing at  I have created a template CID (see England Vital Records Index for an example of it being used), that can be used to link to Record Search and would mean that if/when the URL changes in the future, just the template would need amending and not each article. If others agree, then I hope the benefits of using the template can be put to the Record Search developers so that the effort in maintaining these links can be minimised. --Steve 14:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been in discussions with someone at headquarters in response to similar items / questions that I had. They are one that seems to have authority to make changes. This was before I realized this was set for a discussion item. I have made various recommendations including generating text &amp; links with templates, but they are a bit resistant possibly because of their technical level, lack of Wiki experience/understanding, or a myriad of other possibilities. I have given them information on how to not have the information in the table of contents, at least. They will be taking this to the engineering people. I do not know positively know what is the process for linking Record Search to a Research Wiki article. However, I believe it is an automated method . . . such as it searches for a specific string of text within the Wiki database. Any changes to that text would require changes to the Record Search. My recommendations would be to use a template to generate the text with whatever formatting they want and change what Record Search looks for. Personally, I believe that should be a very easy change. Personally, I am very against the idea of referring to Record Search as "cid". To me and I believe others, that makes as much sense as referring to Ancestry as "dbid". Both of which is what is used internally and in their URLs. Thomas Lerman 22:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am pleased to hear that they are considering your recommendations. Hopefully others who participate in this community meeting can also add their support to making changes that keep the link from Record Search to the Research Wiki, but allow this to be maintained in more user friendly way. I have moved CID to RecordSearch as I can see the logic in your argument. Hopefully the developers who are creating the articles about the Record Search collections would be willing to use the template to provide the links back to Record Search. It would also be helpful if they use internal links and not external style links for related article links and include a default category as the articles are created. --Steve 17:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To give you an idea of what we are working with, when I suggested they use templates, they said that they are. Upon further inquiries, I found that the templates they are using is a copy &amp; paste from a external document. Anyway, it seems to be an educational process. Oh yes, I did also talk to them about the link style as well. Thank you. Thomas Lerman 17:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. I have taken part of the e-mail conversation, included my suggestions, and posted it in my Discussion Page for all to see. I believe my suggestions will make it easier for everyone now and in the future. We may have to get some strength in numbers? Thomas Lerman 19:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Best Practices/Manual of Style for Hot Links
I am seeing two kinds of links in articles I'm editing, and a third style on some page on wikipedia:


 * 1) Link directly to the site mentioned using the name of the site as the hot link, e.g., "The Illinois Newspaper Project web page includes a ..."
 * 2) Describe the site, hit two carriage returns and add the text of the url, then hot-link the text of the URL, e.g., "The Illinois Newspaper Project web page can be found here:    http://www.library.illinois.edu/inp/
 * 3) Mention the site and then put the words "web site" in parenthesis and hot link the words "web site", e.g., "The Illinois Newspaper Project (web site) includes a..."

All three get the job done, but which one is best for this wiki? Eirebrain 19:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would have thought this was in the manual of style already. I did not find it, but would interpret the style as implied as #1. Other links, such as WorldCat, FHLC, and others follow this style. This would be my vote . . . putting the actual link "hidden" behind the title as in #1. Thomas Lerman 19:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)