Talk:Access Codes

Is the suggestion to put the code in parenthesis or use a template to insert the code? My personal preference would be to use a template. This would allow the coding to always be identical, plus it could be changed to an image (with a tooltip telling what the image means) easily in the future. If someone will create small images/icons, I can create templates quite easily. This would be nice to be able to see it. In the matter of fact, I could create a template that just the text for now, if you wish. This could be either a single template for all codes or one template for each code. Preferences??? Thomas Lerman 21:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's discuss this as a group and figure out whether we want a simple solution now. Ritcheymt 22:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added the 'FamilySearch Partners' code in the main page, noting it as reserved for future use since the program is coming but is not finalized. As far as the content of the section, if anyone feels it's too much for the description, cut and paste it to this talk page and that way we can still view the description in the process of discussing the matter of access codes.

As it is, the graphical symbol should be the white-on-blue FamilySearch 'Tree' symbol found on almost all FamilySearch sites and subsites in the logotype. That will make those items instantly recognizable and show its access type as being different from the others. That tree symbol is perfect for designating this item, among others. JamesAnderson 22:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I really like the idea of using those little icons, I feel it is a very helpful addition to a page. At least for us. My only concern is that we will get things too complicated for the fledgling user that is already gun shy about putting in their contribution. Simplicity should be implemented to encourage their contributions, thus adding to the growth of the wiki. So let's pull out the balance scales and decide.... simplicity vs perfectionism??? Just a thought. FamilyJournals 22:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The most simple form of a template would be not much different than what Sammy was discussing. In other words, rather than typing (FR$), one could type (or whatever codes we decide would be the most user-friendly and easiest to remember). This works whether in geek mode (Wikitext) or rich text (what you see is what you get). Thomas Lerman 00:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I really think that is great Thomas. I would love it. I am just a little concerned about the novice getting overwhelmed with rules and guidelines. Familyjournals 00:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that I understand. We have to keep everything as simple and easy as possible. The more people have to think and remember, the less likely the non-geek-types will contribute. I could see that they may have the most to contribute. Thomas Lerman 01:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the point of Familyjournals, I think the risk is that someone new to the wiki who wants to contribute might see these special icons after each link and think, "Wow, they have a special system and codes for linking to stuff. That looks too complicated (and maybe uptight) for me. Maybe this isn't the right kind of site for me to participate." Ritcheymt 19:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that if we put the letter codes in first, then the more geeky people can come in later with the icons. In Wikipedia there are people that will go in and fix formatting, add things that fix problems, and update articles with things like icons and other items that don't otherwise change the article other than make it look better and more consistent. So I think the best thing is to use the letter codes first, and indicate in any instructions that if anyone feels they can code the icons in they can either do it themselves, or just put in the letter codes and leave it to someone else to come in and use the template to put in the icons. Is that a good option? JamesAnderson 19:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

While I can see what you are saying, Michael. . . I also can see that cool stuff can help attract people seeing very concise, easy to understand information (including links). I do not know the answer to any of these questions nor if they are even pertinent. What kind of people do we attract to contribute to the Wiki? Are we only attracting mostly people in the Family History Library, people in the Family History Department and a few from Family History Centers? Or are we attracting people from around the world with diverse ethnicity, religions, backgrounds, and experiences? Are we attracting various Genealogical Societies? If we are not attracting others, why not? Anyway, like I said, this may not be pertinent and I do not know the answers. Incidentally, my thought on your comments, James, is that we nail down the codes (if we do this), and use Templates from the get-go. These templates can show codes now and images in the future (or whatever we decide). Instead of (LCR) (for example, it would be . Thomas Lerman 20:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)