Template talk:FamilySearch Collection

Multi collection articles
Some articles describe more than one collection see England Vital Records Index. Develop the ability to include more than one link back to FSRS. --Steve 14:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Other Discussion
Steve, Sorry about the unintentional save. I was looking at this template as an example while I worked on another template. I got a 2 minute warning, and thought it was for the other template. I panicked, threw in a comment, and saved. I tried an undo but it didn't seem to work. I hope the changes are just formatting? Robert 17:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries. Looking at the diff all that has happened is that the FCKeditor has changed the first style attribute into a more verbose version. The result is the same. --Steve 17:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Eliminating "Record Search"
So it seems that the name "Record Search" is no longer going to be used. So is it possible to remove that phrase from this template? I am thinking for the logo just using the FamilySearch part as well as just using FamilySearch. I also have an official Familysearch logo uploaded if you want to use it. (you don't have to but here is one if you want it)

So I went ahead and changed the logo. I did not change the link name as I would prefer the link works. i am going to, in the near future perhaps move the FamilySearch Record Search article to a new name. Something like "FamilySearch Collections" same article new title.

Wording
I would suggest that the words "that is" and "for free online" be removed from the template. I'm concerned the word "free" may be misleading. There are "free index/for-pay image" collections and "free index/free image" collections. The template doesn't differentiate. The wording must either differentiate (and be absolutely accurate) or the word "free" should be removed. Also, stating that a collection is available at FamilySearch.org (a website) provides sufficient clarity so that people understand it's available online. Lise 20:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Done. --Steve 08:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)