Template talk:RecordSearch

Name of this template
Thomas Lerman raised the question about the name of this template in a forum post. His suggestion was RecordSearch. I would not object to a name change, but I think the reason I choose CID still holds.

Firstly I noticed that Horandm was creating article for various record search collections, such as England Cheshire Nonconformist Church Records and including at the bottom of the article a line of code that included a CID ref. Why this is being done and why the coding is in a particular format is still unclear to me.

I also coded the template to include an optional display text parameter, but if that is not given the default display is


 * CID #######

Finally, when coding an article, templates with short titles are easier to type. --Steve 20:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Although I would agree that short titles are easier to type, I believe this may be a mistake. CID appears to be the name of the ID used in the URL to identify which collection is being used within the Record Search product (although it is still considered a pilot product at this time). To me, using this name to reference something within Record Search is not very intuitive nor user friendly . . . maybe even a bit geeky (I resemble that remark, by the way). Being not intuitive, I believe it will be harder for people to remember. It would be similar to referring to a record contained in Ancestry as dbid since that is the database identifier they use in their URL. Similarly, the IGI uses recid and the new FamilySearch uses bookid. If a template was created for these (very unlikely), I would be opposed to them be called recid and bookid respectively. It would make more sense to me to use the actual source name rather than an identifier that is used for internal purposes. Thomas Lerman 00:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have moved the template from CID to RecordSearch. --Steve 17:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No parameter
I noticed at Pilot.familysearch.org (boy do I really dislike the name of that page), it accesses Record Search. Actually, too many people are getting "pilot" mixed up in the name. . . the product is "Record Search" and it happens to be a "pilot" site. We do not call this "beta wiki" because it is a "beta" site. Anyway, off of the soap box. A thought that I had was wondering what you thought about having the template go to the main page of Record Search if no collection ID is passed in? Side question: how do we get all references to use the template? Thomas Lerman 14:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have moved the article mentioned to FamilySearch Record Search. I agree that some people use pilot as part of the name of the site whereas the term is referring to it's status. In what circumstances do you think this template be used without an collection ID? With regards getting all references to use the template, I'm afraid unless someone authorises a bot to do it, it would need to be done by hand. --Steve 19:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not seen what other situations exists, but the above mentioned article has a link to the main Record Search page. I suppose if this is the only reference, it is obviously easy enough to change this page. If many others reference the link, it would be nice if they used this template, but with no collection ID. I was afraid of that . . . the bot. Any suggestions on how we can move toward the overall change? Thomas Lerman 20:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have changed the template so that if no parameter is given only the URL will be displayed. --Steve 21:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I guess that is what I suggested. Do we want it to display the URL or Record Search? I believe we decided on the standard. Wait, that has not been completely decided yet. Thomas Lerman 03:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)