Community Meeting Agenda 26 January 2010

From FamilySearch Wiki
Revision as of 15:27, 17 December 2019 by Iluvhistory66 (talk | contribs) (Standardizing terms Mormon and LDS)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

To Attend the Meeting:

  1. Go to 26 Jan meeting or MeetingPlace Home and enter the Meeting ID 8531 and click the "Attend Meeting" button.
  2. Select the desired "Connect Me" options and enter the phone number that you want MeetingPlace to call you at
  3. Click the Connect button
Green check.png
The usage of "Mormon" and "LDS" on this page is approved according to current policy.

To Attend the Meeting Without Using your Computer:

  1. Dial into 801-240-2663 (Local/International) or 877-453-7266 (US Toll-free)
  2. Follow the prompts to enter the Meeting ID 8531 and join the meeting

Agenda and Notes[edit | edit source]

Recognition[edit | edit source]

Nice article on James Anderson in the January 2010 LDSTech newsletter (see the Community Spotlight section).

Discussion Items[edit | edit source]

How to Register Demo[edit | edit source]

CK Whipple 18:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC) See: FamilySearch Wiki:Registration Demo

New Featured Articles[edit | edit source]

CK Whipple 18:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC) See Featured Wiki Pages

Time Out[edit | edit source]

Not even 2 minutes? That is what happened early Monday morning. I wasn't even 1 minute into editing when the 2 minutes warning notice came up to save. (reported to Forums) dsammy 08:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I got on about 1pm, no real problem with it, in fact, it seems to be a longer period before it goes out now. JamesAnderson 23:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
What is dsammy's experience right now? -Fran 18:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Un-portal conversions & redirects[edit | edit source]

Would it be a good idea to add a redirect from the portal page to the unportal page so users get sent to the new page automatically, or would it end up being a bigger hassle for the sysops when trying to locate and delete pages? Redirects do mean knowing how to get to the edit page differently than standard methods. Adding a redirect would be easy to do and updating the instructions is no big deal either - I'm just wanting to find out the potential pros and cons to doing so. Laralee 17:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't want any redirects connected with the Portals. WE are trying to wipe them out of existence. Delete template on portals like you have been doing so far so good. One of the sysops get the notices of delete requests to take care of. dsammy 18:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that we are trying get rid of portals. It is confusing to see both a portal and a regular article for the same location. Someone reported their confusion on this matter in the forum. Maybe it would be helpful to delete the old information when it is taken over and the delete template is inserted. I do not think it would be bad to put a note in the portal that says where the new article is though. It may help eliminate confusion. Thomas_Lerman 20:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
A template will be designed specifically for portal pages when they have been converted. that will mark it for deletion with uniform text and also provide a notice to users to update any bookmarks and provide the link to the new un-portal page Redirects will not be used as they both make it more difficult for sysops to delete but it also doesn't alert users to the need to change bookmarks. Text can be deleted from the 'box' pages as it is moved to the new page. (if I missed or got anything wrong please correct this) Laralee 21:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I would recommend adding another parameter to the existing delete template rather than creating another one. I also recommend the instructions say to delete the old material once it is successfully saved in the new location. Thomas_Lerman 21:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I have created a new template {{DeletePortal}} to be used for the main portal pages. This template requests that users update their old bookmarks. I have also updated the instructions documenting how the templates should be used to replace the old content once it has been moved. --Steve 00:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I like the new template. -Fran

Inconsistencies[edit | edit source]

We have some inconsistency within the Wiki regarding the terminology used when referring to sites on the internet. It is NOT cleared up on the FamilySearch Wiki:Manual of Style page. Is it websites, web sites, Websites, or some other term or spacing of words? Jimmy B. Parker 23:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This quirky question can be answered at this site "Should it be Web site or website?" .
So if it is heading it is simply "Websites" since it is very clear and to the point. If it is in the article it is simply either web sites or websites. Take your pick. dsammy 03:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That is already widely known, I've been putting in the word 'website' for 'web sites' for some time, and this also helps search engines too, as they often don't understand the context of the separated words 'web site' or 'web sites'. But in Google, if you ask for 'web' it will pick up 'website' or 'websites'. Originally it was 'web site', but it has evolved so that the compounded word 'website' is more accepted, and often is considered correct in many other settings now. JamesAnderson 18:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This may be read about at Chicago Manual of Style, where they suggest 'website' for informal writing. Another question may be brought up about the capitalization of 'Internet'. I would rather see web pages in the Wiki be called 'articles' instead of 'pages'. I believe most would think that sounds less techy and more user friendly. While I am at it, I would rather see one space instead of two spaces after periods, etc. The extra space causes some problems or funny viewing during a preview. I personally believe it is an old standard with two spaces that were used with monospace typewriters. The University of Chicago Press through the Chicago Manuel of Style discourages this as well. Thomas_Lerman 20:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

ACTION: This matter should be added to the Manual of Style. Perhaps it should be discussed on the discussion page for the Manual of Style. We should also determine if the FH Department has a more recent edition of their style guide and how they address this issue. Jimmy B. Parker

I deleted my comments here and added it to the discussion page that Jimmy referred to above. Thomas_Lerman 22:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Linking to GNIS (Geographic Names Information Systems)[edit | edit source]

The content about the GNIS linking needs to be moved from the FamilySearch Wiki:Known Issues page to the FamilySearch Wiki:Manual of Style Volunteer to make this change:

Stay Informed[edit | edit source]

Stay informed by visiting the FamilySearch Wiki Forum and by viewing the following pages: