Talk:Main Page/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page.
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Main Page Structure

This question or concern has been resolved.
There is a new and improved layout.

This page needs to be reworked - the intro section should be shortened and the longer discussion moved to a secondary page. The main page should probably have a link to a projects page where we list all of the active community projects and link to the project pages. The main page should probably have a link to community pages (User:rhusted, etc.) so that we can see what community members are participating, what their talents are, what projects they're working on, etc. -- Rhusted 02:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there already is a Current Projects section on the Main Page. I suppose once that section gets to be too large, it should be moved to a separate page, but as long as there is only a handful of pages, I would think that section is sufficient. As for the link to User pages, this is a standard Special Page (Special:Listusers), so my opinion would be that we don't need to clutter the Main Page with a redundant link. -- Aebrown 16:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


Please sign your contribution with ~~~~. Thanks Theearl 04:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is this page protected?

This question or concern has been resolved.
Main Page is no longer protected from registered users. Please run significant edits by Tom Welch first.

I know that Wikipedia protects its main page, but it seems unnecessary to do so for this wiki. For one thing, we will have a small set of identified users (as opposed to Wikipedia's huge set of possibly anonymous users). For another, this makes it impossible for us to even fix typos or improve formatting. I would vote to unprotect the page; if it becomes a problem, you can always protect it again. -- Aebrown 16:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the reason this page has started out protected is because it is open to rest of the web, without any authentication required. With that said, Tom W. has recently told me that just about anything open to the whole web from the Church has to be passed through the legal department (Coorelation Department?). The Forums have been the only exception, but they succeed because of heavy moderation from volunteers. I could see the same success happening here with volunteer moderation; however, I bet the Church has to "prove" the concept first for a while before it could open it up like that. Plus, is there a way to see "New Posts" like you can in the Forums (and would that become too cumbersome to follow such fine-grain tracking of the Wiki)? -- Mike Murray 19:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, but a couple of things don't add up. First of all, the entire wiki is open to the Web for viewing, so there is nothing special about the Main Page. Although the entire Web can see every page on the wiki, not a single page can be edited unless you have logged in using your LDS Account credentials. So the only people who are stopped from editing the Main Page (who weren't already stopped from editing ANY page) are authenticated users. So I still fail to see why the Main Page is singled out to be protected.
At the bottom of every page in the Navigation box is a link for Recent Changes. This is analogous to "New Posts" in the forum, but even better -- try it, you'll like it! In my moderation of the LDSClerks wiki I use that all the time, and nothing ever slips by that I don't see. -- Aebrown 20:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
MediaWiki also allows you to 'subscribe' to pages. Subscription alerts you whenever a page is edited. The Recent Changes page also summarizes the changes, so it is pretty easy to scan for what has changed, by who, and why. Theearl 22:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The Main Page is no longer protected, which is a welcome improvement. However, because it is so visible, we should all exercise caution in making significant edits without running it by Tom first, but we certainly can correct typos, formatting problems, inaccuracies, etc. following the normal Guidelines. In particular, always use Preview liberally to make sure that the Main Page is in a good state before you commit any changes. -- Aebrown 16:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Is E-mail server configured?

This question or concern has been resolved.
The Wiki's email server has been confirmed to be working now.

I don't think the e-mail server is properly configured for this wiki. I have been unable to get any e-mail confirmation sent to me via the My Preferences page. Also, mkmurray has the same experience (he brought it to my attention). I go through the process and it acts like it has sent the confirmation message, but I never received it. I even went through the process a second time, and again it said it sent the confirmation message, but still no message ever arrived. Without this working, the subscription alerts that Theearl mentioned above will not work. -- Aebrown 16:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and answer for Tom since I sent him an email about it about 30 mins ago. He said it was working at one time, and he would check into it. -- Mike Murray 16:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on getting this fixed. Missing a "PEAR" package.
- Tom 23:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Check to see if it is working for you. I'm getting email notifications. Note: You have to "validate" your email address in the preferences before it will work.
- Tom 16:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
That's the part that's not working. Perhaps the mail server being used isn't getting out of the Church's network? I have just asked it to resend the confirmation email once more. I'll give it a day to see if it comes. -- Mike Murray 17:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I got it all configured correctly now. You have to "authenticate" your email address in the wiki "My Preferences" before you can receive notifications. - Tom Welch 20:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Outsourcing and template mod

I outsourced the about information at the bottom of the Main Page and linked to it under the Participation section to conserve space (nice to keep the main page brief). I also moved around a couple panes for overall fit. Feel free to revert any mods if not desired. —DeGraffJE talk 15:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a question of style I suppose...but why do you lower case the headings instead of using "Title casing", such as "Outsourcing and template mod" versus "Outsourcing and Template Mod"? Just curious if it's an official style recommendation or something. Thanks. -- Mike Murray 15:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
LDST:MOS currently mirrors WP:MOS (and in this case, specifically WP:HEAD), which states that only first letters and proper nouns are capitalized in subheadings and page titles to help distinguish proper nouns. This can be modified for this wiki if consensus agrees accordingly, but I think this guideline is helpful. For example, we currently have an article titled "Ward & Stake Directory Application". Is the name of the application "Ward & Stake Directory Application", "Ward & Stake Directory", or is it just a pilot application yet to be named that will serve as a directory for wards and stake (which would be titled "Ward and stake directory application" according to MOS)? —DeGraffJE talk 18:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Case for page and heading titles

The comment above regarding case from DeGraffJE (under #Outsourcing and template mod) is good for us to consider. I've thought about this for some time but have delayed bringing up the issue. There are good reasons why page and heading titles should be done in lower case (except for the first letter, which MediaWiki automatically capitalizes) and proper nouns. It emphasizes proper nouns, makes wikilinking much easier, and reduces the number of redirect pages we need to create. For example, if you will refer to "financial audit" in another article without capital letters, then the page title should be "Financial audit" (not "Financial Audit"). Then a simple [[financial audit]] link can be used within the referring article without having to do [[Financial Audit|financial audit]] or create a redirect.

I know that the content brought over from LDSClerks used title case, and that most of the new content has followed that example. It would be a large job to fix all the titles and redirects, but it really does seem like the right thing to do, for the long-term usability of the wiki. Thoughts? -- Aebrown 15:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that in the long run altering article titles and section headings to use sentence case will be of benefit to the wiki. I'm prepared to help move pages to correct article titles, however some will need to be moved by an administrator. --Steve 20:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC) acknowledgement

This question or concern has been resolved.

I've toned down this acknowledgement to those of us who worked on the wiki so that it sounds less like I personally did everything. I would prefer that it not emphasize my role any more than this edited version does now. I'm just one clerk in the "Religion of Clerks" who collected and presented so much of the basic information now here. Kslarsena 16:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added "unresolved" above because I can't get anyone with LDS Tech to respond to my emails about the data transfered from here, making the use of that information illegitimate. Kslarsena 18:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Tom did have a discussion with Kent Larsen (I believe it was in early September 2009) and these issues are resolved to their mutual satisfaction -- Aebrown 18:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Humor link

This question or concern has been resolved.

Before the link to Humor is removed again, can we please discuss it? I feel strongly it does belong here, especially because it does not fit anywhere else! I realize that the page is crowed. Let's get a real solution, instead of trying to force two separate wiki main pages into a single main page. Believe me, if I had known that this main page was the plan... Kslarsena 01:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I imagine Tom Welch didn't see this discussion before removing the Humor link again. There was probably no intention of disrespect there. I personally don't see the reason for a Humor page either, as has been demonstrated and voiced before. I actually agree with the main page issue. I've voiced it before, asking if there is a way to have one main page for Clerking only and another main page for Development Projects. It would be easier to send a link to my programming buddies for that purpose, and send a different link to my fellow clerks for support in their callings. -- Mike Murray 02:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the humor page should be on the wiki at all -- it's just too contentious. Certainly the current humor page is, and I'm pretty sure that any humor page is bound to be an unnecessary source of contention. I removed the Main Page link to lessen the prominence of the humor page while its future is being considered. The link should not be restored until a decision is made. That is the appropriate state of the page at this point, so please do not add the link back. -- Aebrown 04:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Too contentious? How? I feel very strongly that this should be here. We desperately need to lighten things up in the Church, especially when it comes to the clerk function. It was on the original page when this was on, and it should stay here unless someone has a reason that they can express clearly for why it should not be here.
As for Mike's suggestion that this "has been demonstrated and voiced before," I'd love to see where so that I can follow the reasoning. To me this all makes no sense whatsoever. We're losing both our sense of humor and our sense of good judgment. Kslarsena 04:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
"Demonstrated" by the two or three other people that have removed the Humor link from the Main Page everytime you've added it. "Voiced" by Steve on the Humor Talk Page. That was my evidence, and I was adding my vote in that direction. No offense intended. -- Mike Murray 04:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm still working on this issue, discussing it currently with Tom. -- Kslarsena 02:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I have been unable to get a response from Tom on this in several weeks. I need to resolve this. If Tom or someone else who is running this wiki will contact me, I would appreciate it. Kslarsena 18:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Tom did have a discussion with Kent Larsen (I believe it was in early September 2009) and these issues are resolved to their mutual satisfaction -- Aebrown 18:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Link boxes on main page

I like the changes to the boxes for the Clerks area on the main page. Moving Unit Administration to a separate box makes it more balanced, and the tip of the week will be nice (as long as someone keeps updating it). Now that we have the "more..." links (great idea, by the way!), I think we could trim the lists of main page links a bit more. In general, I don't think we should have more than 4-5 links in a box. So we should pick the most useful and common links and remove the others. People can use the "more..." link to go to the category page, or they can use search to navigate to the others. -- Aebrown 00:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Alan, glad you like the change. The support team has been producing the "tip of the week" for several months now, so I think we have a good routine going there. Lindsayre 23:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Placement of Annual History in link boxes

In keeping with the philosophy of keeping the number of items per box to a reasonable number, I undid the recent change by Crosbywd where he moved Annual History from Statistical to General. My reasons are:

  • The term "Statistical" is not an official designation, and the annual history reasonably fits under this umbrella;
  • The "General" box is already near to having too many items; I think one more is too many, but I don't really want to eliminate any of the others;
  • The change made the whole page one row longer, which all other things considered is a bad thing -- it requires more users to scroll vertically to see the whole page.

-- Aebrown 18:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

User Crosbywd, when a change has been undone, with a notation that the reasons are on the discussion page, please do not restore it without coming here to discuss it. A discussion is much better than an edit war. I have reverted your recent changes. Do not restore them again without a discussion. -- Aebrown 19:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

For those who would like to work towards a solution to the concerns, I would note that although Crosbywd's first change was done with no explanation, the undoing of my undoing contained this explanation: "The annual history is not a statistical report and is better listed under the general heading." I can understand how one might not consider the annual history to be a statistical report. After all, most of its elements are not statistical in nature. But I did raise three points, and that only addresses the first.

I really don't like adding one more topic to the crowded "General" category, for the reasons I stated above. One option that might satisfy both concerns is to change the heading from "Statistical" to "Statistical/Historical". That would make it clear that we are not simply lumping the history in with the Statistical Category, but would keep the number of items per heading more reasonable. Would that be reasonable? -- Aebrown 19:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's entirely reasonable. I think General is too generic and we should put as few topics in that category as possible. -- Mike Murray 21:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I was trying to place the Annual History in a category that did not imply it was a statistical report. I understand your reasons for not wanting to add to the general catagory and I like the idea of changing the header to "Statistical/Historical." Sorry for my lack of understanding regarding how to discuss changes. I'll do better the next time. -- Crosbywd 14:28, 21 January 2010

Clerks Entry Portal

This question or concern is currently unresolved.

Is there a way we could have a wiki entrance page just for the Clerk content? I realize it wouldn't make sense to completely duplicate the categories and listings that are on this Main Page; then you have a maintainability annoyance if categories change or something similar. I'm mostly just wondering if there is a way to create some kind of Clerks content main page as an entry point into only that part of the Wiki. The reason I ask is that I think it could improve usability for those browsing to the site to be able to give them a link that is a better entry point to the site than this current main page, which could confuse them with talk of Community Projects and Bug/Wish Lists. Thoughts? -- Mike Murray 03:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It's easy enough to split off the content of the Main Page into two separate pages; one Project oriented and one Clerk oriented. I think there's definite merit to the idea. But there can only be one true Main Page. That will be the one you land on when you go to, or when you click the WIKI link in the main nav of the LDS Tech site, or when you click on the LDS TECH wiki link at the top of every wiki page, or the Main Page link in the Navigation box of ervery wiki page (although the Navigation box can be expanded to have more links). So which area wins?
I don't know what the relative traffic is. There's certainly a ton more activity on the Clerk side right now, but that may be because it is new and so much content is being added. But the number of readers of the Clerk side will be much bigger, especially as we start linking to that content from the forum, from, and a variety of other places. So if we split these out, I would vote for making the Clerk content dominate the Main Page, and put a prominent link on that page to the Project Main Page. That vote may just be an indication of my bias, but I think those working on projects are less likely to be confused or bothered by an additional link than some poor first-time clerk who's just wandering around trying to get some help.
The current Main Page is indeed getting crowded. But another approach might be to limit the links on the home page. The Project side is reasonably tight, but the Clerk side has far too many links, in my opinion. If we tightened it up to only 4-5 links per section, it might not be so overwhelming. -- Aebrown 04:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I designed a simplified home page and sent it to Tom for review today. I'll keep you posted. Lindsayre 21:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that there should be separate Portals for Projects and Clerks. As for whether a new Portal namespace is required, I'm not sure. As there will only be two, using the LDSTech namespace, ie. LDSTech:Projects and LDSTech:Clerks may be sufficient. --Steve 07:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I strongly vote against a Portals namespace -- that was considered for Wikipedia, where there would potentially be thousands of portals, but rejected (for good reasons). We are only considering two portals, so the argument for the namespace is even weaker. We could use the LDSTech namespace, or we could even just use the main namespace; it's not that big of a deal.
While separate portals could have merit, that approach still seems to beg the question of what to do with the Main Page. The main page of a wiki is very important. It's where people land when they go to, or follow the link to WIKI from anywhere on LDSTech, or click on the Main Page link in the nav box anywhere in the wiki and at least currently when they click on the wiki logo. If we had two portals (with new page names as you seem to propose above), what would happen to the Main Page? Would it redirect to one of them? Or would it become much simpler with two prominent links to each of the portals?
As I mentioned above, I think the LDSTech Main Page should be clerk oriented, with a link to a Projects page/portal. That seems simple enough, creates one extra click for Project people, but no extra clicks for the majority of our users who come primarily for clerk-related information. -- Aebrown 12:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I can agree with that. If I had to choose, I would much rather see a clerk-oriented main page, than a projects-oriented one. The community developers will be able to navigate to where they want to be, but the clerks of the world should have more help navigation wise, as they are called to serve and it isn't exactly as volunteer as the development projects are (meaning they may not be familiar technology or wikis in general). -- Mike Murray 14:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Just a follow-up on Lindsayre's post on 22 April 2009: Has there been any resolution to the proposed new page that was sent to Tom? -- Aebrown 04:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Tom has been working with the AV department to create an attractive but far simpler main menu, which would branch to three submenus: Getting Started, Projects Wiki, and Clerk Wiki. He told me recently that AV has completed their work, now he just needs to post the changes. Lindsayre 17:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
One more follow-up: I saw the changes to the colors of the left and right sides of the main page a couple of weeks ago. That's a nice little change, and a helpful improvement. But it's clearly not the restructuring mentioned above, which was supposedly done over 6 months ago. Is that still in the works, or does the color change replace the changes that were contemplated several months ago? -- Aebrown 18:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving Households on Maps

When I follow the instructions given to move a household in Maps, the household does not move. Any suggestions? I will try on a different computer at a different location too. Thanks, Bishop Doran G. Henrie

Please note that asking a question on the wiki's main page is probably not the best place to pose such a question. I would suggest two alternate ways to ask your question:
  1. The LDSTech Forum has an existing Beta Maps Site thread where you could pose a question, or create a new thread in the Other Web Sites forum.
  2. The LDS Maps talk page would be focused on that particular topic of LDS Maps.
The first option (the forum) is by far the best option for getting a response (probably multiple responses). I'd recommend that you try that. I'd be happy to answer your question over there. -- Aebrown 23:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Calendar Setup Wizard

I want to tranfer events over from the Classic Calendar to the New Calendar. I have read the material but can't find the options >Calendar Setup Wizard on the old Calendar. I can't find it on the new one either incidentally. I would like the setup sizard to transfer the events for me so I don't need to redo them all for 2012. -- Kent Godfrey 04:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I know you're trying to get your question answered on the LDSTech forum (see this post). But this talk page is definitely not going to help you find your answers. First of all, this page is not seen by even a tiny fraction of the people who will see your question on the forums. And second, this page has nothing to do with your question, so it's not a good choice of where to ask it on the wiki. But trust me -- you should stick with the forums. You'll get your questions answered there (if you review the forum thread you started, I think you'll see that you already have the answers you need). -- Aebrown 05:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
This page was last modified on 21 June 2012, at 09:27.

Note: Content found in this wiki may not always reflect official Church information. See Terms of Use.