Talk:Ward & Stake Directory Application - Revision history

Aebrown: /* Photo Directory */

2010-07-23T01:47:23Z

Photo Directory

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:47, 23 July 2010
Line 19:		Line 19:

	--[[User:Randoogle\|Randoogle]] 01:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)		--[[User:Randoogle\|Randoogle]] 01:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

			: Have you looked at the Directory on beta.lds.org? Once you sign in with your LDS Account, you can see your ward directory. There is a "Member Photos" feature that is essentially what you are asking for. The good news (especially for singles) is that the picture will travel with you from ward to ward. The bad news at this particular moment is that photo images aren't being displayed, but that should be corrected in the next few days. The other issue is that there is no print function for the photo directory, but we've been assured that printing will be enhanced before it goes live. -- [[User:Aebrown\|Aebrown]] 01:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Randoogle: /* Photo Directory */ new section

2010-07-23T01:20:16Z

Photo Directory: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:20, 23 July 2010
Line 11:		Line 11:
	== Birthdates ==		== Birthdates ==
	I am curious why such the restrictions on children's birth dates? Perhaps I've been out of the loop for too long, but I thought adults birth years were omitted from Abbreviated Directory, etc... but children's were available. I think it would be very helpful for a "non-Bishopric" Primary teacher to know her/his children's birthdays to celebrate with them. If an LDSAccount validates a member, then perhaps that would be sufficient privacy. Perhaps the privacy rules are more stringent. Perhaps, children's birth dates could be visible to ward only, not stake. Or ward only and an abuse flag available for any particular members the Bishop or others worry about seeing such data. Just some thoughts, but celebrating youth birthdays would be easier if plausible to allow display to some outside of the Bishopric. --[[User:Greenwoodkl\|Greenwoodkl]] 00:07, 29 June 2009 (MDT) (GMT -06:00)		I am curious why such the restrictions on children's birth dates? Perhaps I've been out of the loop for too long, but I thought adults birth years were omitted from Abbreviated Directory, etc... but children's were available. I think it would be very helpful for a "non-Bishopric" Primary teacher to know her/his children's birthdays to celebrate with them. If an LDSAccount validates a member, then perhaps that would be sufficient privacy. Perhaps the privacy rules are more stringent. Perhaps, children's birth dates could be visible to ward only, not stake. Or ward only and an abuse flag available for any particular members the Bishop or others worry about seeing such data. Just some thoughts, but celebrating youth birthdays would be easier if plausible to allow display to some outside of the Bishopric. --[[User:Greenwoodkl\|Greenwoodkl]] 00:07, 29 June 2009 (MDT) (GMT -06:00)

			== Photo Directory ==

			Every ward I have been in for the last six years has labored to produce photo directories for ward leaders. I have found, to my surprise, that this always requires a lot of redundant work to accomplish. Often, a particular member would maintain ''their own separate database'' to keep the photos and names together and up to date. On top of the redundancy of it all, in wards with high turnover (for example, singles wards), this often meant that by the time a photo directory was printed and sent out, it was already painfully outdated.

			It would be awesome if you could include a photo directory print layout to this project. Then, we could all focus our attention on the accuracy of the MLS data, and avoid duplicating work to create photo directories for our ward leaders (and anyone else who wanted one). I've recently been called as the ward directory coordinator for my ward, and I'd like to do this right. I happen to be a web programmer, and I would be willing to help in any way that I can to get this going. It would be nice to have a simple and quick way to produce ward photo directories for not just my ward, but all wards.

			--[[User:Randoogle\|Randoogle]] 01:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Greenwoodkl at 06:08, 29 June 2009

2009-06-29T06:08:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:08, 29 June 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Reasoning for this Community Project? ==		== Reasoning for this Community Project? ==
			Not to be rude, but I don't understand the purpose of this project. I do understand the helpfulness in getting quality membership directories and the like, but I don't understand why the Community would work on this. I would have thought these proposed enhancements would be going into LUWS 2.0 where they would belong. Again, no disrespect intended; just confused and concerned. Thanks. -- [[User:Mkmurray\|Mike Murray]] 16:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

	Not to be rude, but I don't understand the purpose of this project. I do understand the helpfulness in getting quality membership directories and the like, but I don't understand why the Community would work on this. I would have thought these proposed enhancements would be going into LUWS 2.0 where they would belong. Again, no disrespect intended; just confused and concerned. Thanks. -- [[User:Mkmurray\|Mike Murray]] 16:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

	== Is this really part of LUWS Project? ==		== Is this really part of LUWS Project? ==

	Since this page long predates the LUWS project, I assumed it was an independent project. Other than the recently added LUWIndex template, the text of this page doesn't give any indication that it is a module of the LUWS project. It's certainly fine if it is part of that project, but then the text should be edited to make a more direct connection. -- [[User:Aebrown\|Aebrown]] 01:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)		Since this page long predates the LUWS project, I assumed it was an independent project. Other than the recently added LUWIndex template, the text of this page doesn't give any indication that it is a module of the LUWS project. It's certainly fine if it is part of that project, but then the text should be edited to make a more direct connection. -- [[User:Aebrown\|Aebrown]] 01:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

	: Mkmurray: As I reviewed the history of page edits, I can see why you said my edits were misguided. Somehow my edit of 18:45, 15 April 2009 undid Welchtc's previous edit. Given that my edit was considerably later, that must mean that I edited a previous version of the page, but I certainly did not do that on purpose. Then because the version I inadvertently edited did not have the LUWIndex template, I was confused. I still think the text of this article should be edited to connect to the LUWS project, but I do apologize for my undoing of Tom's edit. -- [[User:Aebrown\|Aebrown]] 03:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)		: Mkmurray: As I reviewed the history of page edits, I can see why you said my edits were misguided. Somehow my edit of 18:45, 15 April 2009 undid Welchtc's previous edit. Given that my edit was considerably later, that must mean that I edited a previous version of the page, but I certainly did not do that on purpose. Then because the version I inadvertently edited did not have the LUWIndex template, I was confused. I still think the text of this article should be edited to connect to the LUWS project, but I do apologize for my undoing of Tom's edit. -- [[User:Aebrown\|Aebrown]] 03:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


			== Birthdates ==
			I am curious why such the restrictions on children's birth dates? Perhaps I've been out of the loop for too long, but I thought adults birth years were omitted from Abbreviated Directory, etc... but children's were available. I think it would be very helpful for a "non-Bishopric" Primary teacher to know her/his children's birthdays to celebrate with them. If an LDSAccount validates a member, then perhaps that would be sufficient privacy. Perhaps the privacy rules are more stringent. Perhaps, children's birth dates could be visible to ward only, not stake. Or ward only and an abuse flag available for any particular members the Bishop or others worry about seeing such data. Just some thoughts, but celebrating youth birthdays would be easier if plausible to allow display to some outside of the Bishopric. --[[User:Greenwoodkl\|Greenwoodkl]] 00:07, 29 June 2009 (MDT) (GMT -06:00)

Aebrown: Add clarification based on my review of the edit history

2009-04-16T03:00:21Z

Add clarification based on my review of the edit history

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:00, 16 April 2009
Line 6:		Line 6:

	Since this page long predates the LUWS project, I assumed it was an independent project. Other than the recently added LUWIndex template, the text of this page doesn't give any indication that it is a module of the LUWS project. It's certainly fine if it is part of that project, but then the text should be edited to make a more direct connection. -- [[User:Aebrown\|Aebrown]] 01:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)		Since this page long predates the LUWS project, I assumed it was an independent project. Other than the recently added LUWIndex template, the text of this page doesn't give any indication that it is a module of the LUWS project. It's certainly fine if it is part of that project, but then the text should be edited to make a more direct connection. -- [[User:Aebrown\|Aebrown]] 01:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

			: Mkmurray: As I reviewed the history of page edits, I can see why you said my edits were misguided. Somehow my edit of 18:45, 15 April 2009 undid Welchtc's previous edit. Given that my edit was considerably later, that must mean that I edited a previous version of the page, but I certainly did not do that on purpose. Then because the version I inadvertently edited did not have the LUWIndex template, I was confused. I still think the text of this article should be edited to connect to the LUWS project, but I do apologize for my undoing of Tom's edit. -- [[User:Aebrown\|Aebrown]] 03:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Aebrown: /* Is this really part of LUWS Project? */ new section

2009-04-16T01:41:53Z

Is this really part of LUWS Project?: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:41, 16 April 2009
Line 2:		Line 2:

	Not to be rude, but I don't understand the purpose of this project. I do understand the helpfulness in getting quality membership directories and the like, but I don't understand why the Community would work on this. I would have thought these proposed enhancements would be going into LUWS 2.0 where they would belong. Again, no disrespect intended; just confused and concerned. Thanks. -- [[User:Mkmurray\|Mike Murray]] 16:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)		Not to be rude, but I don't understand the purpose of this project. I do understand the helpfulness in getting quality membership directories and the like, but I don't understand why the Community would work on this. I would have thought these proposed enhancements would be going into LUWS 2.0 where they would belong. Again, no disrespect intended; just confused and concerned. Thanks. -- [[User:Mkmurray\|Mike Murray]] 16:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

			== Is this really part of LUWS Project? ==

			Since this page long predates the LUWS project, I assumed it was an independent project. Other than the recently added LUWIndex template, the text of this page doesn't give any indication that it is a module of the LUWS project. It's certainly fine if it is part of that project, but then the text should be edited to make a more direct connection. -- [[User:Aebrown\|Aebrown]] 01:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Mkmurray: /* Reasoning for this Community Project? */

2008-10-24T16:25:27Z

Reasoning for this Community Project?

New page

== Reasoning for this Community Project? ==

Not to be rude, but I don't understand the purpose of this project. I do understand the helpfulness in getting quality membership directories and the like, but I don't understand why the Community would work on this. I would have thought these proposed enhancements would be going into LUWS 2.0 where they would belong. Again, no disrespect intended; just confused and concerned. Thanks. -- [[User:Mkmurray|Mike Murray]] 16:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)