Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Contributing/Archive 1

Archive 1

Images

Is there a GFDL - boilerplate-text / template for inserting into jpg-pictures (e.g. as jpg- or exif-comment) of pictures you scanned or took yourself with a digital camera ?
I know GNU Free Documentation License/Copyright and license notice, but that does not help much, because I want a suggestion for a short GFDL-notice, e.g. 1 or 2 lines, not a long text.
To be specific, is something like this text is acceptable:

(c) 2003 by Mr.XXX, $City/$Country

Released under GFDL, see http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/fdl.html

Gamma 22:46 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Obsolete

This is obsolete, am I correct?
"What is the meaning of the ? links? "
Erik Zachte

I think they can still be shown with certain prefs settings -- I'm not sure what the default behaviour is though. You're right, that faq entry needs updating. Feel free :-) -- Tarquin

Merge

I'd like to merge Wikipedia:How do I do this into this page. The problem is, it's becoming very long; & as I see it, we have two types of question:

• general things about contributing
• specific stuff about links, typing, editing, etc.

So I'd like to split off a large amount of this page into "Editing FAQ". I'd appreciate a) opinions of this move, and b) suggestions for a better name, for the new proposed page and maybe this remaining page too. -- Tarquin 15:22 Nov 23, 2002 (UTC)

You wouldn't move the specific stuff to (the already long) Wikipedia:How_does_one_edit_a_page? --KQ

The plot thickens! We have maybe 3 types of info:

• conceptual-ish, for want of a better word: "why contribute?", "what's the tone of writing here?", "what's the editing etiquette"
• technical: what's an edit conflict? what are naming conventions? how do I make links, what about copyright, etc
• wiki markup, which has Wikipedia:How_does_one_edit_a_page to itself

What if we split it into two FAQs: the technical stuff could be covered by a new Wikipedia:Editing FAQ, while the Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ could be reserved for the conceptual stuff. Better yet, why don't I do that now? -- Stephen Gilbert 13:19 Nov 26, 2002 (UTC)

What about personal translations of copyrighted primary sources?

I've translated an article about an individual in Mexican history that I'd like to submit. Is this allowed?

Qualifications and Competence

This is a fascinating and monumental piece(s) of work, and is quite impressive. As I have read the FAQs, I am struck at not finding any mention of necessary qualifications and competence in the field for would-be contributors. For example, someone could create pages on topics which are literally incorrect from a content standpoint, even though they might meet excellent formatting, composition, and spelling criteria. When people contribute in areas about which they have some expertise, the reader has some assurance that what is being read is valid and true. If anyone can contribute anything about anything, then it seems the entire Wikipedia loses something in the credibility department. Perhaps I misunderstand or I missed the guidelines that link materials shared with the competency underlying their content.

If I am the only one asking about or concerned with this aspect of Wikipedia, then something is definitely not right.

Counting edits

There is a tool called count edits that can count your edits automatically.. This tool appears not to work. It says on Kate (who appears to have created the tool)'s page that Kate's Tools are down.--JK the unwise 14:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Adding Synonyms

How does wikipedia handle synonms (I'm sure this is addressed somewhere but havn't found it). I would like to add "Oil Depletion" as a synonym for "Peak Oil" but this would only be a stub and stubs are frowned on...

Phoebe.

Spellcheck dead link

The Spellcheck option listed under the "How do I spell check a page section" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contributing_FAQ#How_do_I_spell_check_a_page.3F

is http://www.spellonline.com. This appears to be a deadlink. I would replace this link, but I don't know a good alternative other than Google Toolbar 3 or IE Spell, but those only work with Microsoft IE. --Howdy 15:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

loss from crashing

Ok, I just lost an hour's work on a new article, which I had not saved. My browser crashed. I lost an hour's work. Is it too much trouble to guard against this by like, temporarily storing "previews" of the page? - Wow, it really is great to think of someone spending an hour working on one article! TYou're right, if you worked for an hour on anything else, you would have saved it for sure, and several times (really though, it's your own fault for not saving! Don't let your browser ruin your day!). You have a point though, maybe logged in users could have a sandbox page or something so as they could build articles and not worry about saving unfinished work in the wiki itself. Even better if they could have another button for "Export to...", so as they didn't have to copy-paste it. Restrictions would be needed to prevent it from becoming a crapflooding tool - one export per day per user or some such. (Disclaimer - I am nobody).

crediting users not logged in

Is there any way to retroactively credit users for edits, if they log in from the same IP address? Suppose its five minutes afterwards. --Anonymous

Same question if I want to take responsibility for edits I have made over a long period before becoming a user --Leob