I don't really know any html... but I see that some people upload a small version and a large version of the same picture. How do you make the small picture into a link? Do you have to manually insert the html, and what codes do you have to put?
You can't do that with the current or with the new software. The [[image:xxx]] link inserts the image, and makes it a link to the image description page. If you want a link to a larger version of the image, you'll have to make a separate link, perhaps putting it on the description page of the smaller one or else making it an external link (see "Sainfoin", for example).
The latter method will be a little more difficult with the new software, because you'll have to upload the image first before you can determine what its URL will be.
0
lcrocker@nupedia.com wrote:
I don't really know any html... but I see that some people upload a small version and a large version of the same picture. How do you make the small picture into a link? Do you have to manually insert the html, and what codes do you have to put?
You can't do that with the current or with the new software. The [[image:xxx]] link inserts the image, and makes it a link to the image description page. If you want a link to a larger version of the image, you'll have to make a separate link, perhaps putting it on the description page of the smaller one or else making it an external link (see "Sainfoin", for example).
The latter method will be a little more difficult with the new software, because you'll have to upload the image first before you can determine what its URL will be.
Hmmm... I didn't think you could. Perhaps that's something to work on in the future? I'm downloading fullscreen images from the free websites and cutting them down to a postable size myself, but there are definitely times when being able to see the larger image as well would be good (for example my entry on the difference between butterflies and moths, where quite a lot of the detail disappeared from the image when I reduced it for better display.)
Should we really be setting up redirect pages for every mis-spelling we see in Unsuccessful Searches, eg Idendity http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Idendity, Colombus http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Colombus etc.
I'm inclined to say Wikipedia Is Not a Spellchecker.
tarquin
--- tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com wrote:
Should we really be setting up redirect pages for every mis-spelling we see in Unsuccessful Searches, eg Idendity http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Idendity, Colombus http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Colombus etc.
I'm inclined to say Wikipedia Is Not a Spellchecker.
I only redirect common misspellings. In this case, I would redirect "Colombus" and ignore "Idendity".
-- Stephen Gilbert
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com
At 10:53 AM 7/20/02 +0100, tarquin wrote:
Should we really be setting up redirect pages for every mis-spelling we see in Unsuccessful Searches, eg Idendity http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Idendity, Colombus http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Colombus etc.
I'm inclined to say Wikipedia Is Not a Spellchecker.
Well being a serious misspeller I am one of the offenders here. The way it goes is you first misspell the link then you write a long article on the misspelled page, then discover an article spelled right, or finally discover the misspelling, see where I'm going...
Really need to delete the misspelled page but having saved it you end up redirecting it.
Other than the really common misspellings or cases like [[color]] [[colour]] I think all such pages should be deleted.
Fred Bauder
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org