Talk:Tattoo FAQ

From BME Encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Do we want to de-capitalize the segment headings in this?

Yeah, among other things. This one is going to require a lot of cleanup to make it "Wiki-compatible". — Xaonon (Talk) 14:16, 22 April 2006 (EDT)

as this isn't one bme holds the copyright to, we can't change any of the content, even though lots of it is out of date. Formatting of course is fine, and there's still a LOT of that to do. Vampy 15:14, 22 April 2006 (EDT)

Contents

yeow

Since this isn't ours and we can't alter it, no matter how out-of-date the info is, we need to get some wording at the top making it very clear that much of it is out-of-date and written in, um, whenever it was written.

do we need to designate this a "historical document?"

I know that so much of the legal info (in the indicidual states, for example) is completely out of date. Illinois just changed their tattoo law, and other states have, too.

Some of the shops referenced in the state sections are closed and gone.

Eek!

Can't we edit it, and say that it is based on this FAQ at the bottom in External Links? Maybe if we get the expressed info from the author (I am sure s/he will agree) and put that in the copyright or something. It is just too horrid.

Wow

I can't see not editing it or updating it. I mean, I understand that we can't do it, but couldn't we quote relevant parts or have someone write a new one?

what's our next step?

Who, then, has the clout to email the author (if the email is even still valid) or contact him and ask him (nicely) if we can change this around or base a new FAQ on it? It ought to be a RABbit, I presume, and that's not me.

--Juniper 08:48, 1 May 2006 (EDT)

...do you need to contact someone re: basing something on a piece of their work? if it's "significantly" different (in structure, content, wording), then it should be fine. It's the same as using them as a reference for an academic assignment. Honestly I think there's probably enough stuff in BME/encyclopedia/wiki/wherever that this could be re-done totally, using this as a base - and crediting the original author/maintainer perhaps at the top rather than the bottom (then again, who's to say it was originally written by the person credited as the maintainer, and who holds copyright over it?). (pas des chiens 09:58, 1 May 2006 (EDT))

citing

If you are going to use them as a resource and write an all new FAQ (which would be my vote if somoene has the time and patience to do so) then it's not necessary to contact them at all. You can actually use quite a bit of information and paraphrase it (with a credit of course) and not have to tell them (although you might like to so they can see how you incorporated it). I wouldn't put that at the top, though, unless it's your sole resource (and it shouldn't be unless you have first hand knowledge of everything else that's in there, and if you have that, you probably don't need sources to begin with unless it's an obscure question). Just cite it with a parenthetical citation or a footnote, make sure any direct quote is noted as such and you should be fine.

Personal tools