Difference between revisions of "Community Portal"
m
→About removing bylines on mainspace articles: and now the number reference is off...
imported>DragoonWraith m (→About removing bylines on mainspace articles: breaking up over-large point #2) |
imported>DragoonWraith m (→About removing bylines on mainspace articles: and now the number reference is off...) |
||
| Line 815: | Line 815: | ||
::# While the authors ''do not'' have copyright on their contributions here, they may have contributed ''believing that they did'' due to a lack of clarity here at the time. The original decision with respect to bylines was that we would give those contributors the benefit of a "courtesy copyright" insofar as they could choose to remove the page in its entirety if they did not agree with the new enforcement of the rules. Note that contributors do not generally have the right to remove their work once submitted to the Wiki. | ::# While the authors ''do not'' have copyright on their contributions here, they may have contributed ''believing that they did'' due to a lack of clarity here at the time. The original decision with respect to bylines was that we would give those contributors the benefit of a "courtesy copyright" insofar as they could choose to remove the page in its entirety if they did not agree with the new enforcement of the rules. Note that contributors do not generally have the right to remove their work once submitted to the Wiki. | ||
::# We have long had a policy (sadly undocumented, most likely) of removing bylines when they are no longer accurate, i.e. that one author is not the only significant contributor to a page because later editors have (courteously) updated and improved upon it. Since this is ''exactly'' what we want people to do, it makes sense in that case to remove the byline. | ::# We have long had a policy (sadly undocumented, most likely) of removing bylines when they are no longer accurate, i.e. that one author is not the only significant contributor to a page because later editors have (courteously) updated and improved upon it. Since this is ''exactly'' what we want people to do, it makes sense in that case to remove the byline. | ||
::# Deprecated or simply poor articles should be deleted or rewritten, no matter who wrote them originally or what name they may have appended to them. In such cases, a rewrite would certainly qualify for byline removal under the | ::# Deprecated or simply poor articles should be deleted or rewritten, no matter who wrote them originally or what name they may have appended to them. In such cases, a rewrite would certainly qualify for byline removal under the fourth point (such a rewrite is sufficient but definitely not necessary for byline removal). | ||
::# Dev_akm's FAQ was originally made an exception to all of the rules regarding article ownership. As a mirror of the forum thread, it actually ''was'' "his" as opposed to being a publicly-editable page. There was a brief attempt to mirror more threads in a similar fashion, which would have had similar rules, but that (as far as I am aware) never went beyond my playing with some stylesheets and templates. | ::# Dev_akm's FAQ was originally made an exception to all of the rules regarding article ownership. As a mirror of the forum thread, it actually ''was'' "his" as opposed to being a publicly-editable page. There was a brief attempt to mirror more threads in a similar fashion, which would have had similar rules, but that (as far as I am aware) never went beyond my playing with some stylesheets and templates. | ||