Difference between revisions of "Community Portal"
m
Reverted edits by Gossipgod13 (talk) to last revision by QQuix
imported>Thejohnwade m (→Heighmap editor doesn't fit screen: new section) |
imported>JustinOther m (Reverted edits by Gossipgod13 (talk) to last revision by QQuix) |
||
| (16 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 795: | Line 795: | ||
I've been recently wondering about vanilla objects that has tilde ("~") in their names. This character is not shown in-game, and from what I've been able to guess, he's some sort of forced carriage return or splitting of the name field. The example of item with tilde in his name is "Cursed Viper~Bane Cuirass" with ID "SEEnchEbonyCuirassResistPoison" (it is from SI, but there are also ones from stock OB). Is it mentioned somewhere on the site? If not, then maybe someone should check it further and add such mention? - [[User:ZuTheSkunk|ZuTheSkunk]] 03:40, 6 June 2010 (EDT) | I've been recently wondering about vanilla objects that has tilde ("~") in their names. This character is not shown in-game, and from what I've been able to guess, he's some sort of forced carriage return or splitting of the name field. The example of item with tilde in his name is "Cursed Viper~Bane Cuirass" with ID "SEEnchEbonyCuirassResistPoison" (it is from SI, but there are also ones from stock OB). Is it mentioned somewhere on the site? If not, then maybe someone should check it further and add such mention? - [[User:ZuTheSkunk|ZuTheSkunk]] 03:40, 6 June 2010 (EDT) | ||
== | == About removing bylines on mainspace articles == | ||
I don't think waiting any longer than we already have would make removing bylines any more appropriate. In two months we have given the original authors 5 years to respond; that should be plenty of time for anyone to formulate a response. I can't recall any author who has responded to this message. | |||
However, [[:Template:Byline|the byline notice]] does not specifically warn against removal. It merely says: ''"Current rules do not allow bylines in mainspace articles"'' and calls for the original author to ''"comment on this in the Talk page."''. | |||
Despite this I'm '''not opposed''' to the removal of bylines from all mainspace articles. Even though we did not specifically warn against removing them at some point none of the authors have responded. That signifies nothing but disinterest, in their articles, or the byline policy. | |||
<br/>--[[User:Qazaaq|Qazaaq]] 16:57, 20 June 2012 (EDT) | |||
:On occasion, I was inclined to edit a bylined article, but was inhibited by the "courtesy is expected" text, which, in my dictionary, reads "don't touch it". | |||
:I am in favor of removing the byline and the byline notice. We could add a note to the respective talk page mentioning the original author and thank him/her for the contribution. | |||
:We must consider, also, that, being that old, many are pretty much deprecated (e.g. [[Linked List Tutorial]] and [[Activation Functions]]) while others are full of broken links (e.g. [[3ds Max: Tileset]]) | |||
:[[User:QQuix|QQuix]] 19:08, 20 June 2012 (EDT) | |||
::OK, a few points to consider, mostly historical in nature. | |||
::# "Courtesy is expected" does not mean and was not intended to mean "don't touch it" – it means literally that you should respect the original author if he or she can be found. I wrote that tag originally, so I would know. In fact, we were ''hoping'' that the line would, itself, ''encourage'' authors to edit the article, since it explicitly said that they could even though it was bylined. Bylines, prior to the warning being added to the page, struck many as claiming ownership, which is not (and never has been) allowed on this Wiki. | |||
::# While I agree that authors have had a very long time to respond, the fact of the matter is that there was never a systematic attempt to contact them, and as a result, there may be authors who have not been ignoring the notice for five years – they have been ''unaware'' of it for five years. Which is not the same thing, and moreover copyright definitely does not expire in five years even if you ignore it. | |||
::# 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. | |||
::# 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. | |||
::OK, all that done with, I'd generally say that I'm not sure that the original decision was the right one (even though I agreed with it at the time). The fact of the matter is, authors never had any rights to what they submitted to this Wiki. While the Wiki tolerated the ''appearance'' of people taking ownership of articles (i.e. bylines), no attempt to actually exercise that ownership would have been permitted (though, to my knowledge, no such attempt was ever made, though I recall at least one contributor who stated he would have attempted it if someone had tried to edit "his" articles). | |||
::The submission page has always said | |||
:::<div style="background-color: #eee4cc; border: black 1px dashed; padding: 1em; margin-left: -1em;">Please note that all contributions to The Elder Scrolls Construction Set Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.<br/>You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see [[Project:Red_link|CSwiki:Copyrights]] for details). '''Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!'''</div><small>(Note the red link on CSwiki:Copyrights for the source of the original problem. This was rectified at the same time these decisions were made, which is why I faked the red link in the quote – the project namespace wasn't "CSwiki" either it was some ungodly long string.)</small> | |||
::In all honesty, there was never a good reason to expect that bylines were OK or that articles could be owned – it simply happened that some people did it and no one stopped them, and it became something that some contributors took for granted and never read the warning in the submission window. | |||
::But it's been five years, and that's an awful lot of courtesy to extend to people who were effectively breaking the rules, for all they were most likely unaware and also were contributing to the Wiki. | |||
::So, in short, I am '''in favor''' of removing the bylines and the warnings and being done with this whole fiasco. | |||
::[[User:DragoonWraith|<span style="font-family: Oblivion; size=2;">D</span>ragoon <span style="font-family: Oblivion; size=2;">W</span>raith]] [[User_talk:DragoonWraith|<span style="font-family: Oblivion; size=2;">TALK</span>]] 21:13, 20 June 2012 (EDT) | |||
:::Just throwing in my hat with the rest you guys' - '''In favor''' of removing the bylines.<br/>[[User:Shademe|shadeMe]] <b><sup>[[User_talk:Shademe|<span style="font-family: Oblivion, Daedric Runes; size=2;">TALK</span>]]</sup></b> 07:22, 21 June 2012 (EDT) | |||
::::OK. I will do it. How about a note in the Talk page mentioning the original author? Is it necessary? | |||
::::The deprecated articles I noticed are not exactly deprecated, as they may still be helpful to someone not willing to use OBSE. As for the ones with broken links, being 3dMax tutorials , it is hard to tell if they are still useful without the missing images. | |||
::::Anyway, I will keep a eye for those and tag them accordingly. [[User:QQuix|QQuix]] 06:53, 23 June 2012 (EDT) | |||
::::P.S. Did a few. Feel free to change/revert/whatever, as you seem fit. 16:34, 23 June 2012 (EDT) | |||
==Getting Started vs. Basic Concepts== | |||
I've been looking into some of the 'fundamentals' articles and I think they should be packed together in a Category, making them easier to find and to refer to (articles like Reference, FormID, Esp vs. Esm and such). I am considering calling it "Basic Concepts", unless you suggest a better name. | |||
Then there is the [[:Category:Getting Started|Getting Started]] category, which also applies to this kind of articles. Poll: should these articles be on both categories or should "Basic Concepts" be a subcategory of Getting Started? Any thoughts? [[User:QQuix|QQuix]] ([[User talk:QQuix|talk]]) 07:26, 29 July 2012 (EDT) | |||