Difference between revisions of "Community Portal"
m
Reverted edits by Gossipgod13 (talk) to last revision by QQuix
imported>DragoonWraith m (→About removing bylines on mainspace articles: more formatting...) |
imported>JustinOther m (Reverted edits by Gossipgod13 (talk) to last revision by QQuix) |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 812: | Line 812: | ||
::# "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. | ::# "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. | ::# 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. | ::# 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. | ||
| Line 828: | Line 829: | ||
::So, in short, I am '''in favor''' of removing the bylines and the warnings and being done with this whole fiasco. | ::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) | ::[[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) | |||