UESPWiki:Archive/CP Proposed Policy Authored Lists

Proposed Policy: Authored Lists
Quite a while back, I proposed that we host Recommended Mod Lists (or more generally Authored Lists). Because of the nature of this type of thing, that proposal has moved forward very slowly. I.e. although it was proposed a year ago, until a week ago, we've only had one example of such a list (). 

A second list () has now been added, so debate is now a bit more real, and so is under discussion again.

Because this has been discussed before and because there's been discussion on separate pages, the existing discussion is actually already quite long -- too long to put on the Community Portal. Accordingly, I have started a new proposed policy page: .  If you're interested in the issue/discussion, please visit .

Note: Although this notice is fairly short, if Authored Lists are accepted, then they constitute a notable exception to the wiki's Anyone can edit rule. The pages are not fully user owned, but they are also not fully open to editing. Again, please see the discussion, if you're concerned about this type of usage.

--Wrye 18:53, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:Unfortunately, this discussion seems to me like it might be just be a bit premature, mainly because of an odd coincidence in timing.  Over the last couple weeks, several editors have been bouncing around ideas and brainstorming about the general organization of the site's namespaces.  We'd been just about to convert the random ideas into some coherent suggestions and start a community discussion on the topic.  One of the main subjects of such a discussion would be the general question of what we want to do with articles that are not typical wiki (e.g., community-written) articles.  I think it would be better to first resolve some of the general namespace organization questions, and then afterwards see what that means for individual examples, such as Authored Lists.
:So, any chance we could delay this discussion until after we've discussed in general what we want to do with articles that are exceptions to the "Anyone can edit" rule?  Thanks :) --Nephele  01:13, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::Okay, but if that's going to take a while, then the "Proposed to Move" templates should be removed from the two Review space pages until the issue is read to be discussed again. --Wrye 00:06, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Baton Articles: Another example of a similar things is the Somewhat Acerbic Modders Dictionary. Like Authored Lists, there is a strong subjective element to the page, which means that editorship/authorship should be limited. However, like authored lists, the article is intentionally set up to be passed like a baton to later editors. I.e. unlike say a fanfiction or personal review, it is intentionally designed not to be owned by a single person. 

Non-Removal: Another characteristic of this is that the article is not owned to the point where the original author can remove it. While everything at the site is under cc-by-sa (which means that any contribution by one author can always be re-instated by another), by common usage, we don't enforce that rule on user pages. I.e. if a user removes something under his user page, the general rule is to not reinstate it. But this usage is undesirable for Baton articles. But putting a Baton article in a non-userspace, the author surrenders the usual, "allowed to delete stuff in his personal space" rule. --Wrye 17:50, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Rename: Authored Article - I've been trying to think of a good name for this sort of thing. E.g. "Authored List", "Baton Article", "Protected Article", "Limited Article", "Reserved Article". But I think that "Authored Article" is most accurate/succinct. --Wrye 18:28, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Discussion continued at Namespace Reorganization.