Talk:KB2Wiki Pilot

namespace name

Wouldn't "Linden Lab" or even "LL" convey sufficient meaning? "Linden Lab Official" would make urls be rather long when they appear in the address bar (use of URL shortening services is irrelevant in this case).

Since there is no existing "Linden Lab" or "LL" namespace, appending "Official" is entirely superfluous.

SignpostMarv Martin 22:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd second this remark.

I don't think that "LL" would be intuitive for most, though naming the namesape "Linden Lab" or even "Official", could be better.

A namespace with the name "Official" inside the SL Wiki would automatically indicate that it is "Linden Lab Official". And it would be shorter.

-- Lynch ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The KB2Wiki Migration Team discussed this at length — we know technically savvy folks like you would "get it", but there are many beginners who'd benefit from the clarification. This also includes outside traffic we'll get from non-Residents via Google and other sources. "Linden Lab" by itself is too vague, and "Official" — from who?

If a page name is too long, you can create a redirect or use an URL shortener like http://tr.im - Torley on 2009-06-24 @ 11:38 AM PST

"Official from who?" would be a legetimate question, though it wouldn't need to be answered within the URL. I noticed that Rand created this header and footer and suppose it will be (automatically?) added to articles within the namespace, containing the information. I think that the header answers that question :-)

-- ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You catch subtleties like that. But a lot of people don't read the fine print, and if fetching an URL (not necessarily reading it but passing it to someone else), it makes it clear RIGHT THERE. - Torley on 2009-06-25 @ 4:03 PM PST

Review

Review is happening automatically for administrators when they create pages. See Special:Log/review.
-- ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: People become auto promoted to editors when they... Do what? *confused* Can't be the edit count, or at least Strife would be in the group as well. But according to the user list, I seem to be the only one (by now).
I gained the status after performing this test edit to check if the flagged revs was kicking in where it wasn't supposed to. Please note that I didn't review that page. I gained the status afterwards. It was already reviewed from the start.

-- ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

THANKS for catching this, Kate let me know and we're on it now. - Torley on 2009-06-25 @ 9:07 AM PST

On a slightly off-topic note whoever did the template for the LL official pages did a nice job. It really looks clean and clear. I think that eventually there needs to be a way for translations to be done even if it means LL hiring someone to do it or residents translating and LL reviewing before any translation is posted up officially since this you cannot translate this page EVER is to be troublesom. GW ^(T|C) -- 21:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that it's not well worded in that regard. Translations are happening for these articles, though these are the reviewed translations by the CT Projects, done in Japanese, French and German. For example, you'll find a translation of Linden Lab Official:Welcome Area Guidelines at Startbereichsregeln (KB), etc.

Guess it's just aimed to scare away people who would just translate without having it reviewed by someone in charge. -- ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That sound like LL legal to a T. GW ^(T|C) -- 22:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll confirm we got the approval of LL legal on this. Agree we need better future scaling for translations, too. More polyglot Lindens across the globe! - Torley on 2009-06-25 @ 4:04 PM PST

I'm sure they have their reasons and I value my blood in my veins and not escaping through holes in my neck so I won't say anything bad about them (publicly) but needless to say there has to be a less confrontational way to word that. GW ^(T|C) -- 03:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe something like "Translations may be provided as part of our CT Projects only! These articles are not available for unsolicited translation."

Or something along these lines, worded by someone who's native in English ^^. -- ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Damn

Totally forgot about the restriction about not overviewing non KB articles when I got to the list. My bad and hope that didn't negatively effect anyone or the wiki. GW ^(T|C) -- 21:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have emailed Kate about this btw to explain it to her since she seems to be the contact point. GW ^(T|C) -- 21:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, she let me know you got it! And yes she is the right contact for that. - Torley on 2009-06-25 @ 3:59 PM PST

Yeah, we are going to need overviewing removed from AGENT_AWAY & AGENT_ALWAYS_RUN. I do not want to be held captive by those who forget that they have set a page as being reviewable. Speaking of which, is there a Special page that lists articles which are in need of reviewing (that is, they have a pending draft copy); seems like an oversight if we don't? -- Strife ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh that would be Special:OldReviewedpages which is restricted. Is there a reason why it is restricted? It seems like something that would be of interest to more than just reviewers. -- Strife ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked Kate earlier and apparently there's no way to remove the flag from specific articles which is very bad. I think I'm the first to accidentally review a non KB page but I'm sure I won't be the last and if we have to we can create a page listing all the non KB pages that need to be watched for that purpose but I really hope Kate is wrong and/or there's a better solution. GW ^(T|C) -- 03:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe there would be a way to remove it, though it can only be done by administrators. They might export the page with its full edit history, then delete it from the wiki and import it again. I believe, that could solve the problem. In case it does, we could turn it into a maintenance task. We could add articles where such accidents happened to a list and have them bulk fixed every three month or so?

-- ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If it can be batch jobbed that would be a great solution since as I've said before, I was the first but I'm sure I won't be the last person to make the mistake. Maybe a category rather than a page listing them would be the best way to go about labelling them Category:Accidentally flagrev tagged articles anyone? GW ^(T|C) -- 18:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A page would be easier to clear after the bulk fix. Category would require to edit every article again and remove the category...

-- ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I don't have great hopes for this happening though, look at Category:Suggested_For_Deletion and how often Linden's look at that to clear out articles that should be deleted. GW ^(T|C) -- 18:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

In case this pilot succeeds, this would become the Doc Team Linden's main working space. Maybe the wiki get's more hugs and ♥ then. We'll see...

-- ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad this happened to a couple of out of the way constants and not one of the functions, it could have been a disaster but it is a bad omen for things to come. Has anyone filed a bug report/feature request about this problem on the MediaWiki bugzilla? Does one already exist? -- Strife ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Haven't had a look at the bugzilla so far. I got a feeling that Rand found a solution for this, which he tested at the dashboard article. I couldn't yet figure out how to do that or if I'm just lacking the right permissions, but it seems to skip the review process (not even allow a rating), although it's still listed at Special:OldReviewedPages. Guess that would be an acceptable workaround.

-- ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Red lines n stuff

Hi there!
I got to say that I'm a lil puzzled by now and there were a couple of questions bubbling up in the last 30 mins.

• Is it OK to use the version control feature on official translations of KB articles?
• While there is an explicit "don't translate these!" at the "Linden Lab Official" namespace, the other articles are under the hood of Project:Languages?
  • If so, can we put Template:Multi-lang on top?

    I just did that to Guide to Jobs in Second Life, connecting it with Jobs in Second Life - eine Anleitung (KB) and Guide de l'emploi sur Second Life (KB). Should I go on with that?

    • Edit:Just read the first mail again and realized that this is somehow answered for the pilot. Removed the multi-lang from Guide to Jobs in Second Life again.
      "We're using the English KB articles from the "Second Life for Beginners" folder in the pilot. I realize some of you are anxious to merge the localized articles into the pilot articles; however, this will have to wait until/if we merge the full KB to the wiki. In the meantime, we'll be prepping internally with our Localization team." (source: Kate's mail)
      ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Can we put Template:Help on top?
• In general, how far can we go? I mean, can I rip an article completly apart, maybe even put its contents in another article and then redirect the former article to an appropriat chapter? I'm currently not sure where red lines are (besides the style guide) and if I'd overstep them without knowing.

On a related note:

• Should translations of articles within the Linden Lab Official namespace go into that namespace as well? Might need a translated header in this case... which would most probably lead to a translated namespace (like "Linden Lab Offiziell", etc.).

Stuff like that goin to my head... Also → Categorisation: Do we need Category:Videos, Category:Video and Category:Video Tutorials? I just think that's a little messy... But I don't want to go crazy on changing it all without asking/discussing first.
-- ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey don't forget Category:LSL Video.

What I would do is move Video into Videos (along with a redirect, and make Video Tutorials a sub category of Videos. -- Strife ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, didn't even knew we had that one... Yeah, way to messy. To many categories. Not just for videos. -- ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The LSL category is actually about Video in SL, not Videos about SL; so it's not as bad as you think. We are however up to about 120 LSL Categories. -- Strife ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see... Yeah, though the LSL Portal got an established hierarchy. All the main categories fit in the LSL header. It was my motivation to do this for the Help Portal as well. To have a real structure and not to scare people with to many nuances from the start. It's not 100% fitting, though Customers given too many choices are 10x less likely to buy. We're not a store, but with this structure, we'd scare people off before they "buy" our knowledge.

I think Rand kinda answered to the category remark over here. Looking forward to the restructuring.

Anyway, bed time for me now ^_^ Will continue tomorrow. -- ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No one willing to write something like
-------------------- ← red line, don't cross
? ... Well, I guess we'll just do it Wiki style then. I'll announce it here and no response/objection equals agreement.
I'm going to merge Numerical limits within the Second Life world into Limits, redirect the first one into the later one and then put Limits under revision control since it will be a KB article then. I'm going to wait with this for some time so you got enough time to object. I'm also going to merge the current three group articles into one. It's basically what I started a long long time ago with group, before I grew bored and kinda stopped to add stuff. I'll start with this once the current KB articles are all cleaned from superflous line breaks and stuff.
Other topic: SLURL vs. SLurl? We'd need to find some agreement on how it should be spelled correctly and then be consistent. I know that it's SLurl at slurl.com, though it became SLURL lately in the wiki as well as in the KB and was promoted that way from Lindens as well... A final decision?
One more @ flagged revs: When I currently review articles, I just review if the added information is accurate, complete and clear and therefor give my rating. I don't review the article as a whole since it wouldn't make it better when I give it a bad rating. It would just stop the latest revision to appear, while the latest revision could be a great one which would benefit the article. Is this the intendet behaviour? If not, how is it supposed to be?
-- ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Todo

In addition to Rands list at Category:Knowledge Base, I thought it might be good to have a spot for a todo list that everyone got access to. It's stored at KB2Wiki Pilot/Todo.
I'd be glad if discussions could take place somewhere in the wiki (or forum, a mailing list... whatever), since it's easier to keep everyone posted. I'll also not be able to attend the next DocTeam OH and since the wiki isn't an interesting topic for most, these OHs don't seem to be the best place to discuss these issues anyway. No offense intended with this. I can understand that people consider other stuff beeing more interesting. Though we'd need to discuss some of this stuff and it tends to go down in the OHs. Guess the wiki is the best place to discuss the wiki anyway.
-- ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)