Difference between revisions of "Talk:Second Life Railroad/SLRR History"

From Second Life Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 4: Line 4:


I have moved the [[Second_Life_Railroad/SLRR_History_2010|SLRR History from 2010 and beyond]] to this [[Second_Life_Railroad/SLRR_History_2010|new page]]. 2005 to 2009 can still be found at [[Second_Life_Railroad/SLRR_History]]. The old page gotten larger than the 32K maximum. --[[User:Stryker Jenkins|Stryker J]] 17:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I have moved the [[Second_Life_Railroad/SLRR_History_2010|SLRR History from 2010 and beyond]] to this [[Second_Life_Railroad/SLRR_History_2010|new page]]. 2005 to 2009 can still be found at [[Second_Life_Railroad/SLRR_History]]. The old page gotten larger than the 32K maximum. --[[User:Stryker Jenkins|Stryker J]] 17:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
<BR>
To Stryker, this is not a good idea, the history should remain on a single page.<BR>
It is long because it was not written succinctly.  The only headings needed are "2008" etc., a subheadings for every item is not necessary.<BR>
also, your suggestion to "find the latest SLRR information on the history 2010 page" makes no sense. Up to date information should be placed on the main page only.<BR>
<BR>
Would you like to change it back to the way it was? or shall I...<BR>
[[User:Jer Straaf|Jer Straaf]] 10:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


== For simplicity's sake... ==
== For simplicity's sake... ==

Revision as of 03:05, 3 September 2010


Moving page

I have moved the SLRR History from 2010 and beyond to this new page. 2005 to 2009 can still be found at Second_Life_Railroad/SLRR_History. The old page gotten larger than the 32K maximum. --Stryker J 17:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
To Stryker, this is not a good idea, the history should remain on a single page.
It is long because it was not written succinctly. The only headings needed are "2008" etc., a subheadings for every item is not necessary.
also, your suggestion to "find the latest SLRR information on the history 2010 page" makes no sense. Up to date information should be placed on the main page only.

Would you like to change it back to the way it was? or shall I...
Jer Straaf 10:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

For simplicity's sake...

@Jer It isn't clear to me which specific passages you find objectionable. I won't assume and I don't have the luxury of time to look through all edits, so please quote and summarize with specific actionables. Otherwise, others have a hard time understanding what you mean.

Since there's a lot going on here, it may help to start fresh knowing that: alternate views can be presented within an article from each perspective. For example, "While Bob saw the burgeoning steampunk movement as important to e-commerce, Alice disagreed because it hurt her dieselpunk fashions. Complicating the matter further, John saw an opportunity to merge the two."

The point is, attribute these perspectives, and make it clear they aren't universally shared. Similar to how Wikipedia has both "positive", "negative", and "mixed" reviews cited in the "critical response" of movie reviews — Inception is a particularly weighty example.

- Torley-favicon.png on 2010-09-01 @ 5:29 AM Pacific



  • retracting older comments --Stryker J 17:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)