User talk:Lana Straulino

From Second Life Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

llFrand

Thanks for taking the time to attack the problem of the buggy template. I don't know how it happened, all I know is that I did it. -- Strife (talk|contribs) 20:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Welcome to the wiki!

I'm actually thinking about removing interval notation; instead the text would be what is that of the hover tip text. I don't think there is enough gained by having interval notation. -- Strife (talk|contribs) 20:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Long time ago i work on Wikipedia. It was just too many opinions about what is good and bad and too many politics to bother waste my time there anymore. I think you do a good job here. Templates are a trade-off. On one hand, they make a more modular look/feel, but on the other hand, they deter people from editing and also a single edit will cause more problems on one page instead of only affecting the one instance.Lana Straulino 20:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah templates are a real double edged sword. I wish there were a better way (Maybe a form with all the fields?). The goal with the layout was to have a consistent layout as opposed to a free form layout. It's no fun having to read paragraph after paragraph when you just want to know one specific fact. But it does leave you wondering sometimes "where should this information go?". Depending upon how you package information you can put it just about anywhere, it then becomes a balancing act between brevity, flow and importance. If you have any ideas, we would love to hear them. -- Strife (talk|contribs) 17:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If i was doing one from scratch, i would go get a math book to start out, then make small templates for each small item so that the template could be very easy to edit by anyone without any fear. When i see "hovertext" and all sorts of other things involved, and three levels of quotes, etc, i just back off and thinking, "hmmm, no thats ok. I don't need to learn another whole language tonight." After the simplest templates were finish, then layers of modules could be build on top of those in a modular fashion i would think. Lana Straulino

I like the way you think Lana. Sometimes the templates make it very difficult to edit the simplest thing (without, as you say, learning yet another language). I would be able to do a great deal more here if not for the templates. I know LSL quite well now but haven't much experience with any other type of computer languages. If any way to make the wiki less wacky can be found, I support it 100%. The difficulty I think is that it has evolved from far more humble beginnings rather than being designed, much like SL and LSL. Thankfully folk like Strife and Zai (to name two prominent editors) have worked tirelessly to try to keep up with that evolution. As I said, I like the way you think. Maybe this wiki would benefit from a strip down and rebuild now a better idea of what it is has been established. -- Fred Gandt (talk|scripts|contribs) 10:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
hmmm, then it would also probably be better to begin that on a) another wiki, b) the same wiki using a naming convention like an underscore. For example.. this artilce here... llFrand... the build version would be found at _llFrand, the production version found here. I like some of the new graphics i found in the various sections lately, but also... i remember other things that were here before that were helpful too, but uhm... gone now. Lana Straulino 18:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll take the compliment but we push evolution too, not just playing catchup. Living documentation is pretty rare but I've never seen it with lists of active bugs. I think it might just be unique to this wiki (the bug table, we have always had links in the caveats, but separating it was my idea). We try things, We change things, We innovate.
I'm all for redesigning the wiki (from the smallest building blocks up if need be). The thing is, the redesign needs a dedicated person to champion it, to be it's Sisyphus or Atlas. A project like this is going to take a lot of work even if you do recycle the content. In the past I would have taken on this task but I currently do not have a lot of time. Without a champion to do most of the work, it won't happen (take Newbie Notes for example, no champion, no Newbie Notes content). The redesign is non-trivial in itself. The current design I implemented and nurtured, if left up to me, the new design would probably end up looking similar, so I need to take a back seat roll in the redesign. Worse still I'm going to be hard to convince about the efficacy of the new design: I'm use to the old design. The new design will need to be properly presented to me or I won't bite, and if I don't bite, you will need to find another Sisyphus to push your bolder. I may not contribute as much of the content as I use to, but I provide the skeleton and the connective tissue for the content, I make sure things work. I'm not saying this because I am egotistical/egocentric, (I'm neither). It's just the roll I play, the responsibility I've taken on. I don't mind passing the torch to another but I don't want to see it dropped either. Which brings us to another problem, I'm going to be hesitant to hand off the torch to someone else unless I know they won't drop it. I'm your greatest asset and biggest hurdle. But don't worry about it, I'll give you tips on how to clear this hurdle (almost said "Jump this hurdle" but wanted to avoid the double entendre). I want to be helpful. -- Strife (talk|contribs) 05:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Woooahhh.. horsey!! Down Boy!! Was just a few thoughts about something long term. Redesign on a project scale would probably *not* work. You don't have any r0oLz here much to guide it. The idea for templates would take an afternoon or two to develop them on the very bottom layer, but putting them all in place is a whole another story without any software here that does any workload/error checking.

About the only thing that is sorta needed here, is i've notice over the past two years it merged away from the functional categorys of the language and more to a generalized category instead. For a quick example... there is nothing here in the wiki that explain how/why the language will not permit another prim to be detected without

a prior collision and that collision must necessarily be from either a volume enabled and/or physical object. There is no "topic" area that seperates the prim-function anymore. It seems to be fading away very slowly but surely. Lana Straulino 05:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)