Project:Editing Discussion

This is an open forum for people to discuss this wiki, ala the Wikipedia "Village pump". This is not for general discussion of Second Life. For that, please refer to the forums

Feel free to add your comments below.

Privious discussions are archived at

• Project:Editing Discussion/Archive 01
• Project:Editing Discussion/Archive 02

Wikipedia Content

Just a short heads-up that the Wikimedia foundation is currently having a vote amongst all registered users with more than 25 edits before mid March 2009, which is aimed to double license all Wikimedia content under GFDL and CC-BY-SA 3.0.

This means we might soon be able to incorporate content from Wikipedia into this Wiki (e.g. templates, icons, ...). In case you got an account at any WikiMedia wiki which is allowed to vote, please consider to do so. Voting will end on May 3rd 2009. All infos about the update can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update. To vote, just log in with your account. The link is displayed for any logged in user at the top of any page (e.g. English Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/1 ).

On a similar note:

• Please consider voting at WEB-910 for free use of KB content in the wiki.
• Please consider to double license your SL wiki contributions (e.g. with Template:Re-license_contributions).

Libre knowledge!

Greetz, Lynch ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: In case Wikimedia succeedes with this, it might be worth trying to ask http://secondlife.wikia.com contributors to do the same. It's also GFDL content and therefor has the same loop hole. Would be especially great for History of Second Life related articles. -- Lynch ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Using llWhisper vs. llOwnerSay

Hi all - I just wanted to ask you about your opinions on using llWhisper or llOwnerSay. Personally, I like llOwnerSay because it's easier - you only need the string you want said and not the channel, but I've seen that a lot of people use it in their example scripts. What do you think? Silver Andrew 17:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

When the information isn't of any value for people who don't own the device, llOwnerSay should be preferred. However, this isn't the kind of topic that is supposed to go on this page. It's aimed to discuss editing guidelines for this wiki, e.g. which namespace is for which information or how new articlenames should look like and stuff like that. It would have a better home in the forums =)

Greetz, -- Lynch ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Stub template

Just a heads up to anyone who's interested, I reformatted the Template:Stub page so that we can start using it on articles that need to be expanded, I'm hoping people will use this to mark articles and then other people can use this to find marked articles to work on. Currently people already do this albeit in a fragmented fashion which makes it tough. GW ^(T|C) -- 21:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia content - part 2

According to [1] it seems like the vote passed and the Wikimedia (parent of Wikipedia) board certified and passed it on their end so although Wikipedia people have their own internal issues to deal with in implementing the change we can at least begin implementing content that has been licensed/merged to be compatible. Is this a fairly accurate assessment and is there a plan on our end for implementing this type of content? Also, does this need a sign-off from LL legal to make sure everything is right and correct on this and do they need a hand in drafting instructions on how to do this? GW ^(T|C) -- 17:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't nail me on this statement, tho I think, once the shift is done on Wikimedias end (might take a moment for them to do so), we should be fine with importing. I'd need to dig for it, though I know that the English Wikipedia got a template which they're placing at articles talkpages in case parts of the content came from a different page (which isn't public domain). First step could be to import this template, once it's re-licensed. That should give us the chance to properly mark all additional imports.

I think the main target for imports will be templates and icons (in case the relicensing also works for wikimedia commons). I'm not sure where article content would be desired... Maybe for topics like Quaternions, though we can't write in math mode :-S

Guess the majority of articles won't find wikimedia sources to take content from. Though I'm looking forward to fiddle with template code.

-- Lynch ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

We should probably make up a template for Template:Imported or similar to put either in the article or preferably on the article's talk page saying pretty much, this article contains content imported from [source (presumably Wikipedia but could also be used to say which language if it's not the english wiki) Contented imported from [page name(s)] on [date(s)]. I have to go to work in about 15 minutes or I'd do a mockup now but I'll try to get a mockup version of that type of notice done tonight when I get back. GW ^(T|C) -- 18:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe, as long as we mark the import in the change history (summary text), we have satisfied the license and copyright law. Mind you we need to mark it properly. -- Strife ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm... there's just a thing that came to my mind which I'd like to ignore... Though for completeliness: I don't think we could take any content from the Wikipedia and be 100% save with it. Reason for that is, that the Contribution Agreement goes far beyond CC-BY-SA 3.0. It is true that the content within this Wiki is published under that license, though according to the agreement, by publishing something in the Wiki, we "assign to Linden Lab joint ownership in all worldwide common law and statutory rights associated with the copyrights, copyright applications and copyright registrations". We can't assign shared ownership of something we don't own. LL allows an export of content via CC license, though import in the wiki seems to need far more than that. -- Lynch ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I asked Torley to weigh in on this on her talk page so hopefully she can, I'll also ask Rob since that seems to be up his alley and he seems to be the one to talk to when LL legal needs a poke. I really hope this works though since I'd kill to be able to just copy and use [2] here. Minus the images that are copyrighted of course I could probably get away with copying the template code since it's just CSS markup which can't be copyrighted but I'd rather hold off until there's an OK on it. GW ^(T|C) -- 04:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the documentation that goes along with it is still under the GNU and trying to redocument a template when perfectly good documentation exists would be wated effort. If I didn't say it above I really love that template though :) GW ^(T|C) -- 04:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Could just rewrite the template from it's documentation. That's how Linux was written, and we know how well SCO did trying to claim ownership of Linux. -- Strife ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Since LL doesn't care to comment on this I'm probably going to wait for Wikipedia to clarify on their end all the nuts and bolts and just copy it and hopefully LL will be flexible and if they aren't then they can just delete it. GW ^(T|C) -- 02:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for protected page edit to Project:Editing Guidelines

Can a Linden please add Category:Wiki meta pages to that page? I'm trying to organize the pages that are specifically about how to use or edit the wiki which will hopefully eventually lead to a how to use the SL Wiki guide. GW ^(T|C) -- 02:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Heyas =)

Category:Wiki meta pages seems to be quite similar to Category:Help/Wiki. I think they serve the same purpose. Like Template:Outdated and Template:Help/Old Info, as well as Useful Templates and Help:Editors Toolbox. Maybe we can merge these or distinguish them better?

-- Lynch ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops, didn't realize pages already existed for these things. Glad you told me when it's still manually manageable to replace the category and template as needed and either marking the pages for deletion or more likely, since the deletion queue never seem to be looked at, just redirecting them. GW ^(T|C) -- 17:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)