Talk:Breedables Guide For Second Life

From Second Life Wiki
Revision as of 18:44, 9 January 2013 by Strife Onizuka (talk | contribs) (→‎External References)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

My my. This page isn't biased or a blatant advertisement. Nope! Aki Shichiroji 15:04, 2 December 2012 (PST)

External References

Would a reference to Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LCC v Ozimals Inc be in order? (Possibly the Wikipedia page).

There's also a set of tutorials at showing how to make your own breedable from scratch. Innula Zenovka 05:28, 7 January 2013 (PST)

I think both have a place somewhere, I'm not sure where. The "make your own" should go in external as you say. The lawsuit needs a link in it's own section, however attractive, naming the section "Drama" would be uncouth. -- Strife (talk|contribs) 16:49, 7 January 2013 (PST)

I disagree that links to external legal activities belong in a Breedables Guide for Second Life, since it doesn't contribute to discussing about how either product works in Second Life, making it irrelevant to the topic. I think the word "Drama" is a bit *past* uncouth considering it involves real life and not pixel sex or fake relationships, where that term can more appropriately be applied. It may be a serious issue for both companies, but that doesn't make it relevant to a guide listing all the types of breedables. Candy Cerveau 19:50, 8 January 2013 (PST)

Sorry that was my penchant for understatement. My thinking behind keeping it was that it could be a viewed as an important part of the breedables landscape and community. This article has the potential to be more than just a product list but a guide to the breedable community itself. If the case were trivial and unimportant I would agree that it shouldn't be listed, but it is as you say, a serious issue for both companies. This case will shape the future of the breedables community and have implications for SL at large. However in deference, I don't think it should be expanded past what is currently written. What is written is concise and not prejudicial. -- Strife (talk|contribs) 17:43, 9 January 2013 (PST)