FANDOM


Oz, is it really necessary to describe what a "build" is here when the SL Wiki is the correct place? If you have more info to add to THAT page, put it on THAT page and not here. However, if there is some historical info relating to "build" (not "building" which is a different page), add it. I just created this page to link to the other wikis that are more appropriate for general/script-specific definitions/info. -Eep 03:43, 23 May 2006 (EDT)

It's stupid to create a page just to have it have a link pointing to an off-site page. I added the information so that there would be some other content here other than just a link. I can't think of any historical info relating to "build". Don't create pages just to link to other pages unless its a redirect to an article on this wiki. Oz Spade 17:16, 23 May 2006 (EDT)

It's not stupid if you understand why. It's better to have ALL of this wiki's links to "build" go to build than to have to add a link to the SL Wiki's "build" article for EVERY link. Don't duplicate content that is elsewhere--like you did even for Linden and Linden Lab on THIS wiki. There's no reason to include the part about a linden tree on the Linden Lab page--but it IS valid on the Linden page. -Eep 00:33, 24 May 2006 (EDT)

I think its good to reference those links, but to have just a totaly blank page, with just a link, thats not really any content and I don't want 50 pages with only links on them pointing to other stuff. If you're going to make a page, it needs some other content other than just a link. If you want to point a link to something that is mentioned somewhere, instead of doing "build" do something like "build", or add it to the Links section at the bottom of the page you mention it in. I'd much rather have duplicate pages all with equal information than have two wikis with blank pages except for a link pointing to one page. And not all of that content is duplicate. The linden tree part is valid on the Linden Lab page because "Linden" is part of the name "Linden Lab", I am indicating the different parts of the name and where they come from, Linden is part of that name. So it's valid on both pages. Oz Spade 01:49, 24 May 2006 (EDT)

To mindlessly add duplicate external links to every relevant page that has "build" on it is just stupid. Again, the POINT of a "referral" page is to NOT have to mindlessly add external links to every relevant page. Links ARE content and, thus, are valid to be on a page. You need to think modularly, Oz. Duplication is bad and is one of the first rules you need to learn when managing a database (what a wiki is). The Linden page has the info about what "Linden" is and, thus, is the appropriate place for mentioning the linden tree. The Linden Lab page links to the Linden page so if anyone wants to know more about what "Linden" is, they simply go to the Linden page. This is basic wiki stuff here, Oz. Your justification for why linden tree is mentioned on the Linden Lab is inconsistent with info on other pages. -Eep 06:35, 24 May 2006 (EDT)

I get what you're trying to do for mudularlness, but I just disagree, I think its better to have more content than just a link regardless, there isn't to my knowledge a single page on wikipedia that is just a link and I don't think thats sufficient content to qualify as its own seperate article. Oz Spade 14:51, 24 May 2006 (EDT)

Foo

Oz, is it really necessary to describe what a "build" is here when the SL Wiki is the correct place?

I don't think there is a "correct place", really.

OK, you could make a case for the LSL wiki being the correct place for something like scripting-specific info, but that's only because it's such a comprehensive and narrowly focused resource.

I never consider the SL wiki when it comes to adding content here. In fact, I rarely consider it at all. The entire thing could be deleted tomorrow and I'd not even notice.

For me this also relates to thinking of this as an independent project, crosslinks or not. I'm not going to add scripting info here because there's a better place for it, not because there's a more correct place for it. And even if there were, "better" is the last word I'd use for the SL wiki.

--Dyne 01:00, 25 May 2006 (EDT)

  • Just because the SL Wiki's software is crap doesn't mean it's not THE correct and appropriate place for BASIC definitions/explanations of common SL terms. THIS wiki--the SL HISTORY Wiki is NOT the right place for such content and, as such, should only LINK to THE correct places. -Eep 02:33, 26 May 2006 (EDT)
    • But we've already stated that we're slowly moving from just history towards more generalized content. So it'd be natural progression to add those things eventualy. Alot of people don't look at one wiki or the other, so in some ways it'd be better if they all had the same content, yet at the same time it's also nice to have a variety of content available from which you can get information. There's also still contradictory information on just what is the SL Wiki, the client has it as "Support Wiki" and there is clearly more support like content on that wiki than anything else and its set up as a support resource, yet its been referred to as a general wiki. And while software shouldn't be the ultimate decider of what to add content to, alot of people are going to be turned off by crappy software, so it doesn't hurt to have an operable alternative available. There's also the possibility of one resource being down or unable to be read for some reason. Oz Spade 03:53, 26 May 2006 (EDT)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.