User talk:Kiba/Archive2

Content deletion

Hi! I noticed that you removed most of the content i added. While it's possible they needed some editing, i feel that i should ask you why. With all of the edits, you just took them away without referencing any Libregamewiki official policy. "Because i say so" is not good reason for content removal. If you haven't discovered that yet, i'm sure you soon will. Yes, you payed for this domain. You also get the ad revenue from this page. But the content? Who owns that? If you read the bottom of this page you will see the text "GNU Free Documentation License" and "Creative Commons Attribution". The GFDL explicitly gives me "the freedom to change the work". So think twice before trying to stop regular users from editing content, text that is already released as Libre. /85.228.101.113 23:42, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

You only did one contribution, I was the second one to delete it. Your argument was "this is not an encyclopedia" after discovering that it is, you changed your argument ("this is in accordance to the policy") Of course we can change the article policy (YOU can too) but I find this idiotic. Think again weather it makes sense to include the information of how to install a game on a specific platform - an information that might be nonvalid with the next release. Instead of doing this you rather should help us improve the Libregamewiki:Article policy. Please delete the manual-like instructions you added to the wesnoth article if you understand my point, otherwise I invite you to join the Libregamewiki IRC channel to continue this discussion or just keep posting here --Qubodup 00:04, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

This kind of discussion is better fitted in the article talk or policy talk I think- could help others find it and join it. But let's stay here this time --Qubodup 00:07, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

I think we both agree on that changing the article policy to serve our personal opinions isn't a mature way to handle this. It is clear that neither you or Kiba didn't want me to add any technical instructions, Qubodup. I understand that. But i have another perspective. Games exists to be played! By adding usage info, i actually think the article becomes more complete. The Libregamewiki:Article policy states that "1.Articles about Free/libre games 2.Articles about topics related to Free/libre games" could be included. I think that info about how to actually get the game IS related to the game. That's why I added a simple installation instruction to the Wesnoth page. Together can we keep this wiki in high quality, each of us by using our different skills. I don't wish to "invade" any of your "territories", believe me. /85.228.101.113 00:42, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

I believe it is out of the scope of this wiki to cover usage information. We're not a manual wiki. We don't teach people how to do stuff, only what it is. Think about it. Wikipedia doesn't include information on how to write a bike, how to program and of all that. They have the wikibooks project for that.--Kiba 01:04, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

Kiba more than once said that this is not Wikipedia :) It's real hard to find the words, but I think I have it: an installation guide has little to do with the game itself, as it is information which is not game-centered, but user-centered or operational system-centered. Don't you agree? Do you get what I try to say? --Qubodup 02:04, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

Please respond.. --77.177.163.100 17:37, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

I have edited that paragraf to make it less technincal. /85.228.101.245 18:37, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

I am sorry, this kind of material will never belong to this wiki. We aren't a manual wiki.--Kiba 18:59, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

Instead of continuing the discussion, you edit the article and say "now it's good". It seems you simply want to enforce your will. There is no problem with it being technical, the problem is that a manual, instruction or how-to is not what belongs into an encyclopedia. I know no definition and can't find a precise one, but take a look in the Wikipedia, Brockhaus, Encarta, Britannica or another serious encyclopedia and you will see that they contain facts and figures but no instructions for the reader how to do something, how to make something, how to write something, how to install a programm and especially not how to install one specific game on one specific platform, which has to use one specific gui (gnome). If you really were serious about this, you should have thought of writing the article "how to install a free game on ubuntu" so that not every game article that can be installed on ubuntu would have to reproduce the same procedure (go there click this click that) Writing the same instructions for every game is ridiculous, because if ubuntu changes it's installation application or simply relocates the link, every single article would have to be corrected - therefore general information should be written in its own article (If it is still free-games-centered) This is also the reason why not every game that uses sdl has a description of what sdl is.. because the information is general and has it's own place. Ok. But when you look at the title "How to install free games on ubuntu" you see that it has little to do with the libregamewiki. How is that more related to free gaming than to free software or simply "software"? not a bit! --77.177.163.100 19:49, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

I will delete the installation instructions (if they are still there) please talk first before adding them again.

Free?

Why capitalise "free"? Without doubt, many more people will think "improper capitalisaton" rather than "free as in freedom" when seeing "Free". If you are trying to clear up any confusion, there are ways which do not involve redefining the rules of English and which are equally applicable when speaking. You will not find many instances (if any) of capitalised "free" in FSF texts. Parasti 15:56, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

Yes, it was to clear up confusion. We use it for no other reasons because others have used this method to indicate freedom from zero cents.--Kiba 16:06, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

I'd appreciate an idea for an alternative.. --77.177.163.100 17:28, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

As I said, an alternative would be nice, as I prefer the correct english form, would you be ok with changing to lowercase, kiba? --77.177.163.100 17:36, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

If it ain't broken, don't change it. I don't feel the need to change again. We gone from Free to free/libre and then to Free again. I don't want the wiki to be constantly changing how we distinguish freedom from zero cost.--Kiba 19:02, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

In terms of "broken", it is broken English.

Using "Free" instead of continuously educating people of free software is of course a lot easier and requires a lot less thinking, but wasn't free software philosophy the whole point of creating this wiki? Considering that LGW is not meant to be a general-purpose wiki, there is even less room for ambiguity.

There is no difference between "free" and "Free" if you don't explain what the difference is. But if you have to explain, the distinction you're trying to make is superfluous. Parasti 19:43, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

I agree and I also would commit the needed changes - Qubodup (77.177.163.100 19:50, 16 September 2007 (CEST))

I admit defeat this time. Change it as you wish.--Kiba 19:53, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

Good, thanks for pointing that out, I was always kind of unsecure about how to make them notice that this isn't about freeware, but I guess we'll have to educate them and write a decent description of what free games/soft is. You're welcome to help out at renaming Free-free here and there, Parasti. If you have ideas for refining the Free_software article or any other idea how to make the difference clear, you're welcome to do so. --Qubodup 20:00, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

Thank you. Parasti 20:09, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

Libraries and engines

Hey Kiba, since the beginning I was wondering "huh? libraries and engines? what does this have to do with free gaming? - engines well maybe, but libraries?..." - The thing is, someone will come and say "game x is coded in such a way, that it uses ALSA, so ALSA should be included" would you say it's ok? Also: What is an engine? the wikipedia defines it as something that controls multiple processes preemptive (kind of timed and giving resources to what needs them) It says that an engine normally includes sound, graphical, physics, collision detection, but also it lists a physics engine in it's short list of open source game engines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_engine#Notable_engines. Is an engine just another library? ... How do you define engine and library?.. --Qubodup 08:50, 17 September 2007 (CEST)

I think some libraries are defintely game related, such as Rubygame and SDL. Others, not so much. So it is a fussy area. I guess an engine is more like a framework? But anyway, they are hard questions. --Kiba 20:58, 17 September 2007 (CEST)

I guess this means we wait untill someone starts bitching about it? ^^ --Qubodup 04:39, 18 September 2007 (CEST)

Yep.--Kiba 11:51, 18 September 2007 (CEST)