Libregamewiki:Community portal

From Libregamewiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Here is a place to discuss ideas and coordinate improvments to the LibreGameWiki itself.

Please use a number of :-characters at the beginning of your paragraph to indent it. You can sign your edits by using the second but last button in the toolbar.

Feel free to ask questions on this page. By the way, do you know the FAQ and Article policy‎?


How do we make it easier for potential contributors to help?[edit]

How can we make it easier for potential contributors to help? Since the beginning of October account creation works without red tape again. This is a great step forward. Is there anything we can do to further improve the articles explaining how to contribute?

Main Page[edit]

I think it may be a good idea to have a little paragraph at the top of the main page which explains what LibreGameWiki is.

The front page links to Libregamewiki which is currently outdated, the main page could have a summary with more detail on that page. Kymara (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2012 (CEST)

Shall we have a small "How to contribute?" or "Help wanted" section on the main page which links to the relevant articles? What would it look like?

Yes. It should link to an updated Libregamewiki:Article_policy and List of games Kymara (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2012 (CEST)
There could also be a portal for this in the side bar. Kymara (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2012 (CEST)

Which article should be featured next?[edit]

There is quite a number of very good articles. I think we should change the featured article on the main page more frequently to draw attention to them.

Yes, I already asked a recent productive user, GNUbie for his thoughts for the next one. Generally, we should ask the wider community to help choose somehow. Kymara (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2012 (CEST)

Engines for non-free games with no free games using them[edit]

Hi. Should free remakes of engines for non-free games be accepted as free engines, if they have never been (and not necessarily intended to be) used for a playable free game yet? Examples: OpenMW, Enemy Territory: Legacy. --AVRS (talk) 12:35, 28 November 2012 (CET)

My two pence: I'd class those as free engines. Their use case is irrelevant, and it could be considered as a matter of timing, for example: a free engine which was created and then later used for a non-free game doesn't make the engine non-free.Kymara (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2012 (CET)

Game articles redirecting to genre list[edit]

I'm seeing odd behavior. If I try to go to the following articles:

I get redirected to the RPG genre page:

https://libregamewiki.org/Role-playing_games

If I use non-rewrite links, however, they seem to work.

Could there perhaps be an error in the URL rewriting rules?

--Cov (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2013 (CEST)

Thank you for the report. I fixed it. --Hendrik Brummermann (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2013 (CEST)

License Choice[edit]

The CC-BY is a non-copyleft license, and unless I'm mistaken, the GFDL is a copyleft license, which is why CC-BY-SA was chosen for Wikipedia when it dual-licensed to make it compatible with other CC sites. If I'm correct, this wiki is currently under two licenses which contradict each other on the question of copyleft, which is confusing. Why wasn't the CC-BY-SA license chosen for LGW? This would allow relevant to content to be imported from and exported to Wikipedia and other CC-BY-SA sites (with appropriate attribution of course). --Strypey (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2014 (CET)

The CC-BY was chosen to make it easy for third parties to use content from LibreGameWiki. The GFDL was considered non-free by Debian and Debian is quite an authority as the Open Source Definition is based on Debian guidelines. It was kept as alternative to make it easy to copy content from LibreGameWiki to Wikipedia. Wikipedia and the FSF later pulled a stunt of releasing a new version of the GFDL with the Lex Wikipedia clause, allowing Wikipedia to move to a completely different license. LGW content, however, was licensed as GFDL 1.2 without the backdoor "or later". And personally, after this stunt, I don't think "or later" is a good idea at all. --Gamfan (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2014 (CET)
For the record, the change to the GFDL was made to allow Wikipedia (and other multi-collaborator works) to dual-license with CC-BY-SA, which is identical to the GFDL where it counts (eg attribution, copyleft), although it happens to lacks the "invariant sections" and "transparency" terms that made Debian declare the GFDL non-free. Both CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are free culture licenses: http://creativecommons.org/freeworks Practically speaking, the purpose of having a wiki under a license is to inform the user about what they can and can't do with its contents. The GFDL tells the user they must put derivative works under the same license (copyleft), while the CC-BY says they don't. This is confusing. Can I use sections of LGW within an ARR (All-Rights-Reserved) work or not? Is this wiki copyleft, or it isn't? If it is copyleft, shouldn't the CC-BY-SA needs to be used to let the user know that? If it isn't copyleft, shouldn't the GFDL be dropped to make this clear? --Strypey (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2014 (CET)
It is very simple: If you you contribute to LibreGameWiki, you must license your work as CC-BY und GFDL. If you want to use content from LGW, you can pick the license you want to comply with. Please keep in mind that copyleft is only one of the difference between the licenses (please read the full text of both licenses to learn about other demands required by each of the licenses). --Gamfan (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2014 (CET)
I intended to answer, but I got an edit conflict earlier. Anyway, some points:
  • Being CC-BY licensed, this wiki's text can be contributed to Wikipedia if properly attributed: see CC FAQ and Wikipedia copyright FAQ.
  • Wikipedia is not entirely dual-licensed: all of it is available under CC-BY-SA (except the fairly used stuff). On the other hand, the GFDL does not necessarily apply to text added after the project voted to use the CC license - you have to check this yourself if you'd like to use a Wikipedia article under the GFDL.
I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. When I edit Wikipedia it says "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License *and* the GFDL..." (emphasis mine) --Strypey (talk) 10:50, 6 November 2015 (CET)
  • As I recall, Debian only considers the GFDL non-free if there are invariant sections involved, see this vote. What is the problematic "transparency" term?
  • The lack of a "or later" clause precludes our stuff from being used in the Free Software Directory. This may be a pity, because their goal is rather similar to ours. -- StevenDH (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2014 (CET)
Is the copyright in LGW content owned by the original author(s) or the project? If there was a consensus among all LGW copyright holders, the content could be relicensed under any license they choose. This would not revoke previous licenses on the same content, but would apply to all existing content, and only the new license would apply to new content. As I said initially, I can't see the benefit of using CC-BY for a collaborative reference wiki, and I think CC-BY-SA would be a better choice, as it means any improvements made in derivative works are available to be backported into LGW. --Strypey (talk) 10:50, 6 November 2015 (CET)

Libregamewiki uses an invalid security certificate[edit]

Hi, I do not know if the Community portal is the right place to report this type of problem. But I have not been able to find any better place.

When connecting to libregamewiki, some web-browsers (Mozilla based: firefox, iceweasel, icecat, seamonkey etc.) displays a warning page stating "This Connection is Untrusted". I have tested this on several computers with several browsers with both GNU/Linux and Windows OS, so it seems to be a problem that applies to everyone that uses these browsers.

The following details are given:

-libregamewiki.org uses an invalid security certificate.

-The certificate is not trusted because no issuer chain was provided.

-(Error code: sec_error_unknown_issuer)

--Hurdman (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2015 (CET)

As of March 21, 2015 this problem no longer occurs. I am guessing that the security certificate has been updated. --Hurdman (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2015 (CET)

A few things: Thanks for fighting spam[edit]

Hopefully the Argentinian/Brazilian wiki spammers have no places left...

I am inquiring about the Public Domain version of Rogue, and the BSD version of Rogue.

I posess a copy of the Public Domain version of Rogue, and have screen shots of the screens, which wikisneeripedia seems not able to read 'Public Domain."

If need be, I can contact either Michael Toy or Glenn Wichman ( who published the sources to the PC Version/Commercial version) about verifying the public domain version is indeed the public domain version.

Article looks like ... data corruption?![edit]

The article SDL_games is messed up. Even the old version that was ok some months ago is ... corrupted? --Gegxt (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2015 (CEST)

Could you specify what looks corrupted? To me the article looks fine. LibreGamer (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2015 (CEST)
Now I see it. It was only visible if one views the article after logging in. When not logged in the article looks fine. LibreGamer (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2015 (CEST)
I fixed the template, thanks for the hint. --Hendrik Brummermann (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2015 (CEST)
I can confirm the fix. Thanks for fixing. (section can be deleted / archived) --Gegxt (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2015 (CEST)


Copying from Wikipedia[edit]

I note the warning at the bottom of edit pages not to copy from Wikipedia. I'm assuming this is out of date, as Wikipedia is now dual-licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0? If so, it would be good to remove that warning, as there is a lot of useful material about libre games that could be imported to this wiki.

This is particularly important in view of the massive pruning of Wikipedia that appears to be going on, with many articles being deleted on the basis that their subject is not "notable" enough to have a page in an Encyclopedia. This problem has disturbed Wikipedians enough that one (or a group?) has set up the SpeedyDeletion wiki to rescue pages before they are removed, in case their contents are still of interest to other wikis like this one. --Strypey (talk) 06:17, 6 October 2015 (CEST)

Hi there. I'm afraid the warning has to remain as this wiki is cc-by or gfdl and wikipedia is cc-by-sa. (If you combine those cc license, the end result is the stricter of those, i.e. the one used by wikipedia) GNUbie (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2015 (CEST)
Oops! I didn't notice the lack of the "SA" part of the LGW license when I made this post, and I totally forgot I already started a discussion about license choice further up. As I said there, all Wikipedia content is licensed under both CC-BY-SA *and* GPFDL. If content was imported from Wikipedia, it would have to be marked as such, to indicate that it can't not be used under CC-BY. --Strypey (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2015 (CET)

Posting images[edit]

Hi!

  I try to help someone to edit his game's page. Yesterday, his IP was block cause abuse (probably tried to much html lines to make edit as he wanted). I looked all around your site to understand how to post an image through your site, and choose categories for his game, but found nothing about it. Is there somewhere an option to make it directly?
  -How upload an image on your site (I think it will be ok to post it on the edit of the game's page, but would be appreciated to have the exact html line to be sure)
  -How to add categories for a game.

P.S.: maybe there is an error on the chat... you let us know that we can connect as guest, but all times I tried, this don't work, cause I don't have a nickname.

Thanks a lot in advance for your help!

Answers could be send to tricotvanille2003@hotmail.com, or directly to the member Electro l.i.b

Spam & blocking users/IP[edit]

On the "Recent changes" page, I see there's a lot of spam-fighting going on. It's good that LGW is being valiantly defended against the incessant spam bots, but I think the Abuse filter is sometimes a little quick to block well meaning users. The anonymous user recently working on the Liberated Pixel Cup page, and two weeks ago even the registered user Lanadapter got on the block list, presumably because they made a series of small edits in a short time. Would it be possible to differentiate a bit better between real editors and spammer, so that we don't turn down actual contributors (while keeping the spam out, of course)? -- StevenDH (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2017 (CET)