Talk:Second Life

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 27 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tui37550.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Ready Player One

Out of interest following a couple of recent edits, I looked for a decent reference suggesting similarities between Second Life and Ready Player One, and found this Forbes article. If anyone fancies using it, GG! I personally can't be bothered :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 22:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge (per WP:SILENCE). Sirfurboy (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

---

I propose to merge Criticism of Second Life into this article.

The criticisms article has multiple issues as described by the templates on the page, but I think the biggest single issue is that it should not even exist. Second Life has this article. Criticism of Second Life belongs here. Both articles are in need of updates, and having two splits any editor effort across the two, and there may be duplication too. I believe combining both would create an article of appropriate length. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Vycl1994, Atlantic306, Userafw, Waddie96, Jabberjaw, Anas1712, and Mccapra: As recent contributors to these pages, I wonder if you have a view on the above proposal. Thanks.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New logo

The official blog for Second Life stated they have rolled out a new logo. However I am not very familiar with updating company/business logos on Wikipedia, so if someone can point me in the right direction, or better yet doing it themselves(because I will probably mess it up somehow), that would be great! — Félix Wolf (talk | contribs) 01:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Some statements directly address the reader

Some pieces of text in the article directly point to the user without any quotation. I know that is a bad practice in this sort of writing, so I would like to know what we could do about this. -A Fluffy Kitteh | FluffyKittehz User Profile Page 22:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Metaverse?

Many recent articles about the Metaverse mention Second Life.

• IEEE Spectrum [1]
• Slate [2]
• BBC [3]

This might be useful over at the mess at the Metaverse topic. John Nagle (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The irony is that we Second Life oldtimers used 'Metaverse' and 'virtual world' as synonyms back in the mid-noughts. How naïve we were! — Gwyneth Llewelyn (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Second Life vs Second Life Viewer

The opening infobox refers specifically to the "Second Life Viewer". There are two infoboxes here, and one for the viewer and one for the server. Do we want to rename the opening template to "Second Life", or keep it as "Second Life Viewer", since the info in the infobox has info pertaining to the viewer portion of Second Life, or do we want to rename it to "Second Life", which people would probably just call the viewer anyway? I am fine with either, but we also need to make sure that Template:Latest stable software release/Second Life Viewer stays in sync with whatever the name field of the infobox is. This was done as part of this revision, however I reverted it for the time being. — Félix Wolf (talk | contribs) 20:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Virtual World, not a game

An IP has twice tried to change the article to call Second Life a game in the first sentence, short description and elsewhere. But our first paragraph has sourced content which says

Linden Lab is emphatic that their creation is not a game.

They give their reasons, and so our calling this a game becomes editorialising (we, without sourcing, would be disagreeing with Linden Lab). We cannot do this. I reverted this once and it was put back and extended. I have reverted again per WP:ONUS which states:

The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

Please discuss here to see if any consensus can be found to call this a game rather than a virtual world. My own view is that it is a virtual world that has both social and gaming potential, as well as modelling, education and other things. It seems to me to be clearly incorrect to call it simply a game. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I will also add, your find-and-replace of "virtual world" to "video game" throughout the text made nonsense of some sentences and changed the actual titles of books in the bibliography. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I have requested page protection because you are not interested in talking, you have tried this edit in the past, and because you are a banned user. See User talk:2406:3400:60D:B1E0:6C36:336A:BFD6:40F6. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

(Bias disclaimer: I am a active "resident" on Second Life)

I personally would call Second Life a virtual world, rather than a game. There is a whole philosophical argument to be made on "What classifies as a game?" and "Does a game need a objective to be a game?", but for the most part I believe gamers and virtual world residents would agree that a game needs a objective to be a game. Second Life has no objective, therefore is not a game. It can contain games inside of it, but I'd argue that would be like calling a game engine a game because it can be used to make games, even though game engines such as Unreal Engine are used in the movie industry, or how IRC chats can have games running in them, but it is still a social platform that someone has put a game inside. — Félix Wolf (talk | contribs) 16:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Article issue: Infobox software for the "Second Life" entry doesn't have a functional [+] button on the version number

Honestly not quite sure what is wrong here. For some reason, it references Template:Latest stable software release/Second Life Viewer when getting the version info, but the [+] button links to Template:Latest stable software release/Second Life, which doesn't make any sense to me. The "Second Life Server" infobox works flawlessly, it's just the "Second Life Viewer" infobox that doesn't work. I've looked at the template parameters and couldn't see anything different with whats going on there, unless maybe it is pulling the article name for the [+] and the infobox name for the included template? I would highly appreciate if someone could sort this out, thanks! — Félix Wolf (talk | contribs) 16:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)