Difference between revisions of "LGPedia:Lucy's Balcony"

From LGPedia
Jump to: navigation, search
("Current shows, former shows")
 
(63 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pending discussion|Revamping FanFic|Character Pages Discussion}}
+
:'''''If you cannot access this page for whatever reason, please use [[LGPedia:Emma's Hideout]]'''''
 
[[Image:GustaveCailbotteThe Balcony1880-Cropped.jpg|left|thumb|150px|A couple of [[LGPedia]] admins ([[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] & [[User:Phoenician|Phoenician]]) take a breather to admire the view from [[Lucy's Balcony]].]]
 
[[Image:GustaveCailbotteThe Balcony1880-Cropped.jpg|left|thumb|150px|A couple of [[LGPedia]] admins ([[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] & [[User:Phoenician|Phoenician]]) take a breather to admire the view from [[Lucy's Balcony]].]]
  
Line 14: Line 14:
 
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
 
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
  
 
==Video Dates In Pages==
 
 
This is not a critical issue, but something worth discussion.  At this point we are 18 months into the lg15 series.  There are areas of Lg15 plot which were very important at certain points (like LaRezisto, or Gemma, or Tachyon), that later resolved or become less important.  When viewing pages which discuss key character or plot issues (like Gemma, or Spencer, or the Order of Denderah, etc.), I myself find it useful to know when the videos about that subject were released, without having to click on every video link.  I think in a chronological way.  Thus, I sometimes put video dates into an lgpedia article to let readers easily know when something occurred in the context of the whole storyline.  Like, for [[Ted McKinley]] i put it "He first appeared at the press conference filmed in [[What's Going on?]] (Oct. 19, 2007), where he helped ...".  That way the reader easily knows, ok, this Ted guy is not relevant to the first year of the show.
 
 
We have no set convention for dealing with this issue that I am aware of, and wondered whether we should set one.  I am not saying that every video link needs a date after it like a legal brief would cite cases, but there are articles where it would be useful.  (For example, [[The order]] article has them; [[Emma]] does not).  Even if we don't come up with any policy, I wanted to raise the issue for people to think about when editing.  Thoughts?  --[[User:Milowent|Milowent]] 08:19, 20 December 2007 (CST)
 
 
== Revamping FanFic ==
 
{{Message|title=Discussion has been moved.|message=Please continue the discussion here: [[LGPedia:Lucy's Balcony/Fanfic revamp|The Mighty FanFic Revamp: Part Deux]]}}
 
===The "Plan"===
 
Right now, I think we are faced with a situation where the LGPedia has become overloaded with fan fiction pages and this is a problem. Now, don't get me wrong, I am absolutely '''not''' saying that fan fiction pages on the pedia are bad. Quite the opposite, I'm saying that I think they're good! But with the massive amounts of scattered info we have now, I think we are making it much harder for anyone to really understand what's going on. We also have a lot of extraneous pages, (like video transcripts for obscure series that do not add value to the section on that series) which ultimately only overwhelms anyone who comes here to learn more about a fanfic series.
 
 
So, what I propose is this. I think that we should do a massive cleanup of the fanfic section of the site. I think that instead of treating the section as a free-for-all, we should try to get some sort of streamlined guide to just how each series will be treated.
 
 
====The Types====
 
I think we should divide the fanfic up into five types as far as how we deal with them:
 
 
'''Type 1''' - These series get a single page similar to the current [[Lonelyjew15]] page. They consist of one page where all the information you'd need to get an understanding of the series is found. The main things that show up on these pages are '''plot summary''', '''character info''', and '''important links''' for watching and following the story more closely. There can be other sections, such as a "Notes" section, but mostly the pages should follow the same general format. The page will serve as a "run-down" to the series it covers.
 
 
'''Type 2''' - Unlike Type 1 series, Type 2 series will all  be collected together on one massive page where each series will have its own description. Most of the time the descriptive info on these series is similar to what is contained in a Type 1 series, but to a lesser extent.
 
 
'''Type 3''' - Like with any rule, there can and probably will be exceptions. What would go on these pages would be determined on an "as needed" basis.
 
 
'''Type 4''' - This type covers any major relevant ARGs or series. Since series in this type tend to be complex, they often will require more than one page. [[Cassieiswatching]] and [[redearth88]] are great examples of this. Because of the large-scale undertaking of these series, this type will have to be admin approved before they can go forward.
 
 
'''Type 5''' - There are some series that simply don't belong on the LGPedia at all (adult film entertainment, anyone? :)). These ones do not need pages.
 
 
====Qualifying====
 
I think each series needs to be examined individually to determine where it best fits within the above types. A strong case should have to be made regarding why any particular series should receive a type of page. Some good reasons would be: number of subscribers, average number of views per video, notibility in the Breeniverse, and many more. Because of this, I believe we should evaluate each series independantly.
 
 
If the idea takes off, I'm happy to create a page where we can discuss statuses for each series. I'm not going to do that now though, because I want to make sure people are on board for the idea first.
 
 
Hopefully you guys like this idea, and hopefully you are on board with it! I truly believe it will do wonders for both getting more editors (who now mostly sit befuddled, wondering how to add such elaborate fanfic pages) and for getting new viewers for fanfic series, as viewers will be less confused when the content is laid out in a neat fashion. Please let me know what you think!!! --[[User:Zoey|Zoey]] 02:57, 21 December 2007 (CST)
 
 
===Comments===
 
:''Yes, I made a section for comments, this would be too confusing otherwise, lol. --[[User:Zoey|Zoey]] 02:57, 21 December 2007 (CST)''
 
::Well, if there's one project to rocket us to 2008, it would be this.  Everything above sounds like a great starting point.  To clarify, videos ''must'' be fiction, yes, in order to qualify for the above types.  They can't just be a LG/KM fan responding, commenting, or spoofing (of course, if they've made themselves into an in-universe fictional character then that's different). I don't know, I just get the feeling that we're going to have to be painstakenly detailed in our discussions in the matter :P --[[User:Phoenician|Pheon]] 03:09, 21 December 2007 (CST)
 
----
 
::Since I've been trying to get rid of the fan-series mess ever since I joined, I of course support this motion, but I'd like rules on series template creation to be included, i.e. whether your "Type 4" series should get their own blog- and other templates, or if they should use stuff like FakeBlog. I don't quite feel like eliminating another dozen uselessly created, outdated fan blog templates.
 
::It should also be possible to create a Template:FanCharBlock, that simply takes a page and styling options as arguments - so you'd have ''one'' fan-char-block template, and the contents would be located at pages like Redearth88/charblock.
 
::I do think your typification scale is counterintuitive, though - imo, it should be an ascending or descending scale, e.g.
 
::{|
 
!Level 0
 
|No pages
 
!or, alternatively,
 
|width="20"|
 
!Tier 1
 
|Full coverage
 
|-
 
!Level 1
 
|Single page, few information
 
!descending instead of
 
|
 
!Tier 2
 
|Tier 3 Exceptions
 
|-
 
!Level 2
 
|Single page, comprehensive information
 
!ascending
 
|
 
!Tier 3
 
|Single page, comprehensive information
 
|-
 
!Level 3
 
|Level 2 exceptions
 
|
 
|
 
!Tier 4
 
|Single page, few information
 
|-
 
!Level 4
 
|Full coverage
 
|
 
|
 
!Tier 5
 
|No pages
 
|}
 
::No matter how we name a series's grade, we have to find an acceptable way to rate them that doesn't look like pure arbitrariness to the community...something with hard data, like combined viewcount of the first twenty videos or something, with no chance to be selected before the series reaches at least twenty vids (unless it ends before that).
 
::Beyond that, I suggest creating a Portal:Community, or use the existing (unused and barely known) [[LGPedia:Community Portal]] page to create a portal similar to the series ones, which only reports about Tier 1/Level 5/Type 4 series - like new Redearth videos released, link to series mainpages and similar things.
 
::And more or less independent from that, the topic of spoofs that Pheon brought up is interesting...although I agree that mere replies should (of course) not be listed, certain spoofs should at least be collected on a central "LG15 Spoofs" page or something similar (or do we have something like that already?) - because especially milo's recent works are quite funny and deserve long-term exposure.
 
:::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 18:07, 21 December 2007 (CST)
 
 
Let me just clarify, this discussion is JUST for fanfic SERIES and how they will be treated on the pedia. Any discussion about what to do about it after the fact is arbitrary at this point, as creating a portal cannot happen unless we have some sort of focus. If we want to create a portal, or any other means of featuring the fanfic AFTER THE FACT, that discussion should take place '''after the fact'''. So let's please not discuss that at this time.
 
 
Also, I agree that there are many notable spoof videos and other notable single videos. I don't really think we need to decide anything definite for that at the moment, because that's not really what this discussion is about. However, I think making a single page where we list all of the videos with some sort of description or whatnot would work. Really though, that's also something we can discuss after the fact if need be, and not what this discussion should focus on.
 
 
Thanks. --[[User:Zoey|Zoey]] 18:47, 21 December 2007 (CST)
 
 
----
 
Some quick points...
 
 
* I don't really get all this levels and tiers stuff.  For one thing it does help new series.  If someone starts a new series and wants to make character pages or transcript pages why should they be penalized from doing so just because they are new?
 
 
* Second "Fan Fiction" is a bad catch all category.  The accepted industry related term is User Generated Content or (UGC), and while that applies to derivative series it doesn't apply to original series.  The distinction in my mind being that a story be dependent on being a user of the site.
 
 
* I think you should really work with theCs and BK on this.  There is a upcoming redesign that will effect UGC and the way it's presented and I assume terminology figures into that.  I would think it would be logical tha the lgpedia be consistent with that.
 
--[[User:Immortal1|Immortal1]] 21:50, 21 December 2007 (CST)
 
 
:In reply to your points, in order:
 
:*The idea is not to "penalize" anybody. The idea is to keep the LGPedia clean. When a new series starts out, there is no sure-fire way of knowing how many hits they'll get, how notable they'll be, whether they'll even stick around, etc. Plenty of times we have people create something on the LGPedia when their series is new, and then stop adding things, which either leaves the burden of keeping a minor series up to date on the LGPedians, or leaves the LGPedia looking messy and incomplete, which is not "good for buisness," if you will. We have also had new series come on and create a lot of pages (some of whom eventually stopped, and the burden was shifted on to LGPedians, often me :() and then they decided they no longer wanted their pages on LGPedia, and asked us to delete all of that hard work. That just seems counter-productive. Instead, what makes sense, at least to me, is when a new series starts, their content can be featured on a smaller scale, and as they progress and we see what happens, we can easily promote the series to a higher level. There is ''nothing'' that says that the "level" or "tier" or whatever term we use is set in stone. Like I said, we are not looking to "penalize" anyone, but to keep things clean and effective from a Pedia standpoint.
 
 
:*The term "fan fiction" is used in this dicussion simply because it is what the "Category" on LGPedia is called and has been since... well, I'd say the dawn of time, but I'm not sure how accurate that is :P. Either way, it is used in this discussion for that reason, and not to disrespect any UGC or other content-creators.
 
 
:*Of course BK and the C's can be in on this discussion. But I wanted to bring it to LGPedia first, as this is, after all, a community site, and when I present the thoughts to BK/C's, I figured it is best to have a solid idea of where the community stands.
 
 
:Hope this clears some stuff up, at least about where I'm coming from! --[[User:Zoey|Zoey]] 22:14, 21 December 2007 (CST)
 
----
 
:{{quote|Immortal1|I don't really get all this levels and tiers stuff.  For one thing it does help new series.  If someone starts a new series and wants to make character pages or transcript pages why should they be penalized from doing so just because they are new?}}
 
:Counter-question: Why should a "series" that has barely released one episode occupy one episode page, one general description page, two character pages, two "xxx's blog" categories, a general category, a blog template and a character index template?
 
:Just to add some math to Zoey's reply: We're talking about 9 pages for a "series" of one episode with two characters. If the "series"'s creators then decide to be even more important and add pages for the actors, director and other staff, as well as filmography categories for them, then you're (with only one camera man as staff) at 19 pages for one episode with two characters already.
 
:And now imagine this: The "series" gets a mere 50 views on youtube, adds a second episode that never gets added to the pedia, and two weeks later, the projects is dead. And we're stuck with 19 meaningless pages, just because somebody made ''one'' video.
 
:I have said this in the past, but I think I'll have to repeat it: I have no intent to belittle the efforts of the content creating part of the community - but the fact that somebody somewhere made something and declared it to be connected to the Breeniverse does not automatically make it significant enough to be included on LGPedia.
 
:There is certain stuff that, no matter how much effort and love was invested in it, the general community just doesn't care about. The deciding factors for LGPedia pages are prominence and impact of the page's subject matter - not personal vanity.
 
 
:Just think about it this way: There are [[The party guests|canon characters]] and [[Cameos|actors]] of the official main series that don't have their own pages - if we don't even give every ''canon'' character his own page, why should we add pages for ''non''-canon characters that only five people in the community know so far?
 
:If a series grows and becomes popular, it is ''inevitable'' to branch it out into multiple pages and categorize it - simply to conquer the growing amount of information. But if all information on a series fits on one page with no loss of clarity, then that's a pretty good sign it doesn't need multiple pages.
 
 
:Zoey: Touching that topic, maybe we should assign "series maintainers" for branching out series. i.e. if LeetBlogger15 wants to add separate episode pages for a medium series, we could allow it under the condition that he actively maintains them, and delete them straight away if he doesn't. That way, series of a certain size could branch out without you getting a headache over half-finished pages and dead links. If it looks like crap and the page isn't maintained, it just gets deleted and the creator loses his chance to branch out due to lack of encyclopaedic interest (b/c, if other people had cared for the pages, they'd have fixed them).
 
::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 15:49, 22 December 2007 (CST)
 
----
 
'''My response to this whole thing:'''
 
 
I love the idea of categorizing UGC/FanFic like this. Right now, the 'Pedia is a big mess full of barely notable "series" and the characters of that "series." (I have to say - and am sorry to say - that I am responsible with the community for a lot of that clutter.)
 
 
And I love Zoey's original Type 1, Type 2, Type 3, Type 4, and Type 5 ideas. However, I'm a bit confused as to what Type 3 is. Could anyone clear that up for me? What exactly are you talking about by exceptions? Hmm?
 
 
Just some comments/clear community understandings of Type 1... So, what I'm understanding is that Type 1 is a notable video series with more than 4 main characters and at least more than 15 videos. Type 1 series (whether they are Fan Fiction ''or'' User Generated Content) would only get 1 page with a template - however, I'm not liking the current fact that the Type 1 example [[Lonelyjew15]] has a Person template... shouldn't there be like a FanShow template? The sections on the Type 1 series page would include a summary at the top (no section given), a characters section with brief character blurbs and actors if known (Characters and Cast section), a section with the production credits, if available (Production Crew section), and a section with links to where fans could watch the series and if there are any forums about it, etc. (External Links section). They would be in Category:Type 1 fan fiction.
 
 
Now onto Type 2... My understanding is that Type 2 is basically a Type 1 that is not as notable. Basically the same stuff, with less comprehensive information. Right? They would be in Category:Type 2 fan fiction.
 
 
Type 3... I do not understand what a Type 3 is. Could somebody please clear this up for the community? They would be in Category:Type 3 fan fiction.
 
 
Type 4... Major ARGs or fan series that are very notable, such as [[Redearth88]] or [[Cassieiswatching]], would get more than one page with Major character pages, Cast pages, Episode pages, etc. The main series page would be included in Category:Type 4 fan fiction.
 
 
Type 5... tsk tsk. Type 5 doesn't belong on the Pedia. No categories, please.
 
 
About using the Community Portal... Renegade, I like your idea about using the now hardly used Community Portal as sort of a portal for fan fiction. :) Type 4 would get episode pages linked, and it would be noted whenever Type 1, Type 2, or Type 3 released videos (they would just get linked to their YouTube video page, however).
 
 
:)
 
 
Comments? Concerns? Questions?
 
 
Thanks,
 
 
:<span style="background:DarkSlateGray">[[User:SilverBULLETx3|<font color="white">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''•Silver•'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</font>]] <small>[[User talk:SilverBULLETx3|<font color="white">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/SilverBULLETx3|<font color="white">Contribs</font>]]</small></span> 13:07, 23 December 2007 (CST)
 
:Zoey specifically stated we're not supposed to discuss portals or any other "later" stuff, I think we should respect that. We'll have enough time to do that once we figured out which content is important enough in the first place.
 
:As for elaborating on the types, my previous table makes it pretty clear, imo: You have one "category" of series that get no coverage at all, simply because they're not notable. The next level gets a single page, with maybe a paragraph or two, giving an overview of the series. The next level still gets only a single page, but more comprehensive information, like a list of episodes and characters, and a general plot outline. The level after that is the "exception" level - these are theoretically on the level before, only big enough for a single page, but for a special reason get the big treatment - [[Lonelygirl362436]] would be such an example. It only has 1 1/2 human characters and three episodes, so it shouldn't get the full set of pages - but it was made by the Creators and had very high prominence in the community, so gets treated like the next and highest level: A full set of pages and categories, akin to the canon series.
 
:And yes, it'd be possible to create a full set of customizable fan templates to be used, in order to eliminate all the custom saved ones.
 
::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 14:43, 23 December 2007 (CST)
 
 
:::Just to add my input here, I like the idea. Of course, all the details have to be ironed out, and one inherent difficulty with the system is that it is somewhat subjective. To fix this somewhat, I do think ''some'' objective standard should be set (as has been mentioned) like number of views or number of videos in order for a series to reach a certain level/tier. Personally I think view count would be better since having a lot of videos does not necessarily mean that the series is popular. For including videos on the massive "fan fiction" page (or whatever it's called), I think we should be ''fairly'' liberal in what gets added. Obviously, we don't want to be too liberal, but it takes minimal effort to add a short description about a series, and it can provide much-needed publicity for a new series. Maybe we could even split this page up into different types of fanfic series, like ARGs, spoofs (if we include them), spinoffs, etc. This should allow more series to be added without things looking as cluttered. Clearly, then, if we're liberal about this page, we'd be much more conservative about series which get more coverage. Writing an entire page on a series can take some time, and writing transcripts can take a ''long'' time ([[Jonas Conference Call]] anyone?), and there's no point wasting time writing them if no one really cares. Oh, and I like the idea of the customizable fan templates, Renegade. That'll standardize things and remove a lot of clutter. This whole thing is definitely a touchy subject, but I think everyone is handling it well. I hope we reach a good solution because this is something that's needed to be done for a long time now.--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 19:48, 23 December 2007 (CST)
 
 
::::I don't understand why the number of main characters in a show needs to be a factor in deciding whether or not it is worthy of a certain rank/class/type/tier/level/zone/whatever. ItsCassie, anyone? --[[User:Rekidk|Rekidk]] 19:52, 23 December 2007 (CST)
 
 
:::::Nobody ever said it has to be one - it was just part of the example. One new character and three videos is vastly smaller than Maddison Atkins or Redearth are, for example.
 
:::::First and foremost, "notability" is the important factor. In itscassie's case, video view counts would probably checked, and general community prominence would be tried to assess.
 
::::::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 20:53, 23 December 2007 (CST)
 
 
::::::: Ah, okay; I apologize. I misunderstood. The number of characters was just being thrown out as an example, not something set in stone. I agree that notability should be the most important thing in deciding what gets put in what tier. For example, CassieIsWatching, while lacking a large story or many characters, had a HUGE following and a HUGE effect on the Breeniverse (Glenn created OpAphid after seeing CiW, which led to many events in LG15 from Nov. 06 to Mar. 07... Later led to RE88, etc.) --[[User:Rekidk|Rekidk]] 21:06, 23 December 2007 (CST)
 
 
Here's my two cents... I agree that guidelines definitely need to be set up. A great chunk of the "fanfic/UGC/Whatever you want to call it" seems to be the "New Girl" pages. A problem I have seen is that, with the exception of the Flock, the new girls are the most frequently... neglected, for lack of a better word. I'm sure there are other pages that also suffer from this, and we should find a way to condense information in places...
 
 
Credit Categories: The only UGC series that are significant enough to merit categories for filmography, credits, etc. would be OpAphid, Redearth88/MaddisonAtkins, and Cassieiswatching (if said info were ever to be released).
 
 
Response/Stand-Alone Videos: These should be evaluated on an individual basis. Many of these only take up the space of one page (both video and poster) and function fine ([[Deemontreal]], [[breeiswaiting]], etc.)
 
 
Ties to Canon: Videos that fall in the gray territory should also be considered ([[Paulmark18]], [[watchyourjack]], [[Immant]], etc.)
 
 
Cassiemania: Maybe there could be a page of Cassie-spinoffs that could be restricted to one page, (in the way that the "List of New Girls" page is set up.) ([[Cassieresurrection]], [[Frankiswaking]], [[Frankiswaiting@gmail.com]], etc.) (although some may merit more)
 
 
New Girl Mania: Maybe same solution as the one for Cassie listed above? Why have that list of New Girls page AND a stand-alone page? (Again, some may merit more).
 
 
The argument may be made that the level of info given on, say, the [[lonelyjew15]] page isn't enough. Some series have successfully had more information than that and kept it limited to one page ([[TheLadyLazarus]]).
 
 
Wow, that turned out longer than I intended it to. --[[User:FH14|FH14]] 13:21, 24 December 2007 (EST)
 
:We need to seriously look over [[List of New Girl Candidates|new girls]]. All of their videos are transcribed and treated as a series. I know some of them got expanded into series or are a part of one, but some of them are just random and really don't deserve that much attention. - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 16:49, 21 February 2008 (CST)
 
 
==Series Redesign Discussion==
 
'''This is independent of any discussion regarding tier placement for now, although once we agree on tiers, further discussion should go on here.'''
 
===Redearth88===
 
As I was telling Zoey, I want to redesign the base template being used for spin-offs, as I find it repulsive. More on that later. For the time being, though, I've designed [[Redearth88/Sandbox|a semi-decent replacement for the RE88 portal]]. (It needs to be done; I hate how it's being referred to as a portal but looks like a crappy write-up section.) It still needs some work, obviously; I just hashed it together in about 20 minutes. So let me know what you guys think, and feel free to edit away on it.
 
 
''On a related note, we should figure out exactly what will be listed as part of the RE88 portal, and what will be considered wholly separate.'' - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 11:42, 27 February 2008 (CST)
 
 
:I for one love the new look. It looks much less cluttered than the previous one. --[[User:FH14|FH14]] 15:30, 27 February 2008 (EST)
 
 
::I also like the new look. Now we just have to figure out what goes to the MA portal and what goes to the RE88 portal.
 
 
:::Madisson Atkins is not getting its own portal. It is, for all intents and purposes, within the Redearth universe, and will be getting a redesign using the same color scheme. - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 12:50, 17 April 2008 (CDT)
 
 
'''Note:''' The new design has been rolled out earlier than expected, since the series shouldn't be impacted by the ongoing revamp, and there was a general consensus (based on people viewing the sandbox and not touching it). - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 14:24, 17 April 2008 (CDT)
 
 
===New Series Template and General guidelines for All===
 
I just gone putting together my [[User:Shiori/Template|redesigned template]] for series that use it. It's not the best in the world, but it resembles what we have currently and sets some important guidelines that have been argued recently, which I really think need to be hashed out now before we set off redesigning things.
 
<ol>
 
<li>All series should have a summary on the page. No one will find a series valuable if they don't know what it is.<br>(My idea for a standard set for the summary is something of the following, but it's more subjective than this: "It should be explanatory enough that someone with no idea of what any of the series listed here would be able to understand. (i.e. Assume no one has previous knowledge of lonelygirl15 or KateModern.)")</li>
 
<li>Please, for the love of Jehovah, follow these standards: Videos should be listed as direct links to the video, unless they are transcribed. Transcriptions are not recommended, but if they exist, there should be NO direct links to the video in the listing (since they'll have it on the transcript page). In essence, any of the following are a no-no on the listing of videos for a series: <pre>Video name ([external_link])
 
[[transcript|Video name]] ([external_link])</pre>
 
We want this:<pre>[external_link Video name]
 
[[transcript|Video name]]</pre>
 
</li>
 
</ol>
 
Keep in mind that the template I designed is meant to be applied to series that will end up in Tiers 3 or 4, but the guidelines should apply to ALL videos for uniformity. Have fun discussing. :) - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 12:26, 27 February 2008 (CST)
 
 
===How, exactly, to handle Tier 4 and 5 series pages===
 
I think this also should be discussed. Not only is the randomness of the current structure of pages a pet peeve of mine, but it makes no sense.
 
We've got pages that are the series's name a space and then the content name, we've got series name/content, and we've got content without any series name. I think, considering the more pages we add to the Pedia, the more likely we are to run into naming conflicts, we should put everything (perhaps not characters; that's what a discussion is for) as '''series name/content''', so you'd get stuff like The Flock/Minor Characters. Please discuss, and keep in mind that we've got several classifications of pages to consider:
 
*Main series pages (these clearly wouldn't need a content clarifier)
 
*Character pages
 
*Video pages (if they exist)
 
*Informational pages
 
*Actor pages <small>This should only really apply to RE88, but I don't think these need series clarification</small>
 
 
:The formal name is "subpages", although we should probably officially activate the subpages feature in the config to get those handy "<< Series name" links. That being said, this sounds like a very good solution to me - you could have LonelyJew15/Characters, LonelyJew15/Videos, LonelyJew15/OpAdolf and whatnot. We would, of course, need some redirects - LonelyJew15/Anne_Frank is not 100% intuitive.
 
:One thing that bothers me, though, is the "Tier 3" in the section title. As per the definition, Tier 3 pages only get one page. There are no additional pages to discuss. A simple page under "seriesname" is what it is.
 
:And an exception I'd make are actors...there's no use having a separate LonelyJew15/Jenni_Powell to the normal Jenni_Powell. Jenni Powell is Jenni Powell, Maya Kramer is Maya Kramer, and Amanda Goodfried is Amanda Goodfried. They are not specific to one series.
 
::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 19:03, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
 
:::Right you are. It's been so long since we started the revamp, I forgot the tiers. I changed-ed it. - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 19:05, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
 
 
::::Personally I don't like the subpage idea very much. Wikipedia {{wikipedia|WP:SP|doesn't allow subpages}} for "permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia" (Disallowed uses, number 3), and I think there's good reason. Here are a few I can think of for our case:
 
::::#Subpages are harder to link to. I don't know about you, but typing out '''<nowiki>[[LonelyJew15/Anne Frank|Anne Frank]]</nowiki>''' instead of just '''<nowiki>[[Anne Frank]]</nowiki>''' seems like a lot more work to me, especially when it must be done for ''every'' link to a page relating to a series.
 
::::#In many cases, there's no overlap of names. There's only one [[Anne Frank]], [[Rachel]], [[Maddison Atkins]], etc., and if a name ''did'' happen to overlap, we already have ways to deal with that (e.g. {{tl|one other use}}). In the cases where names would overlap (like "List of videos"), I don't see a problem with just using '''Redearth88 list of videos''' (for example), since it's as easy to type (and looks nicer imo) than '''Redearth88/List of videos'''.
 
::::#Some characters are in more than one series. For example, [[Tachyon]] is in both [[OpAphid]] and [[Redearth88]] (granted, she's named [[Aly Zarin]] in RE88 but it's still the same character). Also, I haven't been following RE88 and MA recently, but if it's true there's going to be (already has been?) overlap between the two, how do we decide how to categorize the characters? Heck, [[War Pylol]] right now is categorized in [[:Category:OpAphid characters]], Category:Maddison Atkins characters, and Category:Redearth characters. Of course, we could decide which series the character is ''most'' a part of, but then we run the risk of making it look like the character is ''only'' part of that series and not any others.
 
::::#It would make page names inconsistent and confusing. If someone's looking for the page on [[Bree]], they search for "Bree". If they're looking for [[Gregory Atkins]], they search for "Gregory Atkins", not "Maddison Atkins/Gregory Atkins". Of course, redirects are an option (as you say) but why have a redirect when you can just house the page there in the first place without any loss of understanding about what the page is about? And if we end up sticking with the namespace idea for both official series (see [[# Page/Category naming conventions|below]]), that will confuse things even more. 'Cause now I have to type '''LonelyJew15/List of videos''' for the LJ15 videos but '''LG:List of videos''' (or similar) for the LG15 videos. Seems counter-intuitive and confusing to new (and even ol...err, established) editors. Again, we could have redirects, but it'd be much better (imo) to just keep things consistent.
 
::::My proposal, then, is to use "SeriesName Pagename" for pages like "Characters" and "Videos" and to just use "Pagename" for everything else. (In fact, after thinking through all of this, I kind of still like that idea for the official series as well. Hmmm...) Other thoughts?--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 21:16, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
 
:::::Dang you're persuasive, Jon. But then this brings up Redearth, which was what I was basing this off of. Should we rename all of the Redearth pages that currently use this structure (during the appropriate phase of the revamp, of course.) But should we come up with some standard for a naming convention when pages need to be moved because of conflict? I've seen (video), (character), (Redearth88), (RE88), and (RE88 character) tacked on to the end of pages floating around (I'm not sure all of them were RE88, but it serves as a good example).  Standardizing would probably make this easier... - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 21:56, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
 
 
::::::I agree that we need to standardize. My suggestion would be to avoid making the "tack-ons" series specific, but instead use (character), (video), etc. For example, [[Doctor (Redearth88)]] would be moved to '''Doctor (character)'''. However, in an instance where there would still be a conflict (both [[Jack]] and [[Jack (Secondary Character)]] are characters, for instance), then we would include the series, but not the "character" part of it. So, [[Jack]] would stay where it is and [[Jack (Secondary Character)]] would be moved to '''Jack (lonelygirl15)''', since watchyourjack isn't really lg15. If there was ''still'' overlap, then we'd use both (like "(KateModern character)"). For all of these cases, {{tl|one other use}} should probably be used, if not a disambiguation page. Thoughts?--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 15:01, 1 April 2008 (CDT)
 
  
 
==Character Pages Discussion==
 
==Character Pages Discussion==
Line 260: Line 32:
 
::I rather like the page too! I think it needs to be fleshed out in some parts (don't ask me where! if I could put my finger on it, I'd totally tell you! lol)... I just feel like it's a bit bare... but really... it's SO on the right track! --[[User:Zoey|Zoey]] 11:03, 21 April 2008 (CDT)
 
::I rather like the page too! I think it needs to be fleshed out in some parts (don't ask me where! if I could put my finger on it, I'd totally tell you! lol)... I just feel like it's a bit bare... but really... it's SO on the right track! --[[User:Zoey|Zoey]] 11:03, 21 April 2008 (CDT)
  
== Written policies needed: Disputing edits & commenting etiquette ==
+
:NOTE: Since Nancy seems to have taken a hike, I'm considering taking this up again. I think we're in desperate need for this kind of thing on some pages, especially as characters span series. If anyone has anything further to suggest on this, please do. - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 08:14, 16 March 2009 (CDT)
  
On [[LGPedia talk:Deletion Policy#Lesser Deletion Policy|two]] [[Talk:Recovered Memory#a + b = c|occasions]] in the past two weeks, the way we deal with disputed edits came into question. '''As such, I feel it is necessary to, once and for all, write an official policy on how to correctly oppose a revision, and how each side has to behave.''' This policy ''has'' to be signed and endorsed by the administration, in order to give it the necessary authority.
+
== Admin ==
  
'''My POV:'''<br>
+
This probably isn't a good move, but I'd like to request a consideration of me being moved to admin. There are SO many changes that I'd like to see made to this wiki but I personally can't do anything as a regular editor. You can review my edits, etc. Just please think about it and get back to me here, anyone who could make that change. (Also, I was formerly [[User:SilverBULLETx3|SilverBULLETx3]] as well.) [[User:Kevin|Kevin]] 09:54, 16 January 2009 (CST)
In my opinion, the commonly accepted, now disputed policy is the only practical and logical one: ''Do what the majority wants.''<br>
+
The main question of the disputes was, whether to leave the disputed edit standing and have the disputing side argue why it should be reverted, or to revert to the original version and discuss the changes. In my opinion, it is obvious the latter has to be done, due to the following reasoning:
+
  
Let us first take a look at how an edit can commonly turn out:
+
== "Current shows, former shows" ==
#The edit is made, and nobody disputes it. This suggests the community agrees with the edit.
+
#The edit is made, and somebody reverts it.
+
##In the discussion following, the community agrees with the edit, and the change is reinstated.
+
##In the discussion following, the community disagrees with the edit, and the revert is upheld.
+
  
The important part for my reasoning is #1 - no dispute. A certain state of a page can only exist if nobody disputed it. Thus, by the very logic of the concept of community based editing, the original version of the page, the one that is being edited, is a version that was accepted as "usable", "okay" or "fitting" by the community in the past, up to the point until the disputed change was made. The original version can thus be assumed as a ''community accepted revision'', in the sense that the ''majority'' of the community saw no reason to change it, or at least saw no reason to propose the disputed change.
+
Over on the sidebar, it has "Current shows: LG15: The Resistance", and "Former shows: lonelygirl15, KateModern." This obviously does not apply anymore. What it should say is:
  
Now let us watch how a dispute would go under the different systems:
+
*Upcoming Shows
{|style="border: 1px solid #bbbbbb; background-color: #FAFAFA;"
+
**[[LG15: The Last]]
!style="background: #B8D1EF;"|Common process
+
**[[Harper's Globe]]
!style="background: #B8D1EF;"|Proposed process
+
|-
+
|style="background: #EAEAEA;"|''Page status: {{color|green|Community Accepted Revision}}''
+
|style="background: #EAEAEA;"|''Page status: {{color|green|Community Accepted Revision}}''
+
|-
+
|An edit is made
+
|An edit is made
+
|-
+
|style="background: #EAEAEA;"|''Page status: {{color|red|Unverified Revision}}''
+
|style="background: #EAEAEA;"|''Page status: {{color|red|Unverified Revision}}''
+
|-
+
|The edit gets reverted
+
|Somebody disputes the edit on a talk page, explaining why it is not a valid contribution to the page, but is not allowed to revert.
+
|-
+
|style="background: #EAEAEA;"|''Page status: {{color|green|Community Accepted Revision}}''
+
|style="background: #EAEAEA;"|''Page status: {{color|red|Unverified Revision}}''
+
|-
+
|The editor disputes the revert on a talk page, outlining why his change should be committed, but is not allowed to revert.
+
|
+
|-
+
|style="background: #EAEAEA;"|''Page status: {{color|green|Community Accepted Revision}}''
+
|style="background: #EAEAEA;"|''Page status: {{color|red|Unverified Revision}}''
+
|-
+
|Discussion
+
|Discussion
+
|-
+
|style="background: #EAEAEA;"|''Page status: {{color|green|Community Accepted Revision}}''
+
|style="background: #EAEAEA;"|''Page status: {{color|red|Unverified Revision}}''
+
|-
+
|Decision of the majority - either commit the change, or leave as is.
+
|Decision of the majority - accept new revision, or revert.
+
|-
+
|style="background: #EAEAEA;"|''Page status: {{color|green|Community Accepted Revision}}''
+
|style="background: #EAEAEA;"|''Page status: {{color|green|Community Accepted Revision}}''
+
|}
+
At first, the processes seems very similar, and the proposed process, as QtheC put it, "encourages addition of content and pushes the discussion toward justifying removal, rather than justifying addition.". However, this does not take into account two very important facts:
+
#'''The revision status during discussion.'''<br>As visible above, during the discussion in the common process, the page is always held on a community accepted revision, whereas, in the new process, the page stays on the disputed status. In other words, during the common process, the page stays in a revision that nobody in the community but the editor deems "wrong" in any way, while, in the new process, the page stays in a revision that the community has not verified yet, and, in fact, got disputed immediately after it was submitted.
+
#'''Valuing addition higher than removal.'''<br>This is simply ''wrong''. There is no reason to assume that an addition is always better than a removal. Removing confusing, incorrect or otherwise irrelevant content can clear up and improve a page considerably, while adding only marginally related, badly formatted or phrased or even irrelevant content can confuse readers and significantly diminish a page's quality.<br>What should be evaluated is the ''change'' itself, not whether the nature of the change was an addition or removal. LGPedia does ''not'' per se advocate addition of content. It advocates ''improvement'' of content. In most cases, this means addition, yes. But it can very well mean removal, and it is ludicrous to assume that an addition is by default better than a removal.
+
To return to the process:
+
*In the common process, the community accepted revision is upheld, the community discusses a change to the community accepted revision, and, by this discussion, creates a new community accepted revision - be it one that includes the proposed change, or one that expressedly excludes it.
+
*In the proposed process, the rogue user's unverified revision is upheld, and the community has to live with an actively disputed revision until it proves that it really, really doesn't like this change.
+
What does this mean practically?
+
#It is reasonable to assume that the community accepted revision has a certain standard: It has a certain level of visual appeal, the phrasing is alright, and so on. The unverified revision may have been disputed exactly because that is ''not'' the case. In the common process, the community accepted, regularly patrolled page stays out for everyone to see. In the proposed process, the potentially erroneous and typo-laden revision stays out for everyone to see.
+
#Significant changes could be forced upon the community. Take my proposed [[User:Renegade/Portal:Lonelygirl15|Portal:Lonelygirl15 redesign]], for example. Following the new process, I could simply install it and ''the entire rest of the community'' would have to justify reverting the change, instead of just reverting it and telling me "we did not approve this yet, kthx". Now, I like to think that my portal redesign is not all that bad, but remember that this policy is for everyone - by tomorrow, you could find yourself arguing about a horrible 1995-looking table-based layout that includes the entire plot of lonelygirl15 on the [[Main Page]].<br>And you couldn't just revert it. Policy would say you'd have to discuss the revert first.
+
#Think of the following question: What if the number of discussing people is rather small? In the common process, if people actually adhered to it instead of edit-waring their revision back in (the person I mean knows exactly who he his), the community accepted revision would be upheld even if there was only one "defender" against the editor. The editor would actively have to show the community backs his change before he could push it through. In the proposed process, one single editor is enough to force a significant change through, and now the "defender" has to go out and inform people the page has been violated and actually has to gather support just to ''return'' to a state that everybody backs.
+
#Lastly, it is simply a question of common courtesy and "burden of proof" type of thinking - if somebody wants to make a change to a page, that person should be ready to prove that his change is "right" or "makes sense". It should not be required for the majority of the community to go to the talk page and prove the editor wrong, just to get the page they already agreed to back.<br>Community backing for a change should be secured ''before'' the change is made - not afterwards.
+
  
In the end, I can't help but think that the proposed process was proposed exactly ''because'' it allows to force rogue edits down the community's throat - because, one must not forget that the common process does not exist to stop changes - it just requires community backing to make them. In the discussions that spawned these proposals, that community backing was lacking. Several times, it was ''one person'' arguing for several days without support from others, but still trying to force their will upon the entire rest of the communtiy. It is obvious how these users would gain an advantage from the proposed process.
+
*Current Shows
 +
**[[N1ckola]]
  
Let me reiterate this: If someone makes a disputed, reverted edit, and can provide a reasonable explanation for the change, the community ''will'' back him, and the majority ''will'' reinstate the change even if the "defender" is of differing opinion. '''If a change finds support by the majority, the common process does not stop it.''' It just requires the ''undisputed'' revision to stay while the discussion is running, and that the ''change'' is justified, not the ''already accepted'' revision.
+
*Former Shows
 +
**[[lonelygirl15]]
 +
**[[KateModern]]
 +
**[[LG15: The Resistance]]
  
Also note that, in 90% of all cases, consent is automatically given by the fact that nobody disputes an edit. The large majority of edits on LGPedia does not get disputed. No matter how this text sounds on first glance, the common process does ''not'' require every single change to be largely justified. It just requires changes to be justified should they get disputed.
+
K, thanks! [[User:Kevin|Kevin]] 15:28, 12 February 2009 (CST)
----
+
Independent from this, I would like to have a policy on talk page threads, specifically outlining the following points:
+
*Indention
+
*Destruction of other user's posts
+
The former is something I regularly see in discussions - people seem to be entirely unaware of how to use indention to signify who they're replying to, regularly jumping back to the grandparent level without a note or connection to the grandparent post. This is not only annoying to read, but also destroys the flow of discussion, and thus confuses readers.
+
  
The latter is something platy does, in particular, and something I consider highly inappropriate: Placing replies to sub-points of a comment directly ''inside'' of the original comment.<br>
+
Actually, it should be:
If I have written a post, that is ''my'' post, and nobody has the right to change it except with my consent. It forms a union. Had I wanted to break it up and intermit it with comments, I'd have done that when I wrote it.<br>
+
We have a quote template. Especially I myself have demonstrated in the past how to use it to reply to select subpoints of previous posts. As such, ''there is no justification to alter someone else's post without consent''.<br>
+
I would like the talk page rules to specifically state that replies are to be made in a new, separate, independent post, without modifying the original post.
+
:~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 20:26, 4 April 2008 (CDT)
+
<small>P.S.: I am aware that I have followed platy's style in the recent discussion(s) - as you can see, I pointed out how impolite and inappropriate his behavior was multiple times, but he didn't listen. I had no other choice but to follow him in order to stay in the discussion, and since my posts had already been violated, it didn't make much difference. Still, I am very displeased with this behavior. My posts are mine and the only people who should be allowed to edit it without my consent are administrators.</small>
+
  
:The first point I'd like to make is that things here are and always have been decided by consensus. And while this ''can'' mean majority vote, it should more often be a comprise reached among all the parties involved. For example, instead of viewing an issue such as including a note as a debate between inclusion and exclusion, the discussion really should focus on what aspects of the note are worth including and what aspects are not. If it's the case that no part of the note should be kept, then so be it, but the focus should be '''cooperation toward a common goal'''. If this mindset is adopted, ideally discussions will look more like collaboration than debates. That's not to say there won't be disagreement (obviously in most cases that's why the discussion is taking place), but the driving force behind the discussion should be the desired result, not showing how the other person is wrong. Also, remember to {{wikipedia|WP:FAITH|assume good faith}} when it comes to other editors. Despite what it may seem, there is usually some reasoning behind every edit, so try to find the positive side of someone's contribution and build off of that.
+
*Current Shows
:Secondly, I understand the point about wanting to encourage additions, so I'd like to add my own thoughts about that. As I said above, the goal is to reach a compromise, or a final result that everyone involved is happy with. So, instead of simply removing the edit in question, try ''improving'' it instead. This way, the original editor doesn't feel like their edit was worthless, but the disputer also has the opportunity to fix what they believe is wrong about the change. Again, this doesn't always work, as some additions need to just be completely removed, but it's something to keep in mind.
+
**[[N1ckola]]
:In response to the main point of Renegade's post, I completely agree that we need a written policy on this, as this issue has been coming up a lot recently, and the lack of an official policy has made people question what exactly should be done. I have to say that I agree that the edit should stay off the page during the discussion, mainly for the reasons Renegade outlined. If the disputer does not completely revert the edit, but only modifies it, then obviously that new version can stay on the page while the discussion is happening. If, however, an edit war starts between two different versions of an edit (and this has happened before), the original, non-disputed one will be restored until a consensus can be reached on the talk page. Just to clarify, this applies only when the edits are simply going back and forth between versions, rather than gradually improving into a better version. The idea is to prevent senseless edit wars, not to hinder improvement. And just to reiterate, the vast majority of edits do not get disputed, so we're not saying that every edit must be explicitly accepted by the community. If no one contests it, that can be read as implicit consent and we can all go about our lives.
+
:Finally, concerning the talk page guidelines, that sounds like a good idea. Really, it's just common etiquette, but it's also something people may not be aware of right away. So if we do have such a policy, I think it's necessary to be lenient on newcomers who may not be aware of it, and just issue a friendly warning on the talk page, for example. If it becomes an issue to the extent that someone repeatedly refuses to follow the guidelines, actions would have to be taken, but hopefully we never get to that point.--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 01:03, 10 April 2008 (CDT)
+
::I'm with Jon. It's nice to point out that, in most cases, a revert in order to dispute an addition is ''not'' the best solution. We've been pretty good about making improvements to ambiguous or questionable language when prudent, and adding something about that into the policy might not be a bad idea. The proposed solution would be only when ''it is believed'' that an improvement upon an edit cannot be created and/or the edit should never have been made in the first place.
+
::I also think we should make a move to limit the people with the ability to use that happy "revert" button to only do so when the edit made is clearly in violation with pre-established guidelines. That'll probably make a lot of people happier. - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 09:24, 14 April 2008 (CDT)
+
:::I haven't had a chance to read this in its entirety yet, but I just wanted to point out that the only people with the rollback button are admins and spam-patrollers --[[User:Zoey|Zoey]] 10:53, 21 April 2008 (CDT).
+
  
::::After 17 days, that is all you have to say about this?
+
*On Hiatus
:::::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 13:39, 21 April 2008 (CDT)
+
**[[LG15: The Resistance]]
  
::::Sooooo....an entire month has passed and the administration unanimously decided to be indecisive and ignore the issue. And yet you complain when there are edit wars. Hypocrites.
+
*Upcoming Shows
:::::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 03:37, 4 May 2008 (CDT)
+
**[[LG15: The Last]]
 +
**[[Harper's Globe]]
  
== Auto-generating EpHeader inside the Blog template ==
+
*Former Shows
I will be the first to admit, this is random. But, at least in my mind, it might actually be a good idea. The [[Template:Blog|Blog template]] can detect whether an episode number is actually a number, and based on that, generate the Epcode or KMEpcode template accordingly. Going along the same principle, why can't we use the same test to auto-generate {{tl|EpHeader}} with the blog template? I, for one, would absolutely ''love'' not having to make sure the episode numbers match between the blog template and the epheader template, as having them NOT match happens probably more than it should.<br>
+
**[[lonelygirl15]]
Obviously we would have the epheader template pull the blog name, as well, so we could have the special characters when needed.
+
**[[KateModern]]
 +
--[[User:FH14|FH14]] 16:45, 12 February 2009 (EST)
  
What does everyone else think? I know LGBot and EvilRenegade might hate the suggestion, considering the work they'd have to do... :p
+
==New Layouts (sort of)==
 +
I'm creating this section to discuss all of the layouts on the Pedia, minus the Portals and main pages. Most layouts need some SERIOUS updating; they look like a rainbow threw up on them, and don't match anything. [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 08:03, 16 March 2009 (CDT)
 +
===Character pages===
 +
I designed a [[User:Shiori/Sandbox|new layout]] for the character pages. The only main differences are the edited Characterbox template to match the portal pages better (and unify font sizes and colors), and the abolition of those ''stupid'' stars on the page's subheaders. I'm open to suggestions, although I am rather fond of the way I set up the Characterbox template. [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 08:03, 16 March 2009 (CDT)
 +
:I like them a lot. Though the images for the Supporting Characters seem really small to me... --[[User:FH14|FH14]] 14:42 16 March 2009
 +
::I enlarged the images a bit; I can't make them ''too'' much bigger, since the main characters are supposed to have larger images, but it does look slightly better now. - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 13:45, 16 March 2009 (CDT)
 +
:::Looks good to me. --[[User:FH14|FH14]] 14:50, 16 March 2009 (EST)
  
'''Summary for people who are confused about what I just said:'''
+
Now that we can do stuff logged in again, I'm going to wait for some more comments on this. If I don't hear any major complaints, and can't find any pages that would be severely harmed by the newly updated version of the template, I'll put it up some time next week. [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 13:51, 30 March 2009 (CDT)
We currently have to do (essentially) {{tl|Blog}}{{tl|EpHeader}} on each episode page. I'm suggesting making it so that you'd only have to do {{tl|Blog}} on an episode page. All with no added user-side parameters! - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 19:05, 15 April 2008 (CDT)
+
  
:The current setup is as it is because, in the past, custom intro-paragraphs for episodes were not uncommon. We couldn't check how the headers of each episode looked like, so we just made LGBot add it everywhere so we could move around or remove the template where necessary.
+
===List of Video pages===
:I believe for KM I included EpHeader from the start, for this exact reason.
+
I honestly don't really enjoy the LoV pages on the Pedia, maybe we could do it sort of how it is over at the Harper's Globe wiki, but with a template? <span style="background:DarkSlateGray">[[User:Kevin|<font color="white">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''•Kevin•'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</font>]]</span> 19:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
:So while I agree it might be easier, all 450+ episodes would have to be checked to be sure it worked.
+
::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 20:50, 15 April 2008 (CDT)
+
  
::From what I can see (I only checked out about 50 blogs. I've edited more than that recently to get a pretty good sample size), all of the videos that this would apply to are currently using the EpHeader template. (Well, plus some additional verbage, but that would stay intact. So I can't see a problem. - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 20:57, 15 April 2008 (CDT)
+
== Creating Attention-grabbers page ==
  
'''Yep. Jon and I got this worked out last night. Discussion closed. :p''' - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 07:37, 16 April 2008 (CDT)
+
Per the original discussion [[Talk:Use of sex in lonelygirl15#The Future of This Page|here]], Zoey acknowledged the fact that the Use of Sex page is rather long and unnecessary. In response, I half-heartedly suggested that the best way to alter the page would be to create a page listing ALL of the attention-grabbers the Cs have ever used in the various series.
 +
The more I'm thinking about it, the more I think this was a good idea. Basically, I'm thinking of combining these pages into one: [[Use of sex in lonelygirl15]], [[The thumbnail trick]], [[Gunplay]], [[Four-letter words]], and a reference to [[Strange tags]]. (Jonas in a Bathtub should probably get added in to the sex information, too.)
 +
Some other pages could be added into this page, but I figured I'd open it up to everyone before I do anything. [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 08:33, 16 March 2009 (CDT)
 +
:I like the idea. Go for it and I'll help in whatever ways I'm needed. <span style="background:DarkSlateGray">[[User:Kevin|<font color="white">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''•Kevin•'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</font>]]</span> 20:17, 30 March 2009 (CDT)
 +
::All done. I created the page [[Attention-grabbers used in LG15]], made it more general, and replaced all of the existing links to the pages I merged into it. - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 19:44, 2 April 2009 (CDT)
  
==Puzzle Revamp==
+
== Final Community Content Suggestion ==
::''For a more detailed explanation, see [[Talk:Lonelygirl15 puzzles#The Puzzle "Revamp"]]''
+
I know several people are going to kill me for doing this, but I'm proposing that another "revamp" take place. Please note, it is on a much smaller scale than the one taking place, and is only in reference to puzzles in [[Lonelygirl15]] (including [[OpAphid]] and [[Jumper]]) and [[KateModern]] and how they are organized and represented on the pedia. --[[User:FH14|FH14]] 18:54, 19 April 2008 (EST)
+
  
:::For one, afaik, Jumper is not canon. At least we made very sure to limit its display on LGPedia. And for two, the only thing I constantly thought during reading both pages was "wtf?".
+
With the death of the ''previous two'' discussions on this subject, I bet everyone thought it would be left at that. However, I think we can all agree with Zoey's original opinion that something needs to be done to clean up existing content to get it to Pedia standards, as well as giving new series a guiding hand in how to cover their stuff on here.
:::Why do you want this? What purpose does it serve? Why forcefully limit the amount of space a puzzle can have?
+
:::For one, UGC puzzles fall under the general UGC Tier system. If you're not Tier 4 or higher, you can't even make a separate puzzle page anyway. So the only puzzles we're really talking about are OpAphid, LG15 and similar ones.
+
:::And these are finite.
+
:::The UGC revamp had to happen because any series keeps growing and growing and growing, and if a series is featured, it sucks when the pages are not up to date, and if a series is not all that notable, it sucks when it takes up more and more space. This does not apply to puzzles. Puzzles are over when they're over, and there are only two possibilities - either you covered them completely with both puzzle and solution, or you didn't. They don't grow after complete coverage. As such, there is no need to limit their expansion.
+
  
:::Series that are not notable do not get to create puzzle pages in the first place. Series that do get to create puzzle pages cannot expand them beyond "everything". Either a puzzle is covered completely, or it is not. There is no middle ground. If puzzles are so small they can be grouped on a single page, but aren't, this can be fixed as part of the normal pedia procedure, without a grand revamp.
+
So, I came up with some general guidelines, which are only slightly different than we had before, and yet vastly superior in ease of use and understanding.
:::As such, I, personally, think this revamp is unnecessary and unrealistic.
+
::::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 07:18, 21 April 2008 (CDT)
+
From what I understand, the proposition only affects series that would already merit puzzle pages? Is this correct? --[[User:Zoey|Zoey]] 10:50, 21 April 2008 (CDT)
+
:That is correct. This only affects puzzles for Lonelygirl15, KateModern, and OpAphid. (Jumper falls into a gray area, so I'm not exactly sure what to label it). Renegade is correct in that UGC series follow the guildlines set up by the revamp (i.e. Redearth88, Maddison Atkins. The Coalition, etc. are not part of the discussion. --[[User:FH14|FH14]] 11:56 21 April 2008 (EST)
+
::EDIT: I just read Renegade's message again. The problem is that some puzzles are small enough to be lumped together in one page, and some have more info. This is evident simply by viewing the [[Lonelygirl15 puzzles]] page. I admit, "Revamp" is probably the wrong word to use. Analysis maybe? Whatever the word, it looks strange if some puzzles are together on one page, while others have their own page (and if we grant each their own page, some puzzles have barely enough info to merit one. Should there be some index where one can access all the puzzles easily without searching through categories, or what? --[[User:FH14|FH14]] 12:33, 21 April 2008 (EST)
+
  
:::But that is exactly my point - either the puzzle description is complete, or not. Some are big enough to need entire pages, some are tiny and can live with a few lines. You cannot just cut down a puzzle description that's a page long - you'll either miss the puzzle, or the solution.
+
===Community Video Series===
:::And, like I said before, if any of the standalone puzzles don't merit their own pages, they can be put on the collective puzzle page as part of normal pedia operation - no need for a larger project.
+
All series will be permitted one page. In order to have a page on the Pedia, the following information should be available: start date, URL where the series can be watched (only necessary for still-available series), and a short summary. These elements may be expanded upon, but generally these would be wanted for a page.
::::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 13:39, 21 April 2008 (CDT)
+
'''''A one-liner page will be subject to deletion if it offers no good information about the series and cannot be expanded.'''''
  
== Lowercase letters starting titles of pages ==
+
The series can have one of THREE classifications:
 +
*'''Basic coverage''' - the default for all series. Series with this coverage are not allowed to have secondary pages for characters information, videos, or puzzles. (The sections other than video list are allowed, but must be on one page. There will be limitations on how much depth these can go into. Including a video list on a page will require an individual, or a group, to come forward as the official updater(s) of the page - for this coverage level ''only''.)
 +
*'''Partially-full coverage (characters/videos/puzzles)''' - Series with this classification are allowed secondary pages for character information OR videos OR puzzles. (Two coverage categories are allowed, but all three is the same as full coverage.)
 +
*'''Full coverage''' - Series with this classification are allowed to expand freely as their content maintainers deem necessary.
  
I am a bit confused on this. Why can't a lowercase letter begin the title of a page? I know, technical restrictions, but Wikipedia apparently can do that... Just a thought. [[User:SilverBULLETx3|SilverBULLETx3]] 12:22, 3 August 2008 (CDT)
+
:'''Automatic Re-classification:'''
 +
:#Series can be automatically re-classified if an element of the series is featured by the Creators. Only the element that was featured will be elevated, so, for instance, if a video is featured, the series will only be granted full coverage for the video section. (If only one video is featured, we may want to limit the transcribing to only that video; I haven't decided on this yet.) Featured content will get its own category.
 +
:#Re-classification can also be automatic if an element of the series is shown as canon, as was the case with Paul & Andrea. Only parts shown as canon will be re-classified, although two or more sections being deemed canon will escalate to full coverage. (Paul & Andrea showed the videos and characters to be canon, so they would get full-coverage.) Canon content will be categorized as such.
 +
:NOTE: In order to take advantage of automatic re-classification, a user must link to, or reference where the series was featured/canonized. If a link or reference is not provided, a discussion is the only way to get the series re-classified.
  
:Long story short, Wikipedia uses a plugin that isn't installed on the LG15 version of the MediaWiki. That's not to say it couldn't be, only that it isn't currently. There was another work-around Wikipedia had at one point, but IIRC, it was some crazy javascript that only worked part of the time. Plus, if you'll notice, all of Wikipedia's pages are still upper-case only, they just have a template that allows the title of the page to appear lowercase. At that point, I think you're more arguing semantics. (Our current blog template will show the title in the text of the page correctly, regardless of formatting.) - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 00:11, 12 August 2008 (CDT)
+
===Singular Videos===
 +
All videos will be listed on a single page with a one-line description and a link to the video. If the video is featured or deemed canon, it will be allowed a page for its transcription and will categorized accordingly. Many of the same guidelines that would apply to series would apply to the individual videos, such as a minimum content requirement.
  
==Alternative to revamp proposal==
+
===General Notes===
Seeing as the revamp seems to have fallen through, I'd like to make a proposition. Instead of a tier system, we have the consensus system. Basically, every '''series''' has the opportunity to have a comprehensive single page on the lgpedia. If someone believes that more pages are merited, they can propose it on the article's talk page. However, if the consensus allows for the expansion to occur, there has to be a user (or users) willing to take responsibility for their upkeep. Please keep in mind that this is just a proposal, and some details still have to be hashed out. --[[User:FH14|FH14]] 13 August 208 (EST)
+
*All UGC content will receive a box on their talk pages, describing what category they are (with a link to the descriptions of each), and the justification for it.
 +
*Content can be escalated beyond what happens automatically, but a consensus is required to do so. There will be a discussion page for all UGC content for this purpose, and once a decision is reached, an archive of the discussion will be posted on the talk pages.
 +
*A "starter template" will be created for both series pages and video pages, so we'll be able to unify the look of pages easier. I've created a preliminary idea of what the series template would look like [[User:Shiori/Template#New Sample Series Template|here]].
 +
*Also pertinent to this discussion would be whether we want to officially rename the UGC category to something more acceptable, such as "Community Videos" and "Community Series" (with Series being a sub-category of Videos, and both remaining a sub-category of Fan Stuff)
 +
*Another idea is whether we want to in some way differentiate series that relate to LG15, or go off in their own direction. I was thinking categorization may work, although even listing them in separate sections on the same listing could work, as well.
 +
----
 +
===Discussion===
 +
Feel free to expand on these. They're just a preliminary drawing up, after seeing where people disagreed in the last discussions and trying to resolve those issues while still striving for better content coverage. - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 13:18, 30 March 2009 (CDT)
 +
:It's certainly thorough. I agree that something needs to be done, and the guidelines that have just been proposed are the most fair that have been... well, proposed. The major problem I'd like to address is something that Shiroi touched on in the guidelines, and that is incomplete pages. The purpose of this is not for content creators to get their work featured only for no one to update and maintain the area. Also, series's that deviate completely from the LG15 canon have no place on the LGPedia (a la ''Sofia's Diary'' and ''Forevergrace'') except for special circumstances (a la ''With the Angels''). --[[User:FH14|FH14]]15:15  30 March 2009 (EST)
 +
::: One key factor is that anyone who wishes to mess with older series should invest the time to thoroughly research and view the entire series before moving stuff around. If you have not done that then you are not an authority on the subject and might do serious damage to LGPedia as an archive of valuable information in what you might think is an attempt to simply clean things up.--[[User:Modelmotion|modelmotion]] 14:06, 30 March 2009 (CDT)
 +
::::mm has a serious point, as I didn't realize how involved HSA was until I got down into it. The real problem is some of the series are no longer available for whatever reason, and we're lacking contributors with knowledge on the subject. That's pretty much why I felt the need to make that long post on LG15 Today.
 +
::::And, FH14, that was in my original proposal, but I didn't want to throw it out there without admin support, since that was never thoroughly discussed in the previous proposals. [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 14:31, 30 March 2009 (CDT)
 +
:::::FH14  said "Also, series's that deviate completely from the LG15 canon" - That has just never been the way LGPedia or LG15.com has been run.  It was always open to user generated content and none other then Miles Beckett encouraged us to create out own series.  The TOS also has an entire section on what are called "indies" that have no relationship to the LG15 story.  Fan creations have always been welcomed on LGPedia and to change that policy would not only violate the original intent but it would also destroy LGPedia. If you actually want to build up a user base you need to work with fans as contributers and creators in their own right. I think you have lost enough users by implementing very poor decisions. Do you really want to continue with that trend to oblivion?--[[User:Modelmotion|modelmotion]] 15:56, 30 March 2009 (CDT)
 +
::::::I'm afraid you misinterpreted what I said. Community Series that are considered "indie", such as the Coalition and Maddison Atkins, do not fall under the category of "deviating completely from the LG15 canon" There are elements, whether it be a strong connection to the community or a shared universe with a series that is heavily associated with LG15. There are some series, however, that have next to no relation to LG15 and shouldn't be covered, an example being Sofia's Diary, whose only connection is that it is another show hosted on Bebo. --[[User:FH14|FH14]] 17:42, 30 March 2009 (EST)
 +
:::::::I don't see any problem with having a page for shows such ''With the Angels'' or ''3rd Triad'' since these are done by members of the community and contain actors that have been in lg15. As long as it is no more than a page with some information about it and who is in it for the purpose of establishing it isn't some show added to the pedia like ''Sofia's Diary'' without any connection. --[[User:KindredPhantom|KindredPhantom]] 16:48, 30 March 2009 (CDT)
 +
::::::::Just going to add my thoughts here as a regular LGPedia editor - I agree with most of Shiori's aforementioned guidelines. I'm kind of confused on a few things, however. First, which series would get the "partially-full" coverage, and what factors are we going to take into consideration while deciding which two of the three categories it receives? Also, with the partially-full coverage, does it get individual pages for its videos, or just a list of videos page? My own thoughts on that are that only the fully covered series should have character pages, video pages, puzzle pages, etc - that would include Redearth88, Maddison Atkins, and possibly LonelyJew15 since Jenni Powell is working on it, and she used to work for EQAL. And then everything else would either go into a single page or "partially-full" coverage, which I'm still not entirely sure about. Could someone digress about that? Also, shows like "With the Angels" and "3rd Triad" could receive a single page - where shows like "Sofia's Diary" and "OzGirl" would not even be covered on the Pedia. <span style="background:DarkSlateGray">[[User:Kevin|<font color="white">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''•Kevin•'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</font>]]</span> 18:03, 30 March 2009 (CDT)
 +
:Here's how the "middle section" of the system would work (I moved this out, since the inlining would make it itty-bitty):
 +
:'''Partially-full coverage''' (I only chose that name because partial coverage implied it was getting less than basic) means that it would be allowed to expand into more than one page for ''only the section it has been granted extra coverage for''. So, if something was given Partially-full coverage (video), then it would be allowed to have transcripts or whatever anyone feels would be necessary to do justice to giving it coverage on the video section. As I said, I'm not sure whether we would want one featured video to bump a series up to allowing transcripts for ''every'' video, but in general, that's how it would work. This is the reason I created the allowance for individual sections to be granted partially-full coverage: so that we can readily expand on one section of a series without necessarily granting it the right to expand in all areas.
 +
:The categories it's allowed to expand come from either having a subject of that section featured by the C's (or based on a discussion specifically asking to expand a particular section for whatever reason). Like I said, we may want to lock it down so that if they feature a singular video, a full video list may be allowed, but only a transcript for that particular video would be allowed - I'm not sure of that, though. The same would apply for Characters or Puzzles.
 +
:I mainly created the category because I can't think of a good justification for prohibiting a series from expanding something that was featured or made canon, just as I can't think of a good reason to say that any series that has been featured in any way should get full coverage for every aspect of the series. [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 08:14, 31 March 2009 (CDT)
 +
::Sounds like a fair system that prevents the pedia from being cluttered with ever show. I have no objections. --[[User:KindredPhantom|KindredPhantom]] 14:59, 2 April 2009 (CDT)
 +
:::Since no one's had any objections to this, I'm going to try and flesh out the system and start tagging pages to fit the categories. - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 12:46, 4 April 2009 (CDT)
 +
::::Should we make templates for all three categories and then tag each UGC page accordingly? <span style="background:DarkSlateGray">[[User:Kevin|<font color="white">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''•Kevin•'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</font>]]</span> 14:39, 4 April 2009 (CDT)
 +
:::::Actually, I was going to make a template similar the ones they use on talk pages for Wikipedia projects. You could enter what class it was, and unless you enter a class AND a justification, it gets a basic class setting. It'll also have an area to set main contributors. I had started coding it earlier today, and then my browser crashed. Now I'm being hailed by the husband to actually get off my butt for the weekend, but I'll take care of it later. - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 22:19, 4 April 2009 (CDT)
  
::You might want to take this discussion over to Lucy's Balcony so that this page can focus on the actual series that need work on their pages.--[[User:Modelmotion|modelmotion]] 15:30, 13 August 2008 (CDT)
+
Alright, here's how this is working, if anyone wants to help me out. I'm going through EVERYTHING listed in [[:Category:User Generated Content]], to make sure I catch everything.
 +
#Tag content with {{tl|community content}}. (You may want to read the new pages about how I'm implementing it.)
 +
##If it's content that was never featured or not part of a series with extended coverage, mark it for deletion. (Mark any images included on these pages for deletion, as well.)
 +
##Videos that were featured are to be tagged as basic coverage, with a link to where they were featured. Also, add these to [[:Category:Featured content]]
 +
##I'm basing ratings off of the old [[LGPedia:UGC Tier List]], but factoring in the new rating system - all tier 1 and 2s will get basic coverage, 3s and 4s will generally get partially-full; use your judgment.
 +
#Add content to [[Community Content/Series]], [[Community Content/Videos]], or [[Community Content/Other]], based on what they are (other being things like commentors).
 +
#Move content from [[:Category:User Generated Content]] to [[:Category:Community content]], with series being signified as such by going in [[:Category:Community series]].
 +
We'll go through everything once we're done to figure out what meets coverage criteria. This is solely to get things tagged and worked on. - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 10:02, 7 April 2009 (CDT)
  
:I agree to this, in principle. HOWEVER, I do think we need to set up a minimum requirement for creating new pages, as people did go all willy-nilly last time. We do have a videos/minor series page, and I'd like to continue using it and/or fuse it into the new series page somehow. I'd say we need some requirements like this (and this is just my thoughts on the matter, mind):
+
'''Done.''' Everything's all moved around. FH14, if you want to start tagging stuff that's not LG15-related, you can do it now. Everyone, as much as I know you hate to hear it, his views about that kind of thing were come straight from the Creators. "Although we’re big fans of every great web series out there, because the LGPedia is dedicated to the LG15 Universe, it should only include information about shows in the LG15 Universe or featured on LG15.com." - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 12:09, 9 April 2009 (CDT)
:'''In order to justify series page:'''
+
:1. Series must be "significant" (in the eyes of the community). Generally speaking, this would require:
+
::a. Series must have x videos (5?) or a serious indication of numerous videos or longevity.
+
::''or''
+
::b. Series (or video) was featured on Inside LG15.
+
:2. Series page must have a justifiable amount of content. No single-sentence pages.
+
  
:We should probably establish minimum guidelines for added pages, as well, but I figured having guidelines that people can agree to before creating pages would help out in the long run. I guess what I'm looking for is people to expand or argue my proposed rules. We do really need something, but they shouldn't be arbitrary like they were before. More objective, less subjective. - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 10:50, 31 August 2008 (CDT)
+
:Okay, so I'm mainly working with the [[OpAphid ARG]], and I was just wondering (and this goes for all series that have full coverage) -- should it get a character page (I started working on a very rough one on [[OpAphid ARG characters]])? How about something like [[List of OpAphid ARG videos]]? [[OpAphid ARG locations]]? [[Redearth88 locations]], etc? <span style="background:DarkSlateGray">[[User:Kevin|<font color="white">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''•Kevin•'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</font>]]</span> 10:14, 11 April 2009 (CDT)
  
:I propose that all the "proposed for deletion" pages from the earlier proposed revamp be eliminated.  I am going to start erratically acting on that proposal unless anyone objects.  The way I see it, any completed or dormant fan-series just needs to be tied in a bow no matter many pages it has.  --[[User:Milowent|Milowent]] 21:45, 29 September 2008 (CDT)
+
== News Page/New Discussion Areas ==
  
==Change the Editing Warning Message==
+
I know, I'm just full of suggestions lately. ;P This I've been sitting on for a while, but I didn't want to mention it until our login ability was back. This comes in two forms:
When editing on the LGPedia, the current message reads:
+
#Ren wants to create a news aggregator that could link all things new in the LG15 Universe, which includes the Pedia. However, he needs a singular page with some sort of tag signaling news headlines and whatnot to use. This would obviously get us more coverage everywhere, so it'd be a benefit to all. I'm thinking we'd want to cover major discussions and updates, such as redesigns. We wouldn't want to cover new videos (at least not using the tag Ren will use to pull out news items), as he will be pulling feeds directly from LG15.com. Any suggestions on how this would work, what to include, etc. would be much appreciated.
 +
#Lucy's Balcony is a great place to list major suggestions, but other suggestions for updates really have no home other than on their articles' talk pages. I'm thinking we may want to create pages to list ALL discussions on proposed merges, deletions, what have you. Note: I am aware we have existing categories for these, but this would place the entire discussion for each in one area. It would be easier to look at a page listing all expansion/merge/etc. ideas in one place than trying to convince everyone to look at the teeny-tiny sidebar in Recent changes. We could obviously link to these pages from both there and here.
 +
I'm not even sure if we'd want to do this, since it would be a major change in how we're programmed to do business on the Pedia, but it is something to ponder. - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 13:27, 30 March 2009 (CDT)
 +
:I love the first idea very much! Perhaps it could work as a supplement to the Main Page that is placed above the series' links. (Or perhaps a preview of a said page on the Main Page that links to a full page with all the said info.) The second idea is definitely something to consider, through it all depends on how that could be executed. --[[User:FH14|FH14]]
  
"Please note that all contributions to LGPedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here.
+
::The idea sounds interesting but whilst reading through the [http://www.lg15.com/info/terms/ legal terms] for lg15.com:
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see [[LGPedia:Copyrights|Project:Copyrights]] for details). '''DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!'''"
+
  
I propose we replace this message with this improved version, with a less threatening, more respectful and more welcoming tone:
+
::Section 4, D:
 +
"You agree not to use or launch any automated system, including without limitation, "robots," "spiders," or "offline readers," that accesses the Website in a manner that sends more request messages to the lonelygirl15 servers in a given period of time than a human can reasonably produce in the same period by using a conventional on-line web browser."
  
"Please note that all contributions to LGPedia may be edited by other users in a collaborative fashion.  By adding content, you are asserting that it is your own work, that you have permission and have acknowledged the work of others by giving credit, or that it has been copied from a public domain or similar free resource (see [[LGPedia:Copyrights|Project:Copyrights]] for details). '''DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!'''"
+
::Does this prevent this idea from being implemented since it will pull information from Eqal servers? --[[User:KindredPhantom|KindredPhantom]] 16:41, 30 March 2009 (CDT)
  
::: Definitely more diplomatic. One of the problems with a pedia is that people do get upset when their contribution is deleted. Perhaps you could add something that addresses the more emotional issues regarding working on a pedia because ultimately most problems arise from "hurt feeling" rather than substantive facts.  Never underestimate the importance of the "touchy feely" part of the equation which is what I think the original post was trying to do in a rather poorly worded statement.--[[User:Modelmotion|modelmotion]] 15:22, 29 August 2008 (CDT)
+
:::That's quite interesting, KP - thanks for finding that. I'm not sure what that means for Ren's aggregator idea. About your other suggestion, Shiori, I agree that these things need to be on other places besides Recent changes, but how and where would we implement this? <span style="background:DarkSlateGray">[[User:Kevin|<font color="white">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''•Kevin•'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</font>]]</span> 18:05, 30 March 2009 (CDT)
  
== All introductions on lonelygirl15 video pages are gone!!! ==
+
::::For everything else I get so far, that is a decided '''no''', that license does not apply to my activities. For generating a feed from LGPedia's news, while I would not use pre-made RSS feeds as on the other sites, I would also not download and save the whole page, nor would I traverse the entire pedia. I would extract specific content from a singular page.
 +
::::I don't know the exact timing, but I've used Yahoo! Pipes in the past to merge RSS feeds, and it took a noticeable while longer than direct feeds for the videos to appear - the number thrown around in comments on the web is 30 minutes. I believe that is not quicker than the average video-addicted comment boarder refreshes the video page ;)
 +
::::In addition, I think you have the wrong license. [http://www.eqal.com/terms/ This one] is the one used on all of EQAL currently, through the link in the footer. I believe the only paragraph that even ''touches'' this project is 9., which, in my opinion, would be irrelevant, because I would not be "downloading" and "distributing" EQAL content, but content posted by "members" (you guys) - and since you guys would post news not only knowing full well I would aggregate them, but with the express purpose of that, there's really no surprise or violation of anyone's rights going on here.
 +
::::I haven't themed it yet, but if you want a sneak preview, have a look [http://the436.com here].
 +
::::It's already working fine, and focuses on LG15 and related stuff only (that is, it's not filled up with Harper's Globe).
 +
:::::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 00:32, 31 March 2009 (CDT)
  
We no longer have the whole "''name of video'' is the #th video in the lonelygirl15 video series. It is also the #th video in season #." I think something got messed up with Template:Blog, anyone wanna go check it out? I'm bad with HTML editing and stuff, so I can't fix anything. Just thought I'd bring it to the community's attention! [[User:SilverBULLETx3|SilverBULLETx3]] 00:42, 30 August 2008 (CDT)
+
==Maddison Atkins==
 +
I thought I should open this up for discussion. Maddison Atkins recently got a spiffy new website which includes a wiki. Because of this, it may make the most sense to move the information regarding MA from here at the LGPedia to the wiki devoted to it on its official website, and in its place, leaving a single page explaining the series a la the [[Harper's Globe]] page. That said, I think the Redearth88 info should stay put for now. Here's basically my idea:
 +
*A single page explaining the Maddison Atkins ARG.
 +
*Pages in that section to keep:
 +
**[[I Heard Pain, Odd Evil Fiction]] - Part of OpAphid
 +
**[[Maddison Atkins]] - Character page, abeit compressed. This one is a bit iffy, because she is also mentioned as a background character in RE88.
 +
**[[Gregory Atkins]] - Same logic as Maddison
 +
**[[War Pylol]] - Part of OpAphid and RE88
 +
**[[Dr. William Arscott]] - Same logic as Maddison and Gregory, but a bit more of a lean to keep.
 +
**[[15over15]] - Really a RE88 character
 +
Thoughts? Concerns? Suggestions? --[[User:FH14|FH14]] 14:20, 3 May 2009 (EST)
 +
:I like this idea. Should we start by making an HG-ish page for MA, under the name of [[Maddison Atkins ARG]], or something like that? <span style="background:DarkSlateGray">[[User:Kevin|<font color="white">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''•Kevin•'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</font>]]</span> 16:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  
:Fixed. There was some funky coding I hadn't realized needed to be removed from the EpHeader template when I added in the Resistance part of it. (It really wasn't ''that'' big of a deal, though... The exclamation points made me giggle.) - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 10:39, 31 August 2008 (CDT)
+
Why not just leave things alone as they should be. They are fine as were. Why change what is not broken?.--[[User:Modelmotion|modelmotion]] 03:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 +
:It doesn't make sense for identical information to be present in two places. The reason Harper's Globe isn't more present is because it has its own wiki. The information regarding Maddison Atkins would work better that the new wiki that has been made for it, and it doesn't make much sense to have two wikis containing the exact same information that would both need to be updated. --[[User:FH14|FH14]] 09:10, 14 May 2009 (EST)
 +
::Also, to add upon what FH14 said, if we were to pick one wiki to have the Maddison information on it, it would be the Maddypedia - Jeromy created it to be the official Maddison wiki and it wouldn't make sense to have information on the LGPedia about Maddison but not on the official Maddypedia. I mean, the Maddypedia is on Maddison Atkins's official website. <span style="background:DarkSlateGray">[[User:Kevin|<font color="white">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''•Kevin•'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</font>]]</span> 20:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 +
:::While I am not a very active participant in LGPedia anymore, so perhaps my word carries less weight now, but the fact that information is available in more than one place on the Internet is part of the strength of the Internet.  The current Maddison Atkins section of the LGPedia is pretty comprehensive and complete and isn't hurting anything as far as I can tell.  Plus, when there was an earlier brouhaha well over a year ago about which series were deserving of more attention on LGPedia, Maddy was near the top. Maddison Atkins is tied to Lonelygirl15, among other ways, through its connection to the lg15 community. In a few years from now, few will remember any of the shit we cared about as lg15 fans. But if we go about deleting parts of the lgpedia, it only helps ensure that those memories, as fleeting and inconsequential as they may be in the scheme of life, though deeply important to others as least for a period of time, are lost.--[[User:Milowent|Milowent]] 05:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  
==Banning users from editing certain pages?==
+
== Now that OpAphid is LG15 canon again... ==
  
I see Broken Kid has been editing a number of the pages that relate to the crew of the new show, and protecting them, i.e., notations say "EQAL-specific (not show-specific) info is locked for editing so that EQAL.com becomes official source of information."  Edits appear to include the removal of pictures and other selected information about these persons.  Now, I'm not the most active person on the LGPedia, but I do keep track of it generally.  Was this change discussed at all, and if not (or even if so), what do people think about it?  Locking numerous pages from editing makes LGPedia something different than a place to "give the fan community a place to collect information about the project," as the main page currently says.  The possiblity of this happening is always a concern with a fan-wiki hosted on an official site, I guess. --[[User:Milowent|Milowent]] 12:58, 7 September 2008 (CDT)
+
I would like to propose some points for how we should handle the content on the LGPedia.
  
::This isn't so much banning users as locking pages for EQAL staff and cast/crew. I've been asked to lock these so that the users or the company can make sure the information on these pages represents what the user wants. The only information that has been removed so far are pictures that they did not supply, ages/birthdates, and personal myspace page links. Because these pages are indexed and found via search engines, people have complained about the inclusion of information they don't want associated with their work on EQAL shows. So these are being updated, and admins can keep those pages updated. [[User:Broken Kid|Broken Kid]] 13:09, 7 September 2008 (CDT)
+
*'''Character pages''' (namely [[OpAphid]], [[Tachyon]], [[Brother]], and [[War Pylol]]) - I suggest that we get rid of the "OpAphid ARG characters" template. That way, these four characters can be tagged using the lonelygirl15 characters template (the way [[Suzie]] and [[Jack]] and [[Paladin]]s are), and the [[Redearth88]] characters template. For their "Person" template, it should be the LG15 color and not the RE88 color (considering they were first LG15 characters, and are once again currently LG15 characters). Now, some of these pages were set up a bit weird because OpAphid was an ARG, so these characters should get an introduction, a background section with several subsections (one of the subsections being their story in Redearth88), notes, etymology, references, etc. Also, we have to be especially careful with OpAphid's character page because it's gotten cluttered over time, as people have used it for the OpAphid show page. Two different OpAphids right there.
 +
*'''Portal:OpAphid ARG''' (formerly known as the AphidPedia) - This page has kind of left me dumbfounded. I sort of think we should treat OpAphid as a miniseries (equivalent to [[Watchyourjack]], [[Nikki Bower Report]], etc.), and WYJ and NBR don't have portals. One could argue that OpAphid played a much larger role in the actual LG15 storyline and that's true, but once again I'm not sure what to do with this page. If anybody has any suggestions, please comment below the entire post. Thanks!
 +
*'''OpAphid ARG''' (the show page) - This page is also kind of weird. When I first made it, I was considering OpAphid a miniseries. I even deleted the OpAphid portal but modelmotion didn't like that move, so I just made the two pages. Now that the show is LG15 canon, I honestly think it should be treated as a miniseries ARG. So my proposal is to delete the portal and keep the show page, unless somebody else has other ideas.
 +
*'''Redearth88''' and '''Redearth88 (show)''' (former parent series) - I was kind of stumped as to why Redearth88 is the portal. It would make more sense to me if Redearth88 was the show page, and then Portal:Redearth88 or something along those lines was a portal (if it's going to have a portal at all.
 +
*'''OpAphid puzzles''' and '''OpAphid drops''' - These pages should be the only two pages that exist on the 'Pedia for OpAphid puzzles and drops. I tried to re-do the OpAphid puzzles page but I don't think I'm knowledgable enough about the puzzles to make a difference. Right now, the way it's set up is that the "OpAphid puzzles" page and the "OpAphid drops" page link to dozens of other pages, each one detailing one puzzle or drop. I think that they should all be merged into OpAphid puzzles and OpAphid drops. Also, I think the pages should be moved to OpAphid ARG puzzles and OpAphid ARG drops. Merge the profile update pages and other things into these pages as well.
 +
*'''Operation APHID''' - Keep this page as a current division of the Order.
 +
*'''OPAPHID''' - Keep this page.
 +
*'''OpAphid ARG characters''' - Delete this page unless similar pages are created for "Watchyourjack characters" and "Nikki Bower Report characters."
 +
*'''Everything You Need to Play OpAphid''' - Delete or merge into the introduction of OpAphid puzzles.
 +
*'''Sebastian''' and '''Aly Zarin''' - Merge into [[Brother]] and [[Tachyon]].
  
:::Thanks for the quick explanation, BK.  I didn't mean users are being banned, just banned from editing these pages.  Even though I understand the rationale here, it seems like some policy needs to be put somewhere to explain that these pages are not subject to user edits.  That's important, because one of the primary theories of a wiki is that it improves with collaborative input of an entire community.  So, you can expect pages to be full of information, but not always 100% accurate or logical at any one time.  On the other hand, pages that are not edited by community collaboration can be taken by readers to be "official information", and thus interpreted in that light as EQAL's official position.  There are tons of pages on the LGPedia which are written in ways very different than they may have been written if done by EQAL staff, but with just as much (if not more) love.  --[[User:Milowent|Milowent]] 15:32, 7 September 2008 (CDT)
+
Any comments, replies, concerns, or questions? Leave them here, and thanks for reading! <span style="background:DarkSlateGray">[[User:Kevin|<font color="white">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''•Kevin•'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</font>]]</span> 00:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  
::This is just wrong.
+
===Comments===
 +
*My own question is whether OpAphid is in the Order still or not. In Redearth88, she departed from them but Miles has stated that Redearth88 is not LG15 canon. So... <span style="background:DarkSlateGray">[[User:Kevin|<font color="white">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''•Kevin•'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</font>]]</span> 00:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  
::EQAL always had the right to make authoritative edits. They have turned LGPedia from a wiki into their private PR machine.  What do they think we are... dancing monkeys?
+
Hey Kevin, thanks for your thoughts.
  
::I respect their ownership of LG15.com as private property but I have no respect for tyranny.  LGPedia has always treated EQAL respectfully but apparently that is not enough. I understand their desire to protect their corporate image but all facts on LGPedia are verified and public information. Exactly what dark secret is EQAL trying to hide?
+
Honestly though, after reading through all of this, I think it is just way too complicated.
  
::This is censorship. Nothing more, nothing less. Shame on you Greg Goodfried.--[[User:Modelmotion|modelmotion]] 17:00, 7 September 2008 (CDT)
+
OpAphid was originally its own series (not an LG15 miniseries), then it came together with Lonelygirl15, and then it seperated off again into its own thing (Redearth88). OpAphid was really always canon during the days it was canon, and not canon during the days it wasn't. Therefore, I think messing with the pages in this way undermines the integrity of the pages and kind of defeats the purpose its trying to achieve. I know you are trying to clarify, but I don't think we can clarify any better than has already been done, unless we can come up with a totally different and way simpler plan. --[[User:Zoey|Zoey]] 01:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  
This was posted on [[Inside LG15]] after the above posts:
+
:I'm with Kevin on this, if only because the way it's currently being done is mind fuck of infinite proportions. The puzzles can be rolled into the lg15 and RE88 puzzles, the characters can be rolled into the respective character pages. The operation itself can be left as-is. There's no need for its own little show page, or an "introduction" (I always think these are stupid). Regardless, I'm going to be redoing the designs because they're kind of fug right now (only colors; no graphics until the plan of attack is firmly decided). - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 13:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 
+
::Figured I'd clarify on this. Since the characters are all across two series, they should either be split into canon character pages and non (silly), or have two sections on each page clarifying what they did on lg15 vs RE88. If you do it this way, Aly and Sebastian can be merged. Otherwise, I wouldn't even attempt it. - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 17:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
"'''Update from the LG15 Universe'''
+
::: As I understand it there is only one OpAphid that dates back to pre-LG15.  The characters briefly entered into the LG15 story and that experience became canon. However that does not change the OpAphid experience which as far as we know is a single experience based and controlled by its creator.  Until we have any evidence to the contrary we could do serious damage to the integrity of the OpAphid experience by messing with this stuffIt is possible that as TSIY-2 develops we may see further clarification, but to claim that there are two independent OpAphid experiences at this point is simply not supported by factOpAphid was last seen in Redearth88 and we need to let events unfold before we know for sure how any OpAphid experience within the the LG15 Universe will unfold in the future and what that might mean for the OpAphid experience within Redearth88Those are decisions that are up to the creator of the OpAphid experience and all we know for now is that parts of that experience took place in the past within the LG15 Universe and parts were within Redearth88.--[[User:Modelmotion|modelmotion]] 18:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
September 7th, 2008
+
::::Here's my two cents. Basically, as OpAphid will soon exist as canon across another LG15 series and not just the original, it doesn't really fall into the same category as Nikki Bower or Watchyourjack. (It never really did, in my opinion, as it existed on its own before and after LG15, making it a series in its own right.) It falls under more of a "Companion Series", in my opinion. Anyway, in regards to the ideas proposed by Kevin. I agree with renaming the show and portal pages and merging the puzzles and drops. The OpAphid ARG characters page is something that can be deleted, as it seems to have been stick in a development limbo for about a year. Keep: Everything You Need to Play OpAphid, OpAphid Character Index Template, The Portal and The Show Page, Operation APHID, and OPAPHID. I agree with what Shiori said about having a section on each character page devoted to the events on Redearth88, but I'm wary about merging Aly Zarin with Tachyon simply becuase it would eradicate the eight character setup for Redearth88 (as I'm quite OCD about that and It might cause me pain. :P) But this is just what I think. Feel free to disagree. --[[User:FH14|FH14]] 14:44, 17 October 2009 (EST)
 
+
::::: It would be very easy to do a lot of serious damage by moving things around. There is a lot of history here and it is very important stuff. --[[User:Modelmotion|modelmotion]] 18:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
As you know, we are preparing for a re-launch of the LG15 website that will include a new homepage (this is live now at LG15.com), the launch of the LG15 social network (holding page is live at LG15.com/theresistance), and a re-designed look/feel for Inside LG15 and the LGPedia to match the rest of the site. We’re really excited about the new social network and the new look/feel. One thing that we are doing as part of this process is to bring as much official information into the LGPedia as possible.
+
:::::: Exactly, mm, but If we tread carefully and make well-thought out decisions in regards to this, the potential for damage is significantly lessened. --[[User:FH14|FH14]] 14:56, 17 October 2009 (EST)
 
+
From the very beginning we created the LGPedia to be the #1 source for information about the LG15 universe and we chose to use wiki software so that it could be edited and improved by the fans. Thanks to the tireless efforts of Zoey and other contributors the LGPedia has flourished. It’s truly amazing. What we’d like to do going forward is to provide as much official graphics and information as possible so that the LGPedia is up-to-date and as thorough and exhaustive of a resource as it can possibly be. Additionally, we’ve had requests from cast and crew members and EQAL employees to put some guidelines in place concerning the inclusion of their personal information in the LGPedia. We really need to respect people’s privacy and thought this was a fair request. With this in mind Broken Kid is in the process of placing certain pages under administrator-only control so that we can protect people’s privacy and provide accurate information. These pages include all the cast, crew, and EQAL employee pages, and anything that refers to real people and real events/locations.
+
 
+
Please understand that the VAST majority of LGpedia will remain 100% community editable, including ALL of the pages and sections that refer to the fictional elements of shows in the LG15 Universe. We’re very excited about the increased profile the LGPedia will be taking within the LG15 universe, including the link on the homepage, and eventually inclusion throughout the site in a more integrated fashion.
+
 
+
Thanks!
+
 
+
--[[User:Milowent|Milowent]] 20:10, 7 September 2008 (CDT)
+
 
+
::Like I said this is a corporate coup by Eqal, Inc. in an attempt to seize control of the fan run LGPedia.  They always had the ability to make authoritative edits and their was no need for this change in policy. This is just pure censorship. Nothing more, nothing less.  It is supposed to be a fan run wiki, not a public relations mouth piece for Eqal, Inc.--[[User:Modelmotion|modelmotion]] 21:43, 7 September 2008 (CDT)
+
 
+
::Am I allowed to ask why only certain cast and crew members are locked, and others are not? You'll find that [[Jackson Davis]] and [[Alexandra Dreyfus]], for example, are unlocked while [[Marnette Patterson]] and [[Brett Ryback]] are locked. Why? --[[User:TheNunOwnedGoat|Andy]] 21:54, 9 September 2008 (CDT)
+
 
+
:::I haven't gotten to all of them yet. I still have to get to major actors and KateModern crew. [[User:Broken Kid|Broken Kid]] 08:29, 10 September 2008 (CDT)
+
 
+
::I agree completely with MM, this is censorship, they think that this is a dictatorship and information can be omitted where it suits them. LGPedia is supposed to be FAN run not EQAL run. [[User:Danielbeast24790|Danielbeast24790]] 16:17, 29 September 2008 (CDT)
+
 
+
== LGPedia width ==
+
 
+
As some of you have [http://www.lg15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page#Thin.3F noticed] the width of LGPedia has been reduced lately. I queried this on the [http://www.lg15.com/bbsposts/list/2/35/78/1 new forum] and was told that it was given a fixed width in order to fit in with the rest of the site's design. With this fixed width some users such as [http://s16.photobucket.com/albums/b40/Xer0_/?action=view&current=wikiwidth.png myself]see a smaller thiner LGPedia whilst users like modelmotion have a LGpeida that takes over the full length of their screen.
+
After discussing the possibility of returning it to the way it was a compromise was suggested.
+
{{quote|Casey|What I think I could do is offer you a variable width "Skin" that you could set in your profile settings.
+
This would only affect the page if you are logged in. I will have to do some research to determine exactly how to implement this change, so it may take some time. Would this be a suitable fix for those of you who require variable width Wiki'ing?}}
+
Modelmotion in the thread suggested to Casey that this be discussed on LGPedia but he does not seem interested in discussing it on here. So i decided to post a discussion about it on here if he will not. --[[User:KindredPhantom|KindredPhantom]] 05:19, 24 September 2008 (CDT)
+
 
+
That would help if he could fix it up a little--[[User:Iris2009|TJ Marsh]] 12:03, 24 September 2008 (CDT)
+
 
+
:::The solution proposed by Casey would appear to work on a "one on one" basis unless it was the default option. If we choose a "one on one" solution we would then have created the problem of how to communicate the existence of a preference to the entire user base of LGPediaFor this reason I think it better to actually implement a better version of the actual web design code that would offer more flexibility to LGPedia users in terms of width.
+
 
+
:::I understand that there might be design issues within LGPedia that would benefit from some sort of minimum widthThe current setting is too wide for my needs. On the contrary, it is to narrow for other users, and hence the code implemented by Eqal has raised a lot of issues that we should discuss.
+
 
+
:::In addition we should also discuss how the actual skin implemented by Eqal affects the overall appearance of the lonelygirl15 and katemodern portalsWe understand what Eqal is trying to do but we also have to protect the interests of the community when it comes to LGPedia because a lot of work has been put into various design projects.--[[User:Modelmotion|modelmotion]] 00:06, 25 September 2008 (CDT)
+
 
+
::Perhaps someone with programming skills could take a look at the code Eqal is using and we could come up with a better solution for Eqal Inc to implement.--[[User:Modelmotion|modelmotion]] 08:49, 3 October 2008 (CDT)
+
 
+
== Heads-up for potential posters: This page is worthless. ==
+
 
+
While I refuse to contribute due to the evident hypocrisy of the administration, I am of course still lurking in the dark, watching all the silly things you do. While that is usually a pretty boring thing to do, one thing has always confused me to no end:<br>
+
'''Why do people still post on this page?'''
+
 
+
I mean, look at the logs (today is {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}):
+
 
+
{|
+
!Date
+
!Admin
+
!Kind of Post
+
|-
+
|style="width:11em"|6 July 2008
+
|style="width:7em"|Zoey
+
|[http://www.lg15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=LGPedia:Lucy%27s_Balcony&diff=134934&oldid=129683 Tiny cleanup: Removed category linking]
+
|-
+
|8 June 2008
+
|Zoey
+
|[http://www.lg15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=LGPedia:Lucy%27s_Balcony&diff=129683&oldid=124743 Tiny cleanup: Removed category linking]
+
|-
+
|21 April 2008
+
|Zoey
+
|[http://www.lg15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=LGPedia:Lucy%27s_Balcony&diff=122630&oldid=122627 Personal comment] (iow, nothing in her function as administrator)
+
|-
+
|21 April 2008
+
|Zoey
+
|[http://www.lg15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=LGPedia:Lucy%27s_Balcony&diff=122625&oldid=122624 Stalling, completely unrelated information]
+
|-
+
|21 April 2008
+
|Zoey
+
|[http://www.lg15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=LGPedia:Lucy%27s_Balcony&diff=122624&oldid=122543 Question for clarification] (iow, nothing in her function as administrator)
+
|-
+
|'''10 April 2008'''
+
|'''Jonpro'''
+
|'''[http://www.lg15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=LGPedia:Lucy%27s_Balcony&diff=119591&oldid=117956 Large reply on the policies issue] (need I mention that he only posted after I brought the discussion up on IRC, and told him he should comment?)'''
+
|-
+
|4 April 2008
+
|Phoenician
+
|[http://www.lg15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=LGPedia:Lucy%27s_Balcony&diff=117876&oldid=117161 Cleanup: Archived old issues] (iow, nothing in his function as administrator)
+
|-
+
|'''1 April 2008'''
+
|'''Jonpro'''
+
|'''[http://www.lg15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=LGPedia:Lucy%27s_Balcony&diff=117161&oldid=116712 Suggestion, asking for thoughts]'''
+
|-
+
|31 March 2008
+
|Zoey
+
|[http://www.lg15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=LGPedia:Lucy%27s_Balcony&diff=116712&oldid=115963 Tiny cleanup: Removed category linking]
+
|-
+
|'''20 March 2008'''
+
|'''Jonpro'''
+
|'''[http://www.lg15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=LGPedia:Lucy%27s_Balcony&diff=113425&oldid=113401 Suggestion, asking for thoughts]'''
+
|-
+
|'''18 March 2008'''
+
|'''Jonpro'''
+
|'''[http://www.lg15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=LGPedia:Lucy%27s_Balcony&diff=112862&oldid=112583 Endorsing a suggestion]'''
+
|-
+
|17 March 2008
+
|Phoenician
+
|[http://www.lg15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=LGPedia:Lucy%27s_Balcony&diff=112575&oldid=112566 Link fix for next listing]
+
|-
+
|17 March 2008
+
|Phoenician
+
|[http://www.lg15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=LGPedia:Lucy%27s_Balcony&diff=112566&oldid=112565 Note about naming conventions]
+
|-
+
|'''17 March 2008'''
+
|'''Jonpro'''
+
|'''[http://www.lg15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=LGPedia:Lucy%27s_Balcony&diff=112550&oldid=111506 Initiating new discussion]'''
+
|-
+
|13 March 2008
+
|Zoey
+
|[http://www.lg15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=LGPedia:Lucy%27s_Balcony&diff=111389&oldid=110616 Prettifying The Balcony]
+
|-
+
|11 March 2008
+
|Phoenician
+
|[http://www.lg15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=LGPedia:Lucy%27s_Balcony&diff=110247&oldid=110246 Fixing heading for next listing]
+
|-
+
|'''11 March 2008'''
+
|'''Phoenician'''
+
|'''[http://www.lg15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=LGPedia:Lucy%27s_Balcony&diff=110246&oldid=109741 Initiating new discussion]'''
+
|-
+
|11 February 2008
+
|Zoey
+
|[http://www.lg15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=LGPedia:Lucy%27s_Balcony&diff=102930&oldid=102929 Tiny cleanup: Delinking]
+
|-
+
|11 February 2008
+
|Zoey
+
|[http://www.lg15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=LGPedia:Lucy%27s_Balcony&diff=102929&oldid=102083 Tiny cleanup: Delinking]
+
|-
+
|'''2 February 2008'''
+
|'''Zoey'''
+
|'''[http://www.lg15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=LGPedia:Lucy%27s_Balcony&diff=101640&oldid=101638 Making a statement on the Jumper issue]'''
+
|}
+
 
+
There has been no real administrative post on this page since '''10 April 2008''', and no real administrative post by the head admin since '''2 February 2008'''. Just tiny little link fixes and stalling tactics. Even if you disagree with the value of posts and want to go with the first available post, the last ''edit'' of an LGPedia admin on this page was still '''{{#expr:({{#time: U|{{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}}}-{{#time:U|6 July 2008}})/60/60/24}} days ago'''.
+
 
+
The only person with administrative powers that recently posted on here is BK - and not because of issues in or around of the pedia, but because people questioned a decision made by ''EQAL'' - in other words, hadn't outside forces commanded BK to do an unpopular action, and hadn't somebody questioned that action, he wouldn't have posted here, either. His posts are due to business decisions by EQAL, not because of administrative issues on LGPedia. It's a mere coincidence he posted here, and the fact stands that he is not a real LGPedia admin, either. He's "just" the general community admin. Not directly responsible for LGPedia, and not directly involved in its administrative decisions.
+
 
+
And while you're at it, look at the gaps between posts:
+
 
+
2 February 2008 - '''9 days ''' - 11 February 2008 - '''28 days ''' - 11 March 2008 - '''2 days ''' - 13 March 2008 - '''4 days ''' - 17 March 2008 - '''1 day''' - 18 March 2008 - '''2 days ''' - 20 March 2008 - '''11 days ''' - 31 March 2008 - '''1 days ''' - 1 April 2008 - '''3 days ''' - 4 April 2008 - '''6 days ''' - 10 April 2008 - '''11 days ''' - 21 April 2008 - '''17 days ''' - 8 June 2008 - '''28 days ''' - 6 July 2008 - '''{{#expr:({{#time: U|{{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}}}-{{#time:U|6 July 2008}})/60/60/24}} days and counting''' - Today
+
{|align="center"
+
|
+
|9
+
|-
+
|&nbsp;+
+
|28
+
|-
+
|&nbsp;+
+
|2
+
|-
+
|&nbsp;+
+
|3
+
|-
+
|&nbsp;+
+
|1
+
|-
+
|&nbsp;+
+
|2
+
|-
+
|&nbsp;+
+
|11
+
|-
+
|&nbsp;+
+
|1
+
|-
+
|&nbsp;+
+
|3
+
|-
+
|&nbsp;+
+
|6
+
|-
+
|&nbsp;+
+
|11
+
|-
+
|&nbsp;+
+
|17
+
|-
+
|&nbsp;+
+
|28
+
|-
+
|&nbsp;+
+
|{{#expr:({{#time: U|{{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}}}-{{#time:U|6 July 2008}})/60/60/24}} (time since last touch until today)
+
|-
+
|'''Total:'''
+
|{{#expr:9+28+2+3+1+2+11+1+3+6+11+17+28+({{#time: U|{{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}}}-{{#time:U|6 July 2008}})/60/60/24}}
+
|-
+
|'''Average:'''
+
|{{#expr:(9+28+2+3+1+2+11+1+3+6+11+17+28+({{#time: U|{{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}}}-{{#time:U|6 July 2008}})/60/60/24)/14}}
+
|}
+
 
+
So even on the raw data, the average "care time" (i.e. the average amount of days before the administration cares enough to touch the page again) of the administration is '''{{#expr:(9+28+2+3+1+2+11+1+3+6+11+17+28+({{#time: U|{{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}}}-{{#time:U|6 July 2008}})/60/60/24)/14}} days'''.<br>
+
But that includes even stuff that has no administrative value ''at all'', like randomly fixing a dead link on the page (even anonymous users could do that, you don't need to be head admin for that). So, let's take only the significant posts listed above:
+
 
+
2 February 2008 - '''37 days''' - 11 March 2008 - '''6 days''' - 17 March 2008 - '''1 day''' - 18 March 2008 - '''2 days''' - 20 March 2008 - '''12 days''' - 1 April 2008 '''9 days''' 10 April 2008
+
 
+
If you only take the time frame between February 2nd and April 10th, that comes out as an average care time of '''{{#expr:(37+6+1+2+12+9)/6}} days''' between responses. So far so good. But with the lack of any significant administrative action ''to the current day'' factored in, we come to an average of '''{{#expr:(37+6+1+2+12+9+({{#time: U|{{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}}}-{{#time:U|10 April 2008}})/60/60/24)/7}}'''!
+
 
+
In other words: ''On average, there is an actual statement of the administrators of LGPedia in their position as administrators every {{#expr:((37+6+1+2+12+9+({{#time: U|{{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}}}-{{#time:U|10 April 2008}})/60/60/24)/7)/7}} weeks on this page.'' Mind, though, that that average includes a particularly "active" period 6 months ago. Remember: The last actual administrative action was on '''April 10th''' - so the "average" response time for the past {{#expr:(({{#time: U|{{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}}}-{{#time:U|10 April 2008}})/60/60/24)/30}} months would be '''{{#expr:({{#time: U|{{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}}}-{{#time:U|10 April 2008}})/60/60/24}} days'''.
+
 
+
As if that alone wasn't shocking/showing enough, consider the following: Of all 7 posts of administrative significance in the past {{#expr:{{CURRENTMONTH}}-02+12}} months, '''5''' (71.43%) were by Jonpro. The actual Head Administress of LGPedia last made a real contribution to the burning questions of the site '''{{#expr:({{#time: U|{{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}}}-{{#time:U|2 February 2008}})/60/60/24}} days ago'''.
+
In other words, if Jonpro ever goes on vacation, the average care time will shoot up to '''{{#expr:(37+({{#time: U|{{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}}}-{{#time:U|11 March 2008}})/60/60/24)/2}} days'''.<br>
+
''Do you see how much they care for your issues?''
+
 
+
To come full circle to the original reason of my post: Just look at all the ''months old'' unresolved issues the administration refuses to take a stance on, take note that the only resolved issues were resolved elsewhere, and then ask yourself: ''If I want something to happen about it - does it really make sense to post my issue ''here''?''
+
 
+
Just thought I'd bring that up - 'cause the balcony keeps popping up in recent changes, but nothing ever actually happens on it. You're wasting your time. '''If you want stuff to happen, this is not the place to post your issues.''' Try taking it to admin talk pages instead.<br>
+
Then again...the administration is not famous for seeing notices on pages >_>
+
 
+
Have a nice day :)
+
:~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 17:42, 29 September 2008 (CDT)
+
:<small>P.S.: If you want to reply to complain that this is spam and not important, please make sure to include an explanation of how LGPedia is supposed to make progress if everything is stalled because the administration doesn't give a shit about what's happening, and doesn't support grassroots motions for change. Thank you.</small>
+
:: Don't ever say that Renegade is not ace at bearing a grudge. --[[User:Milowent|Milowent]] 21:43, 29 September 2008 (CDT)
+
::: This is so true and I think that Zoey shouldn't be an admin because she doesn't edit. That goes for all three admins. They should at least be more active or something because that's just ridiculous. Make others admins not me because I don't edit but someone who does.--[[User:Houdini|Houdini]] 18:44, 6 January 2009 (CST)
+
::::Zoey has over 20,000 edits.  She hasn't been active in doing as many edits recently, but I know she is still looking over things. The LGPedia is mostly quieter because the audience got a lot smaller after both KM and LG15 ended. --[[User:Milowent|Milowent]] 23:42, 6 January 2009 (CST)
+
 
+
== Admin ==
+
 
+
This probably isn't a good move, but I'd like to request a consideration of me being moved to admin. There are SO many changes that I'd like to see made to this wiki but I personally can't do anything as a regular editor. You can review my edits, etc. Just please think about it and get back to me here, anyone who could make that change. (Also, I was formerly [[User:SilverBULLETx3|SilverBULLETx3]] as well.) [[User:Kevin|Kevin]] 09:54, 16 January 2009 (CST)
+
 
+
== "Current shows, former shows" ==
+
 
+
Over on the sidebar, it has "Current shows: LG15: The Resistance", and "Former shows: lonelygirl15, KateModern." This obviously does not apply anymore. What it should say is:
+
 
+
*Upcoming Shows
+
**[[LG15: The Last]]
+
**[[Harper's Globe]]
+
 
+
*Current Shows
+
**[[N1ckola]]
+
 
+
*Former Shows
+
**[[lonelygirl15]]
+
**[[KateModern]]
+
**[[LG15: The Resistance]]
+
 
+
K, thanks! [[User:Kevin|Kevin]] 15:28, 12 February 2009 (CST)
+
 
+
Actually, it should be:
+
 
+
*Current Shows
+
**[[N1ckola]]
+
 
+
*On Hiatus
+
**[[LG15: The Resistance]]
+
 
+
*Upcoming Shows
+
**[[LG15: The Last]]
+
**[[Harper's Globe]]
+
 
+
*Former Shows
+
**[[lonelygirl15]]
+
**[[KateModern]]
+
--[[User:FH14|FH14]] 16:45, 12 February 2009 (EST)
+

Latest revision as of 18:56, 17 October 2009

If you cannot access this page for whatever reason, please use LGPedia:Emma's Hideout
A couple of LGPedia admins (Jonpro & Phoenician) take a breather to admire the view from Lucy's Balcony.
Zoey, one of your LGPedia admins, frolics with the doves on Lucy's Balcony.


Welcome to Lucy's Balcony, a place to ask questions or discuss general issues about the LGPedia. This page is intended to be a place where admins and active editors can discuss ongoing issues, ideas and concerns. To start a new thread, click here. Please remember to sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end.

For old or inactive conversations, visit Lucy's archive.



Character Pages Discussion

Okay, so there's been some talk as to the condition of the character pages we have here on the Pedia. Just bring everyone up to speed, here's what's been said so far:

Zoey, I've been pondering this for some time and thought I may as well ask you about it. Why is it that we do an entire "story so far" on every main character page? Wouldn't it be easier to just highlight the big stuff under "background" and pay more attention to keeping up the The Story So Far.... I mean, it just seems like our character pages are going to be so huge that no one will read the entire thing when we could be using the really good parts of each character background to make a really awesome page for our story so far, plus it would be less work for each character page and more people would actually edit our story so far page instead of it being left for months without any work done to it. I hope that all makes sense as now I'm looking at it and seems quite long, anyway, it's not that big of deal, just thought I'd throw that out there. Nancypants 19:20, 19 February 2008 (CST)
I think you have a completely valid point. I've actually been pondering implimenting something to that effect for a long time. The only thing is, I couldn't figure out how to do up the characters' pages so that this would work. Do you have any ideas... maybe a mockup of a page idea so I (and others) can kind of get a better idea of what exactly you have in mind? I'd love to see it! --Zoey 14:55, 10 March 2008 (CDT)
OK, this is proving harder than I had thought it would be. It's difficult to decide what to do with it. Maybe we should start a discussion or something to get other people's input because I really do think it would be better to have the character pages be shorter, but I don't know where to start! By the way I'm not going to be able to do quite as much editing as I have been because people at work are getting suspicious. :( Nancypants 19:07, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

So yeah -- thoughts, people? --Pheon 11:38, 11 March 2008 (CDT)

Well, first I think we should get rid of any sections that are covered in other places (ie: Daniels relationship section and Jonas's fan activity section) and just put links to them at the bottom with the theory links. EDIT: I have made a fake Daniel page here so if anyone has ideas please feel free to mess around and change things, it's just my sandbox. Nancypants 20:36, 13 March 2008 (CDT)

Now that I've had time to look over the proposed page, I must say, I like it! - Shiori 12:54, 12 April 2008 (CDT)
I rather like the page too! I think it needs to be fleshed out in some parts (don't ask me where! if I could put my finger on it, I'd totally tell you! lol)... I just feel like it's a bit bare... but really... it's SO on the right track! --Zoey 11:03, 21 April 2008 (CDT)
NOTE: Since Nancy seems to have taken a hike, I'm considering taking this up again. I think we're in desperate need for this kind of thing on some pages, especially as characters span series. If anyone has anything further to suggest on this, please do. - Shiori 08:14, 16 March 2009 (CDT)

Admin

This probably isn't a good move, but I'd like to request a consideration of me being moved to admin. There are SO many changes that I'd like to see made to this wiki but I personally can't do anything as a regular editor. You can review my edits, etc. Just please think about it and get back to me here, anyone who could make that change. (Also, I was formerly SilverBULLETx3 as well.) Kevin 09:54, 16 January 2009 (CST)

"Current shows, former shows"

Over on the sidebar, it has "Current shows: LG15: The Resistance", and "Former shows: lonelygirl15, KateModern." This obviously does not apply anymore. What it should say is:

K, thanks! Kevin 15:28, 12 February 2009 (CST)

Actually, it should be:

--FH14 16:45, 12 February 2009 (EST)

New Layouts (sort of)

I'm creating this section to discuss all of the layouts on the Pedia, minus the Portals and main pages. Most layouts need some SERIOUS updating; they look like a rainbow threw up on them, and don't match anything. Shiori 08:03, 16 March 2009 (CDT)

Character pages

I designed a new layout for the character pages. The only main differences are the edited Characterbox template to match the portal pages better (and unify font sizes and colors), and the abolition of those stupid stars on the page's subheaders. I'm open to suggestions, although I am rather fond of the way I set up the Characterbox template. Shiori 08:03, 16 March 2009 (CDT)

I like them a lot. Though the images for the Supporting Characters seem really small to me... --FH14 14:42 16 March 2009
I enlarged the images a bit; I can't make them too much bigger, since the main characters are supposed to have larger images, but it does look slightly better now. - Shiori 13:45, 16 March 2009 (CDT)
Looks good to me. --FH14 14:50, 16 March 2009 (EST)

Now that we can do stuff logged in again, I'm going to wait for some more comments on this. If I don't hear any major complaints, and can't find any pages that would be severely harmed by the newly updated version of the template, I'll put it up some time next week. Shiori 13:51, 30 March 2009 (CDT)

List of Video pages

I honestly don't really enjoy the LoV pages on the Pedia, maybe we could do it sort of how it is over at the Harper's Globe wiki, but with a template?   •Kevin•   19:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Creating Attention-grabbers page

Per the original discussion here, Zoey acknowledged the fact that the Use of Sex page is rather long and unnecessary. In response, I half-heartedly suggested that the best way to alter the page would be to create a page listing ALL of the attention-grabbers the Cs have ever used in the various series. The more I'm thinking about it, the more I think this was a good idea. Basically, I'm thinking of combining these pages into one: Use of sex in lonelygirl15, The thumbnail trick, Gunplay, Four-letter words, and a reference to Strange tags. (Jonas in a Bathtub should probably get added in to the sex information, too.) Some other pages could be added into this page, but I figured I'd open it up to everyone before I do anything. Shiori 08:33, 16 March 2009 (CDT)

I like the idea. Go for it and I'll help in whatever ways I'm needed.   •Kevin•   20:17, 30 March 2009 (CDT)
All done. I created the page Attention-grabbers used in LG15, made it more general, and replaced all of the existing links to the pages I merged into it. - Shiori 19:44, 2 April 2009 (CDT)

Final Community Content Suggestion

With the death of the previous two discussions on this subject, I bet everyone thought it would be left at that. However, I think we can all agree with Zoey's original opinion that something needs to be done to clean up existing content to get it to Pedia standards, as well as giving new series a guiding hand in how to cover their stuff on here.

So, I came up with some general guidelines, which are only slightly different than we had before, and yet vastly superior in ease of use and understanding.

Community Video Series

All series will be permitted one page. In order to have a page on the Pedia, the following information should be available: start date, URL where the series can be watched (only necessary for still-available series), and a short summary. These elements may be expanded upon, but generally these would be wanted for a page. A one-liner page will be subject to deletion if it offers no good information about the series and cannot be expanded.

The series can have one of THREE classifications:

  • Basic coverage - the default for all series. Series with this coverage are not allowed to have secondary pages for characters information, videos, or puzzles. (The sections other than video list are allowed, but must be on one page. There will be limitations on how much depth these can go into. Including a video list on a page will require an individual, or a group, to come forward as the official updater(s) of the page - for this coverage level only.)
  • Partially-full coverage (characters/videos/puzzles) - Series with this classification are allowed secondary pages for character information OR videos OR puzzles. (Two coverage categories are allowed, but all three is the same as full coverage.)
  • Full coverage - Series with this classification are allowed to expand freely as their content maintainers deem necessary.
Automatic Re-classification:
  1. Series can be automatically re-classified if an element of the series is featured by the Creators. Only the element that was featured will be elevated, so, for instance, if a video is featured, the series will only be granted full coverage for the video section. (If only one video is featured, we may want to limit the transcribing to only that video; I haven't decided on this yet.) Featured content will get its own category.
  2. Re-classification can also be automatic if an element of the series is shown as canon, as was the case with Paul & Andrea. Only parts shown as canon will be re-classified, although two or more sections being deemed canon will escalate to full coverage. (Paul & Andrea showed the videos and characters to be canon, so they would get full-coverage.) Canon content will be categorized as such.
NOTE: In order to take advantage of automatic re-classification, a user must link to, or reference where the series was featured/canonized. If a link or reference is not provided, a discussion is the only way to get the series re-classified.

Singular Videos

All videos will be listed on a single page with a one-line description and a link to the video. If the video is featured or deemed canon, it will be allowed a page for its transcription and will categorized accordingly. Many of the same guidelines that would apply to series would apply to the individual videos, such as a minimum content requirement.

General Notes

  • All UGC content will receive a box on their talk pages, describing what category they are (with a link to the descriptions of each), and the justification for it.
  • Content can be escalated beyond what happens automatically, but a consensus is required to do so. There will be a discussion page for all UGC content for this purpose, and once a decision is reached, an archive of the discussion will be posted on the talk pages.
  • A "starter template" will be created for both series pages and video pages, so we'll be able to unify the look of pages easier. I've created a preliminary idea of what the series template would look like here.
  • Also pertinent to this discussion would be whether we want to officially rename the UGC category to something more acceptable, such as "Community Videos" and "Community Series" (with Series being a sub-category of Videos, and both remaining a sub-category of Fan Stuff)
  • Another idea is whether we want to in some way differentiate series that relate to LG15, or go off in their own direction. I was thinking categorization may work, although even listing them in separate sections on the same listing could work, as well.

Discussion

Feel free to expand on these. They're just a preliminary drawing up, after seeing where people disagreed in the last discussions and trying to resolve those issues while still striving for better content coverage. - Shiori 13:18, 30 March 2009 (CDT)

It's certainly thorough. I agree that something needs to be done, and the guidelines that have just been proposed are the most fair that have been... well, proposed. The major problem I'd like to address is something that Shiroi touched on in the guidelines, and that is incomplete pages. The purpose of this is not for content creators to get their work featured only for no one to update and maintain the area. Also, series's that deviate completely from the LG15 canon have no place on the LGPedia (a la Sofia's Diary and Forevergrace) except for special circumstances (a la With the Angels). --FH1415:15 30 March 2009 (EST)
One key factor is that anyone who wishes to mess with older series should invest the time to thoroughly research and view the entire series before moving stuff around. If you have not done that then you are not an authority on the subject and might do serious damage to LGPedia as an archive of valuable information in what you might think is an attempt to simply clean things up.--modelmotion 14:06, 30 March 2009 (CDT)
mm has a serious point, as I didn't realize how involved HSA was until I got down into it. The real problem is some of the series are no longer available for whatever reason, and we're lacking contributors with knowledge on the subject. That's pretty much why I felt the need to make that long post on LG15 Today.
And, FH14, that was in my original proposal, but I didn't want to throw it out there without admin support, since that was never thoroughly discussed in the previous proposals. Shiori 14:31, 30 March 2009 (CDT)
FH14 said "Also, series's that deviate completely from the LG15 canon" - That has just never been the way LGPedia or LG15.com has been run. It was always open to user generated content and none other then Miles Beckett encouraged us to create out own series. The TOS also has an entire section on what are called "indies" that have no relationship to the LG15 story. Fan creations have always been welcomed on LGPedia and to change that policy would not only violate the original intent but it would also destroy LGPedia. If you actually want to build up a user base you need to work with fans as contributers and creators in their own right. I think you have lost enough users by implementing very poor decisions. Do you really want to continue with that trend to oblivion?--modelmotion 15:56, 30 March 2009 (CDT)
I'm afraid you misinterpreted what I said. Community Series that are considered "indie", such as the Coalition and Maddison Atkins, do not fall under the category of "deviating completely from the LG15 canon" There are elements, whether it be a strong connection to the community or a shared universe with a series that is heavily associated with LG15. There are some series, however, that have next to no relation to LG15 and shouldn't be covered, an example being Sofia's Diary, whose only connection is that it is another show hosted on Bebo. --FH14 17:42, 30 March 2009 (EST)
I don't see any problem with having a page for shows such With the Angels or 3rd Triad since these are done by members of the community and contain actors that have been in lg15. As long as it is no more than a page with some information about it and who is in it for the purpose of establishing it isn't some show added to the pedia like Sofia's Diary without any connection. --KindredPhantom 16:48, 30 March 2009 (CDT)
Just going to add my thoughts here as a regular LGPedia editor - I agree with most of Shiori's aforementioned guidelines. I'm kind of confused on a few things, however. First, which series would get the "partially-full" coverage, and what factors are we going to take into consideration while deciding which two of the three categories it receives? Also, with the partially-full coverage, does it get individual pages for its videos, or just a list of videos page? My own thoughts on that are that only the fully covered series should have character pages, video pages, puzzle pages, etc - that would include Redearth88, Maddison Atkins, and possibly LonelyJew15 since Jenni Powell is working on it, and she used to work for EQAL. And then everything else would either go into a single page or "partially-full" coverage, which I'm still not entirely sure about. Could someone digress about that? Also, shows like "With the Angels" and "3rd Triad" could receive a single page - where shows like "Sofia's Diary" and "OzGirl" would not even be covered on the Pedia.   •Kevin•   18:03, 30 March 2009 (CDT)
Here's how the "middle section" of the system would work (I moved this out, since the inlining would make it itty-bitty):
Partially-full coverage (I only chose that name because partial coverage implied it was getting less than basic) means that it would be allowed to expand into more than one page for only the section it has been granted extra coverage for. So, if something was given Partially-full coverage (video), then it would be allowed to have transcripts or whatever anyone feels would be necessary to do justice to giving it coverage on the video section. As I said, I'm not sure whether we would want one featured video to bump a series up to allowing transcripts for every video, but in general, that's how it would work. This is the reason I created the allowance for individual sections to be granted partially-full coverage: so that we can readily expand on one section of a series without necessarily granting it the right to expand in all areas.
The categories it's allowed to expand come from either having a subject of that section featured by the C's (or based on a discussion specifically asking to expand a particular section for whatever reason). Like I said, we may want to lock it down so that if they feature a singular video, a full video list may be allowed, but only a transcript for that particular video would be allowed - I'm not sure of that, though. The same would apply for Characters or Puzzles.
I mainly created the category because I can't think of a good justification for prohibiting a series from expanding something that was featured or made canon, just as I can't think of a good reason to say that any series that has been featured in any way should get full coverage for every aspect of the series. Shiori 08:14, 31 March 2009 (CDT)
Sounds like a fair system that prevents the pedia from being cluttered with ever show. I have no objections. --KindredPhantom 14:59, 2 April 2009 (CDT)
Since no one's had any objections to this, I'm going to try and flesh out the system and start tagging pages to fit the categories. - Shiori 12:46, 4 April 2009 (CDT)
Should we make templates for all three categories and then tag each UGC page accordingly?   •Kevin•   14:39, 4 April 2009 (CDT)
Actually, I was going to make a template similar the ones they use on talk pages for Wikipedia projects. You could enter what class it was, and unless you enter a class AND a justification, it gets a basic class setting. It'll also have an area to set main contributors. I had started coding it earlier today, and then my browser crashed. Now I'm being hailed by the husband to actually get off my butt for the weekend, but I'll take care of it later. - Shiori 22:19, 4 April 2009 (CDT)

Alright, here's how this is working, if anyone wants to help me out. I'm going through EVERYTHING listed in Category:User Generated Content, to make sure I catch everything.

  1. Tag content with {{community content}}. (You may want to read the new pages about how I'm implementing it.)
    1. If it's content that was never featured or not part of a series with extended coverage, mark it for deletion. (Mark any images included on these pages for deletion, as well.)
    2. Videos that were featured are to be tagged as basic coverage, with a link to where they were featured. Also, add these to Category:Featured content
    3. I'm basing ratings off of the old LGPedia:UGC Tier List, but factoring in the new rating system - all tier 1 and 2s will get basic coverage, 3s and 4s will generally get partially-full; use your judgment.
  2. Add content to Community Content/Series, Community Content/Videos, or Community Content/Other, based on what they are (other being things like commentors).
  3. Move content from Category:User Generated Content to Category:Community content, with series being signified as such by going in Category:Community series.

We'll go through everything once we're done to figure out what meets coverage criteria. This is solely to get things tagged and worked on. - Shiori 10:02, 7 April 2009 (CDT)

Done. Everything's all moved around. FH14, if you want to start tagging stuff that's not LG15-related, you can do it now. Everyone, as much as I know you hate to hear it, his views about that kind of thing were come straight from the Creators. "Although we’re big fans of every great web series out there, because the LGPedia is dedicated to the LG15 Universe, it should only include information about shows in the LG15 Universe or featured on LG15.com." - Shiori 12:09, 9 April 2009 (CDT)

Okay, so I'm mainly working with the OpAphid ARG, and I was just wondering (and this goes for all series that have full coverage) -- should it get a character page (I started working on a very rough one on OpAphid ARG characters)? How about something like List of OpAphid ARG videos? OpAphid ARG locations? Redearth88 locations, etc?   •Kevin•   10:14, 11 April 2009 (CDT)

News Page/New Discussion Areas

I know, I'm just full of suggestions lately. ;P This I've been sitting on for a while, but I didn't want to mention it until our login ability was back. This comes in two forms:

  1. Ren wants to create a news aggregator that could link all things new in the LG15 Universe, which includes the Pedia. However, he needs a singular page with some sort of tag signaling news headlines and whatnot to use. This would obviously get us more coverage everywhere, so it'd be a benefit to all. I'm thinking we'd want to cover major discussions and updates, such as redesigns. We wouldn't want to cover new videos (at least not using the tag Ren will use to pull out news items), as he will be pulling feeds directly from LG15.com. Any suggestions on how this would work, what to include, etc. would be much appreciated.
  2. Lucy's Balcony is a great place to list major suggestions, but other suggestions for updates really have no home other than on their articles' talk pages. I'm thinking we may want to create pages to list ALL discussions on proposed merges, deletions, what have you. Note: I am aware we have existing categories for these, but this would place the entire discussion for each in one area. It would be easier to look at a page listing all expansion/merge/etc. ideas in one place than trying to convince everyone to look at the teeny-tiny sidebar in Recent changes. We could obviously link to these pages from both there and here.

I'm not even sure if we'd want to do this, since it would be a major change in how we're programmed to do business on the Pedia, but it is something to ponder. - Shiori 13:27, 30 March 2009 (CDT)

I love the first idea very much! Perhaps it could work as a supplement to the Main Page that is placed above the series' links. (Or perhaps a preview of a said page on the Main Page that links to a full page with all the said info.) The second idea is definitely something to consider, through it all depends on how that could be executed. --FH14
The idea sounds interesting but whilst reading through the legal terms for lg15.com:
Section 4, D:

"You agree not to use or launch any automated system, including without limitation, "robots," "spiders," or "offline readers," that accesses the Website in a manner that sends more request messages to the lonelygirl15 servers in a given period of time than a human can reasonably produce in the same period by using a conventional on-line web browser."

Does this prevent this idea from being implemented since it will pull information from Eqal servers? --KindredPhantom 16:41, 30 March 2009 (CDT)
That's quite interesting, KP - thanks for finding that. I'm not sure what that means for Ren's aggregator idea. About your other suggestion, Shiori, I agree that these things need to be on other places besides Recent changes, but how and where would we implement this?   •Kevin•   18:05, 30 March 2009 (CDT)
For everything else I get so far, that is a decided no, that license does not apply to my activities. For generating a feed from LGPedia's news, while I would not use pre-made RSS feeds as on the other sites, I would also not download and save the whole page, nor would I traverse the entire pedia. I would extract specific content from a singular page.
I don't know the exact timing, but I've used Yahoo! Pipes in the past to merge RSS feeds, and it took a noticeable while longer than direct feeds for the videos to appear - the number thrown around in comments on the web is 30 minutes. I believe that is not quicker than the average video-addicted comment boarder refreshes the video page ;)
In addition, I think you have the wrong license. This one is the one used on all of EQAL currently, through the link in the footer. I believe the only paragraph that even touches this project is 9., which, in my opinion, would be irrelevant, because I would not be "downloading" and "distributing" EQAL content, but content posted by "members" (you guys) - and since you guys would post news not only knowing full well I would aggregate them, but with the express purpose of that, there's really no surprise or violation of anyone's rights going on here.
I haven't themed it yet, but if you want a sneak preview, have a look here.
It's already working fine, and focuses on LG15 and related stuff only (that is, it's not filled up with Harper's Globe).
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 00:32, 31 March 2009 (CDT)

Maddison Atkins

I thought I should open this up for discussion. Maddison Atkins recently got a spiffy new website which includes a wiki. Because of this, it may make the most sense to move the information regarding MA from here at the LGPedia to the wiki devoted to it on its official website, and in its place, leaving a single page explaining the series a la the Harper's Globe page. That said, I think the Redearth88 info should stay put for now. Here's basically my idea:

Thoughts? Concerns? Suggestions? --FH14 14:20, 3 May 2009 (EST)

I like this idea. Should we start by making an HG-ish page for MA, under the name of Maddison Atkins ARG, or something like that?   •Kevin•   16:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not just leave things alone as they should be. They are fine as were. Why change what is not broken?.--modelmotion 03:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense for identical information to be present in two places. The reason Harper's Globe isn't more present is because it has its own wiki. The information regarding Maddison Atkins would work better that the new wiki that has been made for it, and it doesn't make much sense to have two wikis containing the exact same information that would both need to be updated. --FH14 09:10, 14 May 2009 (EST)
Also, to add upon what FH14 said, if we were to pick one wiki to have the Maddison information on it, it would be the Maddypedia - Jeromy created it to be the official Maddison wiki and it wouldn't make sense to have information on the LGPedia about Maddison but not on the official Maddypedia. I mean, the Maddypedia is on Maddison Atkins's official website.   •Kevin•   20:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
While I am not a very active participant in LGPedia anymore, so perhaps my word carries less weight now, but the fact that information is available in more than one place on the Internet is part of the strength of the Internet. The current Maddison Atkins section of the LGPedia is pretty comprehensive and complete and isn't hurting anything as far as I can tell. Plus, when there was an earlier brouhaha well over a year ago about which series were deserving of more attention on LGPedia, Maddy was near the top. Maddison Atkins is tied to Lonelygirl15, among other ways, through its connection to the lg15 community. In a few years from now, few will remember any of the shit we cared about as lg15 fans. But if we go about deleting parts of the lgpedia, it only helps ensure that those memories, as fleeting and inconsequential as they may be in the scheme of life, though deeply important to others as least for a period of time, are lost.--Milowent 05:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that OpAphid is LG15 canon again...

I would like to propose some points for how we should handle the content on the LGPedia.

  • Character pages (namely OpAphid, Tachyon, Brother, and War Pylol) - I suggest that we get rid of the "OpAphid ARG characters" template. That way, these four characters can be tagged using the lonelygirl15 characters template (the way Suzie and Jack and Paladins are), and the Redearth88 characters template. For their "Person" template, it should be the LG15 color and not the RE88 color (considering they were first LG15 characters, and are once again currently LG15 characters). Now, some of these pages were set up a bit weird because OpAphid was an ARG, so these characters should get an introduction, a background section with several subsections (one of the subsections being their story in Redearth88), notes, etymology, references, etc. Also, we have to be especially careful with OpAphid's character page because it's gotten cluttered over time, as people have used it for the OpAphid show page. Two different OpAphids right there.
  • Portal:OpAphid ARG (formerly known as the AphidPedia) - This page has kind of left me dumbfounded. I sort of think we should treat OpAphid as a miniseries (equivalent to Watchyourjack, Nikki Bower Report, etc.), and WYJ and NBR don't have portals. One could argue that OpAphid played a much larger role in the actual LG15 storyline and that's true, but once again I'm not sure what to do with this page. If anybody has any suggestions, please comment below the entire post. Thanks!
  • OpAphid ARG (the show page) - This page is also kind of weird. When I first made it, I was considering OpAphid a miniseries. I even deleted the OpAphid portal but modelmotion didn't like that move, so I just made the two pages. Now that the show is LG15 canon, I honestly think it should be treated as a miniseries ARG. So my proposal is to delete the portal and keep the show page, unless somebody else has other ideas.
  • Redearth88 and Redearth88 (show) (former parent series) - I was kind of stumped as to why Redearth88 is the portal. It would make more sense to me if Redearth88 was the show page, and then Portal:Redearth88 or something along those lines was a portal (if it's going to have a portal at all.
  • OpAphid puzzles and OpAphid drops - These pages should be the only two pages that exist on the 'Pedia for OpAphid puzzles and drops. I tried to re-do the OpAphid puzzles page but I don't think I'm knowledgable enough about the puzzles to make a difference. Right now, the way it's set up is that the "OpAphid puzzles" page and the "OpAphid drops" page link to dozens of other pages, each one detailing one puzzle or drop. I think that they should all be merged into OpAphid puzzles and OpAphid drops. Also, I think the pages should be moved to OpAphid ARG puzzles and OpAphid ARG drops. Merge the profile update pages and other things into these pages as well.
  • Operation APHID - Keep this page as a current division of the Order.
  • OPAPHID - Keep this page.
  • OpAphid ARG characters - Delete this page unless similar pages are created for "Watchyourjack characters" and "Nikki Bower Report characters."
  • Everything You Need to Play OpAphid - Delete or merge into the introduction of OpAphid puzzles.
  • Sebastian and Aly Zarin - Merge into Brother and Tachyon.

Any comments, replies, concerns, or questions? Leave them here, and thanks for reading!   •Kevin•   00:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • My own question is whether OpAphid is in the Order still or not. In Redearth88, she departed from them but Miles has stated that Redearth88 is not LG15 canon. So...   •Kevin•   00:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Kevin, thanks for your thoughts.

Honestly though, after reading through all of this, I think it is just way too complicated.

OpAphid was originally its own series (not an LG15 miniseries), then it came together with Lonelygirl15, and then it seperated off again into its own thing (Redearth88). OpAphid was really always canon during the days it was canon, and not canon during the days it wasn't. Therefore, I think messing with the pages in this way undermines the integrity of the pages and kind of defeats the purpose its trying to achieve. I know you are trying to clarify, but I don't think we can clarify any better than has already been done, unless we can come up with a totally different and way simpler plan. --Zoey 01:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Kevin on this, if only because the way it's currently being done is mind fuck of infinite proportions. The puzzles can be rolled into the lg15 and RE88 puzzles, the characters can be rolled into the respective character pages. The operation itself can be left as-is. There's no need for its own little show page, or an "introduction" (I always think these are stupid). Regardless, I'm going to be redoing the designs because they're kind of fug right now (only colors; no graphics until the plan of attack is firmly decided). - Shiori 13:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Figured I'd clarify on this. Since the characters are all across two series, they should either be split into canon character pages and non (silly), or have two sections on each page clarifying what they did on lg15 vs RE88. If you do it this way, Aly and Sebastian can be merged. Otherwise, I wouldn't even attempt it. - Shiori 17:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
As I understand it there is only one OpAphid that dates back to pre-LG15. The characters briefly entered into the LG15 story and that experience became canon. However that does not change the OpAphid experience which as far as we know is a single experience based and controlled by its creator. Until we have any evidence to the contrary we could do serious damage to the integrity of the OpAphid experience by messing with this stuff. It is possible that as TSIY-2 develops we may see further clarification, but to claim that there are two independent OpAphid experiences at this point is simply not supported by fact. OpAphid was last seen in Redearth88 and we need to let events unfold before we know for sure how any OpAphid experience within the the LG15 Universe will unfold in the future and what that might mean for the OpAphid experience within Redearth88. Those are decisions that are up to the creator of the OpAphid experience and all we know for now is that parts of that experience took place in the past within the LG15 Universe and parts were within Redearth88.--modelmotion 18:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's my two cents. Basically, as OpAphid will soon exist as canon across another LG15 series and not just the original, it doesn't really fall into the same category as Nikki Bower or Watchyourjack. (It never really did, in my opinion, as it existed on its own before and after LG15, making it a series in its own right.) It falls under more of a "Companion Series", in my opinion. Anyway, in regards to the ideas proposed by Kevin. I agree with renaming the show and portal pages and merging the puzzles and drops. The OpAphid ARG characters page is something that can be deleted, as it seems to have been stick in a development limbo for about a year. Keep: Everything You Need to Play OpAphid, OpAphid Character Index Template, The Portal and The Show Page, Operation APHID, and OPAPHID. I agree with what Shiori said about having a section on each character page devoted to the events on Redearth88, but I'm wary about merging Aly Zarin with Tachyon simply becuase it would eradicate the eight character setup for Redearth88 (as I'm quite OCD about that and It might cause me pain. :P) But this is just what I think. Feel free to disagree. --FH14 14:44, 17 October 2009 (EST)
It would be very easy to do a lot of serious damage by moving things around. There is a lot of history here and it is very important stuff. --modelmotion 18:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, mm, but If we tread carefully and make well-thought out decisions in regards to this, the potential for damage is significantly lessened. --FH14 14:56, 17 October 2009 (EST)