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

From LGPedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Browser neutrality or Official Browser)
Line 297: Line 297:
:Again, I reiterate: We should try to get it as close as possible, but trying to enforce the pages look 100% the same is just stupid, because it's impossible - unless you're doing nothing more than colored text.
:Again, I reiterate: We should try to get it as close as possible, but trying to enforce the pages look 100% the same is just stupid, because it's impossible - unless you're doing nothing more than colored text.
::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 04:55, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 04:55, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
:::the problem isn't that there are differences, between browsers, the problem is that some designs rely on specific alignments to look correct, and if the browsers render them differently, then it doesn't look correct in all browsers. On the other hand if one browsers  spaced things at 11 pixels, and another browser spaced things at 13 pixels, if everything still lined up correctly in both browsers, the page wold be considered browse neutral, even though it doesn't render identically in both browsers. -[[User:Misty|misty]] 18:13, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
== A good-bye of sorts ==
== A good-bye of sorts ==

Revision as of 23:13, 15 July 2007

A couple of LGPedia admins (Jonpro & Psmith) take a breather to admire the view from Lucy's Balcony.
In happier days, friendly LGPedia admins, Brucker (now retired), OwenIsCool, and JayHenry (also retired) enjoyed unseasonably warm afternoons 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.

Zoey, one of your LGPedia admins, frolics with the doves on Lucy's Balcony.

Unused images

In cleaning up location pages I've orphaned a rather large number of images. The location pages had an unfortunate tendency to just include random screen-shots from videos that had absolutely nothing to do with the location. I've been cutting them out. Do we want to have an unused image assessment of some sort? Use the good ones, and just delete the lousy ones? We really don't need to keep hundreds of unused images laying around. --JayHenry 11:06, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

Well I think that you should delete the unused images, that don't look like they can be useful, to add to later articles or updates. Several times I went to an image category to find an image for an article. -misty 17:40, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

General deletion/inclusion guidelines

As a result of the discussion on Template talk:HoverTOC and also somewhat on LGPedia:Tasks/Completed#LordGreystoke422's videos, I think it's high time we figured out exactly what our deletion and inclusion policy is here. Currently our deletion policy is rather minimal and very much open to interpretation. There was a discussion about this on LGPedia talk:Deletion Policy quite a while back, and most of that is probably still applicable, but I have a feeling people will have some new ideas as well. I think the best way to handle the inclusion aspect of this would be to create a list of criteria that are necessary in order for an article to be included here. What we don't want to do is turn into Wikipedia here, but having some generals guidelines wouldn't be a bad idea. Another issue is deletion, which I suppose is very related to inclusion. I guess we could also have a list of reasons for why an article should be deleted, and maybe another list for reasons that aren't enough for an article to be deleted. Really, this is very open-ended, but I would love if people would get involved in the discussion here. To put in my two cents, I think a good first point for inclusion would be that it is related to Lonelygirl15 in some way. How closely related it would have to be is a point of discussion I guess, but that's a start at least.--Jonpro 17:39, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Okay, for me, I think that with fan videos, you should kind of look at what the purpose of the videos is, how they tell their stories, and what kind of stories are being told. Like I think videos that seem to be "going somewhere"... like distinctive stories with distinctive arcs may be better with just large summary pages that people can read. It makes it much easier to follow those kinds of stories when things are all laid out in one place. Like, LG422... and GC and such. Those are the kinds of stories I mean. However, with things like say... aaronbeast, where they're kind of... response videos.. or videos that don't really follow a specific story but kind of adapt based on what's going on in the Breeniverse, those should get their own video pages. That's how I would view it... although I'm not entirely sure that made sense... hopefully it did. :P I'd love people's thoughts please!! --Zoey 18:31, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

I've gotta say, while I did negatively notice this before, when I was looking through the templates to catalogue them, I was once more reminded how many fan-created series have pages here.
That is not bad per se, but, without going to sound arrogant or anything...many of them are just not noteworthy.
Example - chosen randomly, not a personal attack: Linsy. We have a page on her, three video pages with transcripts, and even Category:Linsybeast's blogs. And you know what? I have no idea who the fuck that is.
Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against fanfic, fan participation, or anything. But I think we should set a certain standard of "noteworthyness" before listing people here, at least on more than one general site. Stuff like HSAO gained a lot of user traction, and Dr. Immant's videos apparently were quite well done and well-received by fans (never seen them) - but we don't have to have entire catalogues of every video every LG15 fan once did, just because they pretend to be in the Breeniverse.
Another thing is useless occupation of space; example: There is a hardcoded sidebar-template for "GuillotineCalamity", which means that sidebar is fixed for that video series and cannot be used by anyone else. What's it used for? Two pages that contain barely more than "Transcript incomplete". Check out Category:GuillotineCalamity - the five season subcategories are all empty, and GC Seasons does nothing more than link to these empty categories. Apparently, at least according to the main page on that topic, there actually were quite a lot of these videos. Where are they? Why do we need five categories and a sidebar, if all we have on that series other than the main page are two video pages with no information?
Like I said, don't get me wrong - I have nothing against fan fiction. But what we're currently doing is like accepting every little essay a grade schooler once wrote into the Great Library of Alexandria. We are flooded with pages that, quite frankly, don't interest anyone but the authors...and maybe two or three other people.
I don't know exactly how to solve this problem, maybe by requiring a certain amount of hits on a single page, before branching out is allowed or something, but I think the overall quality of this encyclopedia suffers from this. While fan fiction most definitely is an important part of LG15, this is the official encyclopedia on the official site, sometimes visited by The Creators themselves through their Admin account - I think it should focus on important and official stuff first, and then on fan faction and trivia. Right now, we have some important core pages, like List of Videos, the video pages themselves, List of Characters and the character pages, and a whole lot of crap that is fun to have, but takes focus away from the efficient administration and care for the important pages. Do we really need a page on H.P. Lovecraft? As far as I'm concerned he has had no major influence on the canon. He has enjoyed, perhaps some passing references, but that's nothing special. Hundreds of videos everyday do that. But they link to Wikipedia instead of writing their own page about him. Dava Sobel. wtf do we need that for? It's a one line note, and it's been said on the video page for Proving Longitude Wrong. There is no reason to have that page.
Okay, I think you got my point here - it's late, so I'll move on.
Deletions. Yeeees. Zoey has ignored me for the past few days, so I guess it's evident I have quite some strong feelings on this topic. Most of them I have already posted, so let me just sum things up quickly:
I have nothing against deletions as such. In fact, I myself have given good reason for the deletion of both Template:PageHeader and Template:Clr, after this whole orgy was over - see the respective talk pages. What I was, and still am, annoyed by is the notion that a template should be deleted just because it's currently unused. A template is a convenience thing. A tool. Do you throw away your hammer just because you don't use it at a given point in time, and then get it back out when you actually use it? I think not.
If a template is useless and will most likely never be used, fine - kill it. But if it's a useful little thing, why delete it, just because right now nobody is using it?
The discussion also revealed a kind of weird view of deletion around here - apparently, it means nothing. The stance here seems to be to delete something if it's currently unwanted, and to restore it if it's wanted again. And that just takes the use and meaning out of it. A deletion should be a strong statement that the page is not wanted anymore. Instead, it's being used for a crude form of giving the appearance of order - similar to a child that gets the order to clean his room, only to shovel all his toys under his bed. Sure, it looks clean, but as soon as he'll need the toys, he'll get them back out.
I am not against restoring, I said that. But it should be a tool rectify a mistake - not an action as common as opening a page.
In fact, this stance is probably connected to what I mentioned above - we have too much crap lying around here. If pages were reduced to essentials and semi-essentials, it'd be a much harder decision to delete anything, simply because it'd have a major impact on the information presented. Instead, an admin can delete half the pages here without fear to destroy anything important - 90% of all users would still find exactly what they want.
It's two o' clock in the morning, so I'll stop here. I know I didn't present any solutions, but maybe it's better to hear your reactions first anyway. Don't be shy, and don't be afraid to use whatever language you might find necessary. Just remember that we're talking about administrative issues here, not friendship or community. This is not, at least from my point of view, about whether or not somebody's feelings might get hurt if his pages are deleted (be it "my" templates, Linsy's blogs, or carefully crafted pages over totally insignifcant details), but about how to get a certain sense of order in this thing, and setting a certain standard of quality.
You cannot accept everything if you want the average to be good. The question is just if you have the balls to turn people down if it's necessary.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 19:09, 7 June 2007 (CDT)
*looks up* ...oops. Template:Quote, if anyone is crazy enough to reply.
BAH, Zoey, out of my line of post! [Editing conflict resolved]
@Zoey: Hmm, that's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it would really work. I don't think it would be too fair to say that a certain series shouldn't have video pages just because it has the "story" format that you're talking about. Similarly, there's no reason that a rather minor fanfic video should get its own video page just because it doesn't have that story format. I think the criteria should be something like popularity, connection to LG15, probability of canonicity, etc.
@Renegade: I think you raise some good issues. Firstly, I agree with you about the problem with notability of videos. I think when the whole new girl thing was going on, every possible "new girl" was given a page, and all of their videos started to be transcribed. This has created a lot of probably-less-than-notable fan blog pages that people may not be that interested in. I think a good solution might be to figure out which ones are actually notable (perhaps page-view count as you suggest or maybe something else), and then determine if we need the transcript pages or just one page for the character that could give a summary of their blogs and general information on them. That way, the notability or important of a fan series is reflected here by how much space, time, effort, etc. we put into it. Again, it might be hard to determine the "notability" factor, but I'm sure we could come up with some method to do so.
As far as the waste of space, the reason that happens (at least from my point of view) is that we hate to undo someone's work because we either 1) don't want to hurt their feelings (a lame reason really) or 2) think they might come back to it at some point in the future. It's a little similar to the templates you created, Renegade. We see that someone has created something which looks like it could be useful, but isn't really being used yet. We're skeptical about deleting it, and yet it seems like it would help clean up if we do. I think just better communication all around would help solve this problem. We shouldn't be afraid to ask people why they created a certain page, template, category, etc. as long as it's done in a considerate way. If there is a genuine good use for what they have done, then they can explain it. If it was done on a whim or we decide it's not necessary or there's a better way to organize the information, then it can be deleted or reorganized.
And really, I agree with you about the deleting/restoring thing. What I was trying to say before is that if a page gets deleted because no one sees a good use for it, then we can fix the mistake of deleting it by restoring it. I was trying to point that that deletion isn't that big of a deal because it can be undone. Of course, if we think we're going to be restoring something later, then of course we shouldn't delete it. I hope this makes sense, and I'll try to explain better if it doesn't.
One final word. You're right that we're not talking about friendship or community here, and I agree that people should be free to express their opinions openly. Sometimes, though, this can turn into a war between people rather than between those people's ideas. I encourage everyone to not take anything personally here. As I'm so fond of saying, we're all working toward the same goal, so please remember that and never assume that someone is attacking you personally. Any and all personal attacks here will not be tolerated, so let's try to not make that an issue. That said, let's continue to have a helpful discussion that will make this place better for everyone.--Jonpro 12:22, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

Okay I just wanted to say, my idea was for how to handle videos once they're already gotten the stamp of approval to be on the page, based on whatever criteria we set. Because like Renegade said, the GC videos and the CIW vidoes all have video pages, but really arent used. So um, if based on our criteria to get something on the site in the first place, they're still good, I think we should look at the things I mentioned before, and perhaps decide that they don't need video pages, only summary pages (like LG422 videos as well). As far as WHAT those criteria are, I don't really know...

And Renegade, I haven't been ignoring you. I've been reading everything you say very closely. The strength of my opinions on these topics, however, doesn't even come close to yours, so it is difficult for me to give you worthy responses. But I am reading what you are saying and just... trying to take a step back and examine all viewpoints before I give any input on what I think should be done for what things. --Zoey 00:46, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

Pinging Zoey with 478 bytes of data:
Reply from Zoey: bytes=1006 time=563040000ms TTL=255
hehehe :D
Nah, seriously...thanks for replying at all. Although I now feel like a fundamentalist radical on the topic of deletions, it at least gives me the hope I didn't piss you off for good. I do see some irony in the fact that Template:PageHeader still exists, though, given that even I am for its deletion now. :D
Aaaand that brings us back on topic (ain't I good?): It's dead. Nobody wants to talk, but us. So I propose we do the stuff suggested below, to make people aware of what we're discussing above. Sound like a plan? Good. I'll try to code/design something and ... Update: I did code something, behold it on LGPedia:Participate. But now my favorite admistress (or one the other demi-gods) would have to go to MediaWiki:Recentchangestext and add {{LGPedia:Participate}}, as I lack the power to do that. Make sure to add it outside of a block of text though (first thing on the page at best) as everything else fucks it up. Took me three revisions to figure out the template was fine, and the the positioning was to blame. -_- And adjust the top-margin when it's added, I had to guess for now.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 15:35, 16 June 2007 (CDT)
It's looking really good. I think featured articles and proposed merges should also be added... and probably some other stuff I'm not thinking of ATM. I'm assuming it doesn't update automatically though? So people will have to really be on top of it. Oh, and also, I think the text under Participate should be bigger... for those of us who are blind *cough*. I'll see about adding it to recent changes, but I generally fail at that kind of stuff anyways, so it might be better to wait for another admin to come along and make it look nice...
And um, yeah, I'm going to go delete PageHeader now :D --Zoey 16:12, 16 June 2007 (CDT)
The fact that "Renegade" does not know "who the fuck" Linsy is, is pretty unimpressive criteria for deleting anything a fan has taken the trouble to add to LGPedia. I think the opinion as expressed here is incredibly arrogant and hostile to community (comments such as "grade school", "crap", "having balls" etc. do not inspire confidence). My personal opinion is that unless you are running into some hard technical issue such as exceeding storage space (which is usually absurd these days, but possible), there is very little justification to delete contributions made by occasional posters or those outside the core LGPedia group. That is the opposite of what you should be doing. Add structure? Absolutely. Move really random/disconnected items off to an orphanage for lost pages (or equivalent) sure. But don't delete, and leave a link (comprehensive note on a talk page or comment in history or *some* obvious path to finding the moved article without having to contact a staff member - I'm not sure what the best solution there is).
There are growing and independent circles of fans, who are every bit as invested and involved in their segments of the Lonelygirl15 community as the few LGPedia mainstays, and the vitality of this effort depends on the confidence that time invested in posting here will not be discarded by someone with a different idea of what is important. That kind of editing would be disrespectful and foolish. My contributions here have been minor, and may not even fit in with your concepts (I don't know), but if I put something here and linked to it from off site, and came back later to check for updates, etc. and found my work silently deleted, I would be angry. That kind of move should be made with the utmost care and respect.
So address the issues, but find a better solution than deleting even relatively trivial contributions from fans. You never know when they will come back to expand on or edit their work, possibly becoming more significant contributors later. You folks have a great thing going here - there is no need to alienate the occasional contributors. First contributions take the most effort sometimes, and should not be undervalued.
Maybe a better editorial concept is to think of a core set of pages (a trunk and main branches) that are tightly controlled, surrounded by a cloud of satellite pages (twigs and leaves) that are a bit wild and unruly, with a few orphans that fall to the ground, but are still down there somewhere. ~ QtheC 08:15, 24 June 2007 (CDT)
So wait, let me get this straight...you wait for eight days, to attack a sentence in a post that's almost three weeks old, over a fact that was clearly introduced with "chosen randomly, not a personal attack"?
Riiiiiight. Were you bored, or just in an aggressive mood?
Everybody else got fine that it was an example to illustrate the issues with noteworthyness we have here, and the fact that you can only fight it by dragging it down to a personal level and attacking my credibility just proves to me that I raised an undisputable point; you may not like it, but fact is: In all probability, said "Linsy" adds nothing to the Breeniverse.
Yes, it is nice to have devoted fans, and yes, the fan interaction in and with this series is great - but that does not automatically mean that the official encyclopedia has to include every single video by every user that slightly, remotely connects to the topic. I have nothing against including notable fans on LGPedia. If a video series gained a big viewership, like the several Cassies or HSAO, or some of the OpAphid analyzation vids, fine, include them - they are important to the community around the series, and, as such, important to the series.
But, no matter how arrogant you'd like to interpret this, reality is: The latest vid of that "Linsy" person has 71 views. It has a page with nothing but a sidebar, and it's a shaky video of her or her character's birthday "partay". Okay. Typical YouTube content. Fine to be online. But why the hell does it have to be on LGPedia? Is it of great importance to the canon? Nope, she's not canon. Is it of great importance to the fandom? Nope, it's had 70 views before I just clicked. Is it an exceptionally well-crafted page? Nope, it's one line with a sidebar.
She may be a nice person, and her videos might even be funny - but, as of this moment, there is nothing exceptionally significant or notable about them that'd require us to list it here. And the positive effect of having everything listed gets outweighted by the negative effect of having almost everything look like crap.
Even if you wish to list each and every tiny little fanvid, what's the use of listing them if their page says nothing? Let's say we let that page stay as it is. What is the great advantage gained by users through this? Is it that, of nineteen videos existing, only four are listed? Or that, of these four, one fourth doesn't have a transcript? Or that they can read a transcript at all?
Who is, realistically, going to read a transcript of some girl's fanfic blog?
You can call me arrogant all you want, whoever lives in reality sees I'm not trying to belittle that girl, but to be realistic. It is great she's active in the community, and it takes a great deal of courage to tape a video and put it out there for everyone to see. But the fact that she's a fan with a video alone doesn't make her or her video significant enough to be put up on the official site next to the information on official videos.
We should focus on information important to the Breeniverse and the fandom. And some girl's birthday party, as nice as she may be, just has nothing to do with. The maximum effect that page will have on unintroduced users will be that they wonder how she is tied into the series, and get all confused.
Added to reply to addition:
That may be a nice idea, but the problem is, would care for the twigs and orphans. We'd have hundreds of unmaintained pages laying around, building a "cloud of crap", so to speak, around the important entries. If someone maintained these pages, it'd be a different issue...but people won't. You can hope and dream all you want, a "lowly" fanfic-video-page just isn't gonna get the same editorial attention as an official video page.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 09:12, 24 June 2007 (CDT) [Editing conflict resolved]
And for the record, thanks to the new sidebar on recent changes, silent deletions are almost impossible now - unless someone disregards all procedures.
This was the most idiotic dispute in the history of the Wiki. Just saying! --JayHenry 15:09, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

"Have your say" page

I just had a read of the problems mentioned above (deletions etc.) and thought of an idea that might be of help to both this and other problems that arise from "normal users" scanning the last 50 recent changes to see what has been happening (thereby missing out when there have been lots more changes since they last logged in). I would propose having a LGPedia:Have your say page listed on the right hand column, perhaps under the "Recent changes". This page would then have links to all current discussions and votes that users may be unaware are going on at all, e.g. pic/caption votes, redesign comments, delete-tagged pages. This may help getting more people involved in decisions than at present (because they wouldn't necessarily be logging in as frequently as an admin, nor would they be visiting the various log pages that we know about). In addition, the delete period between tagging and deleting should be increased to 2 weeks (except where an admin is just rectifying a mistake).

This may not completely avoid the situation with deleted templates mentioned above, but if in addition we admins think twice in future before nominating something unused for deletion than that's probably all else we can do.

Having said that, as both Renegade and Jonpro have respectively pointed out, it is neither a big deal leaving pages that are unused alone until they become useful again, nor accepting that some pages which are deleted through lack of feedback can be restored afterwards. Let us not get heated about this either way. Psmith 15:27, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

I like that idea very much, Psmith. Renegade proposed something similar on Template talk:HoverTOC, but I think this would work better. I think people see that column a lot and "Have your say" if a very self-explanatory phrase that should hopefully draw people in to have their say about things. We would have to make sure to keep this page updated or it wouldn't work, but if we can do that, then I think it should work great. As far as extending the deletion period from 1 week to 2, it really doesn't make a difference to me. If people think this would help solve problems with deletions, then I'm all for it. I'd love to hear others' opinions on both of these issues, so please feel free to pipe in with your support or objections.--Jonpro 12:22, 9 June 2007 (CDT)
BEHOLD what Zoey and I crafted together!
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 18:07, 16 June 2007 (CDT)
Wow! Psmith 12:45, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

Addition of KateModern to LGPedia

Hi everyone. Miles has requested via email that we make some changes to LGPedia to prepare for KateModern's premiere later this month. The details are included in his email which I have included here:

Miles said:

As you know, KateModern is launching soon and I'd like to give you some information so you can revise the LGPedia accordingly. In our minds, the framework is as follows:

  1. LG15 is the Universe that includes lonelygirl15 and KateModern and future shows (The LGPedia should track the entire LG15 Universe)
  2. lonelygirl15 is the US show with the characters we all know and love
  3. KateModern is the UK show with a new cast and plot

We are redesigning the website to make the interface cleaner and also to display both shows. We're going to provide a link on the lonelygirl15 show page that goes to a lonelygirl15 "portal" in the LGPedia that would look similar to the current homepage of LGPedia. Similarly, we'll provide a link on the KateModern show page that goes to a KateModern "portal in the LGPedia that would look similar to the current homepage but would be all KateModern specific stuff. LGPedia would therefore need a new homepage that would provide links to these sub-page portals for each show, and a lot of the information that is already on the homepage since alot of this is more about the LG15 Universe.

Does that makes sense? I wanted to give you a heads up since KateModern launches in mid-July and we'd love if LGPedia was up to date by then. Let me know if you have any questions.



My own thoughts on the issue are to not do anything too drastic until we reach a decision about what should be done and it all seems feasible. It looks like we'll need to create Portal:Lonelygirl15 and Portal:KateModern (or names similar to these) as well as resurrect Main Page/redesign. I think a good goal would be to try to get this all done within about a week or so that it will be ready for the launch of KateModern. If anyone has any questions for Miles, feel free to post them here or on my talk page and I can send them on to him.--Jonpro 14:54, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

Hm, wow, this is definately a massive project. Maybe it would be best to have a really basic homepage that says something like "Chose Your Destination" with links to both of the girls and that be it? Or something very similarly simple. Maybe we can just keep the LG frontpage the same and make a copycat for KM with the links and stuff she needs. I'm kind of confused about how to determine what would be used for both though. I mean, it's not going to take place in Bree's bedroom or anything, is it? Where do we draw the line for what is LG15 and what is LG15 Universe? Hm, also I guess we could make like.. top categories to help make things easier to classify? Like a Category:KateModern, Category:Lonelygirl15, and a Category:Breeniverse (that contains stuff for both worlds?). I don't know, like I said, I'm having a hard time comprehending just how much of an overlap there will be, so its kind of hard to figure where to draw the line, but those were my intial thoughts at the idea. Let me know what you think...! --Zoey 17:03, 4 July 2007 (CDT)
Zoey I totally agree - I think we should have a splash page, if you will, for the 'pedias. On the front page can be something simple, Kate -enter- and LG -enter- or however you want to present them. This page can be the "fancy" page, if we want, and it can look really good, and different from the 'pedia now if we're looking for something fresh. But the pedia works REALLY well set up as it is. I don't think changing it is a good idea. Not overall. As for the sharing sections, I think that we should just stick to having articles that are accessible to both pedias through common links. Don't get into three different pedias. Asking for trouble, that. Just stick to two pedias outlining two storylines, and the common lines between them will take care of themselves. MarlaSinger 17:42, 6 July 2007 (EST)
I was wondering the same thing about the amount of overlap. If there really isn't going to be any interaction between the series, it makes sense to basically have two sections to the site, kind of like you're saying. I went ahead and sent Miles an email asking him how much overlap there will be, so I'll be sure to let you guys know what he says when I get a response.--Jonpro 18:46, 4 July 2007 (CDT)
Okay, I got an email back from Miles and here it is (I think it's easier to just copy/paste than try to explain it in my own words):
Miles said:
The characters "can" communicate with each other but it remains to be seen how much they will. Things like the Order, the Hymn of One, and all of that larger mythology will be in both series to varying degrees. Think of it like, the Order, HOO, the stuff about the blood, the girls, the Elders, etc. etc. are all the same across both shows. But, the characters and plot are different. Happy to answer any other questions. Thanks!
So I don't think we should try to "split up" LGPedia into two sections or anything, but I think we should definitely do something with the categories like Zoey suggested. Maybe we can go through and add "Category:Lonelygirl15" to at least some (maybe all?) of the pages here, and then start adding "Category:KateModern" to the pages that we create for the KM characters, locations, videos, etc. Other than that, it'd probably be a good idea to focus our energy on the "portal" pages and the Main Page. I think we have a lot of options for the Main Page, and it'd be nice to see something more than just a link to the two "portal" pages. A few ideas I can think of are:
  1. Split the Main Page right down the middle with LG15 stuff on one side and KM stuff on the other side.
  2. Keep the page looking a lot like we have it but add links to KM things as they happen. In other words, update the video list with videos from both series, add links to KM pages to the links list on the left, etc.
  3. Remove all "series-specific" information from the Main Page and put it in the lonelygirl15 portal page. The Main Page would then be about the LG15 universe in general so LG and KM followers could both find only useful information.
Now, for all of these, there would still exist the "portal" pages to get more detailed pages about the specific series. I really don't know what's best, and I'd love to hear peoples' thoughts about these ideas and/or other ideas for what to do here. Thanks!--Jonpro 22:00, 4 July 2007 (CDT)
I don't like the "splitting" simply becuase that'd be a little confusing, IMO. Again, I'm relatively new to wiki-editing, so if what I'm saying doesn't make sense, forgive me. But since it appears that the two shows will interact in some way, it seems reasonable for now if we simply keep the main page "as is" for the most part but under the "Breenverse" section we simply create two sections: "Lonelygirl15" & "KateModern." (everything currently under there would fit nicely into "Lonelygirl15"). With that huge list redesigned into a list of two, we'd have room to add any KM characters under the current LG15 characters (possibly with a different color to their names, i.e. not blue). Behind the Scenes, Site Features, and Unofficial Spinoffs would remain the same, I imagine. What'd be really cool if we could have the "LG15" in the corner to change to KM whenever you landed on a KM page (again, not sure if that's even doable, but I think itd be cool). Those are my thoughts for now . . . hope what I said didn't sound crazy. --Pheon 09:30, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
Hmm... I was reading through this and I got an idea about splitting up the homepage but keeping all the stuff currently on it. Here's my idea: Move the "latest developments to the left side in between the ENCYCLOPEDIA (which we could change to read "LONELYGIRL15") and the Featured Article. Then, on the right create a "clone" of the left dealing with Kate Modern... I dunno. What do you guys think? -- FH14 00:20 6 July 2007 (EST)
I love this big picture, how do we organize everything sort of stuff. Almost makes me wish I were still around more, but I've been having so much fun at the mothership that I rarely make it back here (and if any of you are ever looking to get more involved at the mothership, let me know, I'd love to help you find a niche!) So, as I understand it, KateModern will exist entirely within the same universe but, just like real teenagers in L.A. and London, they will have little interaction, their lives will not affect each other much -- just like if a guy named Wixy gets some girl pregnant in London; Jay's life in, uh..., Miami, will be unaffected. Similarly, Wixy's bedroom exists in my universe, but it has no relevance to me whatsoever.
I think ideally you'd have Kate and LG15 latest video sections both on the main page somehow. For an idea like the portals, it might be best to have a Latest LG15 updates and a template:Latest KM updates and have both templates be transcluded on the Main Page and then one each on Portal:Lonelygirl15 and Portal:KateModern respectively. That'd reduce the amount of redundant work, but I'll admit, I don't have a good idea for how to design the main page with two latest video sections.
Just some suggestions as I won't be around to implement any of it. I hope KateModern is a success, it'd be nice to have my interest restored, especially now that Prom Queen is over. --JayHenry 00:09, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
Ugh, all you admins are abandoning me! I feel so alooonee </emo>. Haha well, either way it's nice to hear from you Jay... hopefully you'll be around a bit more... maybe? Your ideas sound good.. I'm just so confused about how to impliment them. I guess I'm still trying to wrap my head fully around what we're trying to do, so it's hard to figure out the best way to do it. It sounds like you've got some good ideas though (< To Everyone) and I'm anxious to see what kinds of things people come up with. As for right now, I think I'll just keep reading everyone's ideas until something sparks me.. or someone else, you know, figures it all out. I also made a post on the LGBlogspot directing people to this page, so who knows, we may get some new, fresh contributions soon! --Zoey 00:37, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
I like Jay's idea about using the templates. I will try to get that done later today if no one else gets it done first, but no promises. I'll also try to get some sample portal pages up today or tomorrow so that we have something to start with and maybe then it will be easier to work from there. As an aside, I really do feel bad about not being here as much, Zoey, but the demands of life are simply making it difficult. I think you're doing a great job considering we all did pretty much abandon you. Oh, by the way, has anyone heard from OiC recently?--Jonpro 07:30, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
Lol yeah, I know. Stupid "real life" taking all the fellow admins away from me! Hrmph! OIC was in the IRC chat the other night, she said she'd be on again soon.. but I haven't seen her since! And thanks! :) --Zoey 19:21, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
I think we should wait and see how KateModern is received before doing much - if it flops in the first week, there's no use redesigning half the encyclopedia.
After all, LG15 was kind of new back in the day - by now, KateModern is just another internet series.
(And given how the Creators failed to vary the plot arcs within one series already, I can very well see how people might recognize this as "Lonelygirl15 UK" and get bored because it's the same thing with different characters.)
So, as said, I advocate waiting.
But if you don't want to wait, I suggest replacing the "Encyclopedia" box on the main page with one LG15-specific and one KM-specific block, while updating the video-list with vids of both series.
Splitting the page in half by series would look terrible.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 09:09, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
Lets see, they are in the same universe, lets see, fan fic is gonna blur the line faster then u can say wiki --Bxman 11:36, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
True. The acrowleyorder series has already made references to KateModern, and I'm sure about 50 will follow. Maybe it would be best to divide into three sections instead of Two (One being fanfiction) --FH14 13:23 6 July 2007 (EST)

Simple solution: 1) on the left you have character pixs: the new page would have character pixs for both shows 2) below that you have Breeniverse which would stay the same but.... 3) each of the items such as Characters would have an LG page and a Kate page (eg characters -lg15 and characters kate, locations-lg15, locations-kate etc (those can grow organically as needed as did the original pedia) 4) then on the right under latest developments videos for both series would be posted as they occur --modelmotion 12:30, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

One thing I just realized: We can't include the KateModern Videos on the same list as the LG15 videos because of the way the number formatting works. KateModern Episode #1 would show up as LG15 Episode #230 or something. I like the merging of the "latest updates" but we should have separate video lists to avoid this problem (ex: two links at the bottom of the latest updates: List of all LG15 videos... and List of all KM videos... --FH14
Well, they say that the KM vids will be appearing on the LG15 homepage (after appearing on Bebo). If they happen to end up in the same official videolist, then I guess that won't be a problem, FH14. But if they end up elsewhere? Oy. Is there a chance to simply keep the LG video count going, but have the KM videos under KM1, KM2, etc? Again, not sure if that's even wiki-possible, but that's my spiel. --Pheon 13:16, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
I did some concepting, please state your opinion on this, everybody.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 14:32, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
I like it. although the Taylor overlap may be a problem. maybe if the info/video boxes were a bit wider? That would also allow more room if there are more than three main characters in KateModern. --FH14 16:10 6 July 2007 (EST)
That layout is 850px wide. We need around 155px for the menu, which brings us to 1005px. That's the very, very maximum for a 1024x768px resolution. So I fear wider is not an option.
In a worst case scenario, we'll have to split and wrap the the image rows in the middle of the layout.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 15:16, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
Are you sure? The current homepage looks wider than the design to me. Of course, when it comes to pixels I'm clueless, so I may be wrong FH14 16:23 6 July 2007 (EST)
Renegade, can you do a design where the Encyclopedia box is split in half horizontally and the rest of the page looking relatively the same? --Pheon 15:45, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Ok I know i haven't been around very much lately, but I'm still as opinionated as ever. I think Miles has totally the wrong idea how to structure the website. I think the loneleygirl15, should remain the site for the story about Bree , Katemodern should have It's own domain name. what we are currently calling the Breeniverse needs to have a name that isn't Breecentric, but encompasses KateModern the Order the HymnOfone etc. for the sake of clarity for the moment I'll call it the Dendraverse, though it probnably won't be called that. so this is how I would structure it Dendarverse.com will have have all the meta info about the Dandraverse and be a portal to lonleygirl15.com katemodern.co.uk (or whatever it's called), Hymnofone.org, and any other website within the Dendraverse. it will also have contain the dendraforums which will contain the currentl lonleygirl15 forums, the KateModern, forums. the Dendraverse Fanfic forums, etc. and it will also contain. it will also contain the Dendrapedia. The dendrapedia use the current Wkik, but will have a new main page which acts as a portal into will have a new main page which is a portal into LGpedia, KMPedia, FanficPedia, etc, the current main page will be moved to a new article called LGpedia, and function much the same way as the Aphidpedia page currently does. Similarly we will have an article called KMPedia that looks much the same but used a perhaps a Red color scheme. Except for the Home page all the domain names will operate synonymously using the same Forum and WiKi directories. I hope I explained myself clearly, the idea is pretty straightforward but I'm not sure I communicated it well. I do think this is the most logical way to go. --misty 02:15, 7 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm sorry, Misty, but I disagree. I think that if there were two separate websites - lonelygirl15.com and katemodern.com - it would ruin the show. Some (but only a few) fans don't even know about KateModern yet, and if they had to go to katemodern.com to view it, then they would not know! And they would be missing out on a whole "sequel"-ish spin-off to lonelygirl15. And what you said about the Breeniverse not being so Bree-esque, I can understand that. However, I think Miles gave us basically a solution to that problem. Instead of the Breeniverse, we call it the LG15 Universe. Then again, that's still lonelygirl15-esque, but you get the point. We could do the Orderverse, the Hymn of One Universe... I don't know. It's the only way that seems possible to me. Making another whole website, katemodern.com, just seems to complicated to me. Plus making a whole wiki, KMPedia... it would seem so small compared to the LGPedia. My suggestion is that the Main Page would be very simple. The centered words "Choose Your Destination" with two arrows pointing to a picture of Bree, with the words "lonelygirl15" under it, and a picture of Kate, with the words "KateModern" under it. Then, the picture of Bree would redirect to our current Main Page. The picture of Kate would redirect to a KateModern-esque Main Page. Sure, we'd have to change a few things, like maybe the name of Lucy's Balcony, or the link to the List of Videos on the side. We could have a link to the List of LG15 Videos, and a link to the List of KM Videos. It just seems like lonelygirl15.com is where lonelygirl15 was born, and it should be where KateModern was born. Miles even said that they were in the process of redesigning lonelygirl15.com so that you can view both shows on it. I say we keep the name LGPedia, unless something major comes up, like a complete separation of lonelygirl15 from KateModern. 09:40, 7 July 2007 (CDT)
Obviousley you didn't understand what I was saying because you are suggesting the same structure. you are just saying that it shoulod all be under the name all under the LG15 name, and that's the point I was objecting to. If you read what i said I wasn't suggesting creating other websites or a new WKI. I was sugessting Creating New domain names. a website can have 1000 domain names if you want. and KMPedia isn't a separate wiki is just a separate article. what I'm saying is that CONCEPTUALLY KM doesn't belong Under LG15, but KM and LG15 belong side by side Under the umbrella of a greater Universe. I called it the the Dendraverse in my example, but could have a different name. but it shouldn't be called the the LG15 universe, because LG15 is Bree eventually Bree will be gone, and if you try to separate LG15 from Bree then it has no meaning. so calling it the LG15 universe makes as much sense as calling it the CMJ24 universe. techincally what i propsed just means moving a few pages and creating a few links. -03:49, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

For whomever is desiging the pages, we now have a few images of Kate, thanks to her Bebo profile.

KateModern Cast.jpg

--Zoey 23:48, 7 July 2007 (CDT)

I have to confess i haven't read all the comments her yet, but it seems the easiest and most efficient way to implement miles' directive is to create a main page for kate modern. the main page for the lgpedia and kmpedia (or whatever it gets called) should both include a prominent link to the other. lonelygirl15.com/kmpedia (or whatever its called) she be made sure to redirect (by their webguys, this isn't a wiki thing) to the kmpedia main page. the kmpedia page is not going to have a lot to start, but i would get it in place and go from there. --Milowent 00:12, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

ok, whizzes get to work?!! i think the red color of kate's bebo profile should be used in instead of the lgpedia blue? http://www.lonelygirl15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=Kmpedia --Milowent 00:26, 8 July 2007 (CDT)
I played with the new page just a bit, as I know little-to-nothing about the wikicodes and didn't want to mess everything up --Pheon 01:49, 8 July 2007 (CDT)
Okay, I took it a little further. We clearly need someone to get the colors looking right.. and we need to crop the images of the cast to the proper size. I didn't really know what to put in the Encyclopedia/Important Links yet, so I just kind of listed some LG pages I thought might be useful. If someone could find like.. Kate's BeBo, or anything else you think would be more important/better suited there, I think it would be great! But generally speaking, I think it's a good start. What do y'all think? (Or are we better going with a layout more similar to AphidPedia?) Okay, thoughts please! I'm off to bed! --Zoey 02:20, 8 July 2007 (CDT)
If we're going to have a seperate KMPedia anyway, I'll try to design something that is like Miles wanted - Two portals and a general universe news main page.
I'll update pages when I'm done, and expect your opinions afterwards.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 03:32, 8 July 2007 (CDT)
Cool I was Planning on working on it a little tomorrow, but i think I'll wait till you get started and I'll help you refine it. -misty 03:49, 8 July 2007 (CDT)
It's looking much better already! The show debuts on July 16 per the article in today's Sunday Times (UK) (posted at lg15today) --Milowent 08:14, 8 July 2007 (CDT)
Misty, about what you said about the "LG15 Universe." Miles clearly stated in his first quote that the LG15 Universe is the universe that encompasses lonelygirl15 and KateModern. I am sorry about not understanding your post. I completely agree with that. I've been thinking, particularly about what Miles wanted, and this is what I've come up with. The C's will do whatever they want with the main lonelygirl15.com page, but they did say that both shows will be viewable from it, and that they would have a link to the lonelygirl15 portal, and the KateModern portal. I think that the KMPedia page right now should actually be the KateModern portal. And that the Main Page right now should be moved to some other name, and it will be the lonelygirl15 portal. The Main Page should be, as Renegade said, a "general universe news main page." I think that that should be on the bottom half of the page, and the "Choose Your Destination" with links to both the lonelygirl15 portal and the KateModern portal will be at the top. I think that maybe we should delete more fan fiction pages (it's overwhelming how much there is) so that we have more room on the wiki for KateModern pages. Those are just my thoughts. Thanks,   •Silver•   Talk | Contribs 10:40, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

Hey guys. I think that the previous comment is accurate. Regardless of the past meanings of things. Here's the current dealio. LG15 is the Universe (HOO, The Order, Watchers, Ceremony Girls, etc.) and there are currently two shows running in that Universe: lonelygirl15 and KateModern. The LGPedia should encompass the whole LG15 Universe and should reflect that on the front page. Things like the video list, cast list, production list, etc. are all SHOW SPECIFIC and would be on those show pages. So, the current LGPedia front page is almost what each of the show pages (lonelygirl15 and KateModern) should look like (but with different logos and color schemes... will get you those soon). IN FACT, you could use that "show template" for the fan created shows as well... but obviously house them in some "fan section" that comes off the new LG15 Universe front page of LGPedia. Things like active shows, "Latest Developments in the LG15 Universe" (like you already have running along the right) could stay on the new portal (maybe you associate a Show Logo and color backdrop kinda like what you are currently doing for the different bloggers who post a video... with each "update" so it's clear which updates come from KM and which come from lonelygirl15). The index to the left would change (since cast, crew, etc. is a show specific thing). Make sense? Thanks everyone!!!!! Miles Admin 12:13, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

So what you're saying, Miles, is that we still have the "portal" type of page that we have for lonelygirl15 on the Main Page, except it would be the LG15 Universe Portal. With links to the lonelygirl15 portal (the current Main Page) and the KateModern portal (KMPedia). Thanks, Miles! 13:35, 8 July 2007 (CDT)
Essentially, yes. With the caveat that right now the current Main Page has "LG15 Universe" stuff that wouldn't be on the new lonelygirl15 and definitely should be on the new LG15 Main Page. Ditto for the KateModern portal that is evolving on KMPedia. Hope that's clear. Thanks everyone. I am constantly amazed, honoured, and inspired by how much you all love this Universe I created and how much time you spend caring for and developing the LGPedia. THANKS! Miles. Admin 17:02, 8 July 2007 (CDT)
Miles, (And everyone else, I'd love EVERYONES feedback), I went ahead on my sandbox page and tried to create what I thought you were asking for. User:Zoey/sandbox has the main page and User:Zoey/sandbox/Portal:LGPedia is the LGPedia portal while User:Zoey/sandbox/Portal:KMPedia is the KMPedia portal. Obviously the pages are highly messy at the moment, and could use a good cleanup (I don't pretend to be the best at Wiki-coding, so maybe someone else could come in and give the pages a spruce.), but basically I tried to create what you were asking for, at least as a staring point. I'm not sure whether this is the best idea, or whether we should stick with our current mainpage and just create a prominent link to the KMPedia page and just.. repeat links that apply to both, but I did want to get this up so people could see what they thought. Hopefully this is what you were asking for, and I'd love feedback/suggestions for more links or anything else you thought the pages needed. For now, I'm going to go rest my eyes for a bit -- I've been staring at this wiki for FAR too long :) Good luck with the launch of Kate coming up, and hope to hear your thoughts (and everyone else's!) soon! --Zoey 17:58, 8 July 2007 (CDT)
Zoey, I'm positive that's what Miles is asking for. Nice starting point! I think that the main page should still say "Welcome to the LGPedia," but the LG15 Portal should say "Welcome to the LG15 Portal" and the KM Portal should say "Welcome to the KM Portal," or something similar to that. Nice starting point, though! However, I think the LG15 Universe Portal that you did was kinda iffy. I think that you should have a big "Choose Your Destination" and then there would be the pictures of Bree and Kate. But otherwise, Zoey, great job!   •Silver•   Talk | Contribs 10:12, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
Zoey, I also agree that your latest sandbox concepts are what we are looking for. The new terminology seems to be LG15 = universe, lonelygirl15 and KateModern = shows within the universe... therefore the parent "Universe Portal" has links to each child "Show Portal". Each show portal has links to cast/crew/episodes etc. Once the full set of portals are set up, I am sure everyone will refine and evolve the design to make it better. And Zoey, sorry I haven't been around to help out more (blame "stupid real life"). Psmith 16:07, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
Okay, I recently e-mailed Miles and he said that he would prefer if we use cast photos instead of photos of the lead actresses for the portals, but other than that, I generally think we're set. He also said he thinks it would be neat if the portal page was more "dynamic" but I asked for further clarification on that, I am waiting for a reply. As soon as I get cast photos up though, I think I am going to go ahead and make the pages live, if there are no objections. It seems like I have made the pages in a way that pleases everybody (hopefully?? well, maybe not everybody, but yes hopefully enough.) If anyone knows where I can get some recent cast photos that I can at least use as a stand-in, that would be great. Thanks to everyone for your opinions and ideas, and if you have any more thoughts, please post 'em! And PSmith, ugh, more "real life" excuses! Harumph! --Zoey 17:16, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
So, since instead of a picture of Bree and a picture of Kate, I assume we can use File:Human Ransom.jpg for lonelygirl15 and File:KateModern cast.jpg for KateModern. 15:12, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Miles told me he would be providing me with new cast photos shortly. I know he just flew to Cali from London, so he probably won't get back to me for a bit, but I am expecting some photos from him to use. :) --Zoey 15:26, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Browser neutrality or Official Browser

Ok there are some pages ( like the list of videos page ), that have significant differences when rendered in different browsers, and currently anyone can just edit to make the page look good in there own browser, and things don't look quite right in other browsers. I think we need a standard, either we enforce "Browser Neutrality", by not allowing any page design that doesn't look as good in all Browsers, or we declare one Browser the official Browser, and all pages are optimized to look best in that Browser, but must still look reasonble in all browsers. Realistically there are only 3 Browsers, that we need to concern ourselves with Safari (Webkit), Firefox (Gecko) and Internet Explorer (Trident), since every other Browser uses the same rendering engine as one of them. all of them have pros and cons:

Safari (Webkit) -

  • Pros: Renders fonts better than any other Browser, most compliant to WC3 web standards.
  • Cons: Windows version is still Beta,
  • Other Webkit Browsers: OmniWeb, Swift, Sunrise, Midori, Shiira, Konqueror

Internet Explorer (Trident)

  • Pros: Largest market share,
  • Cons- Ignores WC3 standards, renders poorly
  • Other Trident Browsers: AOL Explorer,Avant, Maxthon

FireFox (Gecko)

  • Pros: Good WC3 compliance, best cross-platform support.
  • Cons: inconsistent line spacing, adding extra pixels to object heights.
  • Other Gecko Browsers: Netscape,Seamonkey, Camino, Galleon, Epiphany, K-Meleon, Flock

. --misty 14:03, 7 July 2007 (CDT)

Vote Tally

Browser Neutrality

  1. Support Enforced Browser Neutrality
    1. Zoey
    2. Misty
    3. Modelmotion
    4. Phoenician
  2. Opposed of enforced Browser Neutrality
    1. Renegade
    2. -R-

Official Browser

  1. Support Firefox as the Official Browser
    1. Renegade
    2. -R-
  2. Support Safari as the Official Browser
    1. Misty
  3. Support IE as the Official Browser

Didn't we reduce the render-difference to different line heights in List of Videos? At least that's the only significant difference I remember and see...
Of course I'd love Firefox to become the official browser, but unless that happens, I'd prefer neutrality - 'cause I sure as hell won't develop on IE, and I'm not gonna install that buggy apple thing on my machine.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 20:14, 7 July 2007 (CDT)
Personally, I vote for browser-neutrality. As web developers, you want your pages to look nice for everyone who views them, not force your viewers to use a certain browser or "tough luck guys". Plus, with something as widely viewed as the LGPedia, I think it's fair to say no matter what browser would be chosen as "official", there will be a LARGE number of viewers who do not use that. So yes, I vote for neutrality. --Zoey 23:52, 7 July 2007 (CDT)
Ok well if we for browser neutrality the list of videos page need another redesign, sinse the montage to list alignment breaks browser neutrality. so no pages can be designed to need vertical alignment of independent objects. So it looks like so far everyone is agreeable to browser neutrality, I say that if there are no objections by midnight July 10, that we make that official policy, and add it to the style guide -Misty 02:33, 8 July 2007 (CDT)
I think different line height is close enough to not count as "differently looking".
After all, the only thing different is how far down the montage extends.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 03:32, 8 July 2007 (CDT)
Yes it certainly counts , in fact that is the main issue for this whole discussion. We either declare Firefox safari or IE as the official Browser, and align it for that; or we declare Browser Neutrality and the page gets redesigned so vertical alignment doesn't matter. -misty 03:59, 8 July 2007 (CDT)
If you decide to redesign a perfectly fine layout just because the lines are a little more spaced in one browser, you're doing that alone, missy. :P
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 04:27, 8 July 2007 (CDT)
That sounds like a vote againsts enforced browser neutrality. Ok so that things don't get confused I'm going to put a vote tally: Please ad or edit your vote appropriately. -Misty 11:42, 8 July 2007 (CDT)
I use all the main browsers with the excepetion of IE (but including Safari and Firefox). As long as pages are readable on a mac I am happy, but please dont make this a mac vs pc issue.--modelmotion 19:50, 8 July 2007 (CDT)
I'm mainly an IE user, but I've also use FireFox as well. I think the best way to go is browser neutrality, since it wouldn't be right to force a certain browser on others. As for that videolist montage, its unmatched with the latest vids from an IE view, but hey, I'm used to it. --Pheon 03:43, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
no one is talking about forcing people to use a particular browser, having an official browser means that pages that render differently in different browser must optimized for that browser. Currently the list of videos is the page that most renders differently, so saying "I support enforcing browser neutrality, but I don't care about the list of videos" is saying "I don't support enforced browser neutrality". So then we have to pick a browser to optimize the list of videos for , that's why we would need an official browser. -misty 11:56, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Uh, O.K., I see this has kind of been going on for a while, but I want to jump in. I believe that FireFox should be the official LGPedia browser on account that it is cross platform. There are really no literal "system requirements" which is good, because I run Windows 2K and most newer browsers won't support the OS. I'm not sure if this really effects most of the people on the site, but sometimes it does to me. I don't care if it is the official browser, but if it is at least optimized for a cross-system browser, I'll be happy. Love, -R- 15:50, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Well I was hoping that we would have a clearer consensus. from the comments, I'm not 100% convinced that people who voted for enforced browser neutrality really understood what they were voting for. I think we need to give it a few more days, before setting policy. So how about July 15 Midnight CDT -misty 02:01, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Finally something ending in central time :D but honestly, I am all for the official browser being FireFox. Love, -R- 02:14, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
More importantly, they probably don't know that these three rendering engines render pages differently, and that it's impossible to "enforce" browser neutrality. If you consider different line-height reason enough for a re-design already, LGPedia will never ever be able to use anything with width and borders again - simply because of IE's box model.
Again, I reiterate: We should try to get it as close as possible, but trying to enforce the pages look 100% the same is just stupid, because it's impossible - unless you're doing nothing more than colored text.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 04:55, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
the problem isn't that there are differences, between browsers, the problem is that some designs rely on specific alignments to look correct, and if the browsers render them differently, then it doesn't look correct in all browsers. On the other hand if one browsers spaced things at 11 pixels, and another browser spaced things at 13 pixels, if everything still lined up correctly in both browsers, the page wold be considered browse neutral, even though it doesn't render identically in both browsers. -misty 18:13, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

A good-bye of sorts

There have recently been some changes in my real life. I was unsure what the adjustment would be as far as my time online is concerned. It has now become obvious to me that I will no longer be able to remain active here at the LGPedia. I still intend to read it, follow it and even occasionally edit and discuss, but I don't have the time to faithfully execute the job of administrator. I'm still immensely proud of having been involved with this wiki for the last 9 months and 3600+ edits, I am immensely proud of the quality of the Wiki and its over 1,000 articles. But it's time for me to step aside. Effective immediately, Zoey will now serve as bureaucrat -- she and Miles will be the only people with the ability to create and remove administrators. As Brucker and I have been inactive for months, I'll remove our rights. What happens after that is up to you. I wish everyone the best going forward. --JayHenry 11:21, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

Bye Jay!!! :( Definately hope to continue seeing you around, even if it's not on the LGPedia. Thanks for all your hard work for so long! I shall try to do you proud! *cheesy grin* --Zoey 02:33, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Bye man. it was good working with you.--TJ Marsh 14:40, 12 July 2007 (CDT)