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

From LGPedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(adding link to the REALLY old archives -- almost forgot about these pages :))
(moved REALLY old discussion into the deeper archives and returned the archive guide on the bottom.)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
This is the archive of discussions from [[LGPedia:Lucy's Balcony|Lucy's Balcony]] that are no longer active or have been resolved.  To revive an old issue, please start a new thread at [[LGPedia:Lucy's Balcony|Lucy's Balcony]].
 
This is the archive of discussions from [[LGPedia:Lucy's Balcony|Lucy's Balcony]] that are no longer active or have been resolved.  To revive an old issue, please start a new thread at [[LGPedia:Lucy's Balcony|Lucy's Balcony]].
  
For even older discussions, please visit [[LGPedia:Lucy's Balcony/archive2|the older archives]].
+
Finally, for discussions deader than Bree's dad, please visit [[LGPedia:Lucy's Balcony/archive2|the older archives]].
 
+
== Bots ==
+
 
+
This might be way out of our league here, but has anyone thought about creating a bot for LGPedia? It could do things like add [[Template:Tag]] to all the articles in Category:YouTube tags, make renaming categories easier, and other tedious tasks. I have some programming experience, but I'm not sure what programming language would be needed to make a bot. Does anyone know or are there any thoughts on the idea?--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 23:06, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
: Creating a bot is ''way'' out of my league.  Hell, I'm proud when my ''templates'' don't explode upon first use.  Here's the wikipedia guide to bots: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Creating_a_bot].  I can authorize a bot if somebody else can program one. --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 23:14, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
::Having a bot for certain tasks might be nice.  I was under the impression that you could "borrow" bots from Wikipedia... as in, use their source code somehow.  It's so way out of my league though that even if I were given the code for the bot, I wouldn't even know what to do with it, or how to run it.  Hm... I should start making friends at Wikipedia.  [[User:OwenIsCool|OwenIsCool]] 23:24, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
:::Thanks for the link, Jay. I did some researching, and it appears that OwenIsCool is right. I'm going to try to get a bot set up using the 'python wikipediabot'. I'm still not sure exactly how to do it, but I'm working on it. I'll go ahead an create an account because it seems like that's one of the first steps to getting it to work. The username is [[User:LGBot]].--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 23:55, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
::::Sounds cool!  Keep us posted.  Once we've tested it, and if we're sure it's not going to malfunction, then I can authorize it as a bot.  The advantage of officially making it a bot is that its edits won't automatically show up in recent changes -- that way if you edit 500 video tags it won't flood recent changes.  The disadvantage, is also that its edits won't automatically show up, but we can see them by clicking on (show bots) or by checking: [[Special:Contributions/LGBot]]. --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 00:40, 14 March 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
:::::Ok, cool. Just to make sure, the language code for this wiki is 'en', right? I haven't gotten everything to work yet and want to make sure that's not the problem.--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 12:05, 14 March 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
::::::This may not look impressive, but I finally got the bot to work with this [http://www.lonelygirl15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=User%3ALGBot&diff=28102&oldid=28050 edit]. I'm going to try to test it out in a few other ways to make sure everything is working correctly.--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 15:00, 14 March 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
:::::::Ok, I think the bot is working fine now. I had it run through some of the video transcripts and replace <nowiki>''(whatever)'' </nowiki> with <nowiki>(''whatever'')</nowiki>. I have to verify every change before it makes the edit, so it is unlikely to "go out of control" and start making crazy or unproductive edits. Other than that, are there any suggestions for more testing that should be done before this can really be put to use?--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 16:00, 14 March 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
==Cast and crew template?==
+
Would a cast and crew template be a good idea?  We could have picture, name, birthday, role in series, first appearance/credit and a link to the newly organized [[:Category:Credits|production credits]].  I was thinking it should look like [[Template:Person]], but I'm not ''crazy'' about the person template.    Perhaps a snazzier "person" template and a new [[Template:Crew]]? --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 22:50, 26 February 2007 (CST)
+
:Yep the Person template could use a little TLC, huh?  How would the Crew template be different from a Person template?  If it's not too different, perhaps adding a couple of fields to the "snazzed up" person template would do the trick.  [[User:OwenIsCool|OwenIsCool]] 00:02, 27 February 2007 (CST)
+
 
+
::I whipped up a potential look for a new character template.  If people like, I could adapt it to real people too.  The preliminary version is here at [[Template talk:Test]].  It looks best in Firefox. --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 17:30, 5 March 2007 (CST)
+
 
+
:::I put up a first draft of the crew template at [[Template:Crew]].  A test run of it is in place on the [[Mesh Flinders]] and the [[Jackson Davis]] pages.  Input, as always, much appreciated. --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 12:35, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
::::Looks goo to me!<span style="color:Blue">'''''-BRUCKER [[Image:EyeBlueSmall.jpg]] ([[User:Brucker|Home]]/[[User talk:Brucker|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Brucker|Contribs]])'''''</span> 16:04, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
== Sidebar ==
+
 
+
I was thinking of changing the sidebar a bit.  My proposal is to break out another "community" section:
+
 
+
* lg15 links the same.
+
* navigation
+
** Main Page
+
** List of Videos
+
** AphidPedia
+
** Recent Changes
+
** Random page
+
* Community
+
** Welcome
+
** Community Portal
+
** Lucy's Balcony
+
** Help
+
 
+
Any other ideas? Does that seem like a good idea? --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 17:32, 5 March 2007 (CST)
+
 
+
Maybe Caping lg15? other then, it would look great. --[[User:Iris2009|TJ Marsh]] 18:40, 5 March 2007 (CST)
+
 
+
:I'm sorry, what does "Caping lg15" mean? --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 10:41, 6 March 2007 (CST)
+
 
+
::Capitalizing, perhaps?--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 14:34, 6 March 2007 (CST)
+
 
+
:::Ah, so it says LG15 links instead?  Good idea!  I agree! --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 14:37, 6 March 2007 (CST)
+
 
+
::::Yeah, all of them should be capitalized, I think. Those options look good to me, Jay. <span style="color:Blue">'''''-BRUCKER [[Image:EyeBlueSmall.jpg]] ([[User:Brucker|Home]]/[[User talk:Brucker|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Brucker|Contribs]])'''''</span> 18:04, 6 March 2007 (CST)
+
 
+
::::Well, it turns out that the small capitalization is hardwired into the MediaWiki software.  It can't be fixed from [[MediaWiki:Sidebar]].  Perhaps there's another way to do it, but if so, I don't know how and I don't feel like tooling around all night at [http://mediawiki.org MediaWiki.org] for the answer. --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 21:42, 6 March 2007 (CST)
+
 
+
== New admin -- [[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] ==
+
 
+
I'm pleased to announce that [[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] has been appointed the newest administrator on the LGPedia.  Jonpro has been a reliable contributor to the LGPedia since first arriving in November.  He's undertaken the massive task of organizing the YouTube tags on all the LG videos, on top of hundreds of edits fixing pages, keeping our style consistent and keeping things categorized.  Congrats, Jonpro. --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 13:56, 8 March 2007 (CST)
+
 
+
:Thanks [[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]], and I hope I can be a help to everyone. I'm new to this admin thing, but I'm sure I'll catch on :) --[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 15:32, 8 March 2007 (CST)
+
 
+
Kongrats man! --[[User:Iris2009|TJ Marsh]] 18:36, 8 March 2007 (CST)
+
 
+
== [[Template:Tag]] ==
+
 
+
What do others think? Would a template like this be helpful? I'm not very good with wording and such, so that might need to be improved, but what do people think of the general idea? Basically, it would be put on every YouTube tag page and <nowiki>|</nowiki>disambig would be added for pages that are also disambiguation pages.--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 20:15, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
: I think it's what we should have done when we first made the tags link 5 months ago.  I def like it, but won't it take ''forever'' to swap out?  I feel bad asking anyone to do that.  How many tags are there?  400?  More? --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 20:18, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
::At least that many. I wouldn't mind pitching in though, and if we can get a few more volunteers, it really won't take that long. Anyone up for some tedious work?--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 20:37, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
:::Hmm... I just thought of one other thing, not sure if it matters.  But I think these will all become "articles."  That raises two issues: 1) anybody using randompage will get a tag about half the time and 2) it will say that we have over 1,000 articles.  Unless anyone knows away around that.  Just a thought, i don't really see it as a reason not to go ahead with it. --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 20:50, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
::::Yeah, good point. No solution for #1, but I don't think #2 will be a problem. I'm guessing they'll be part of the [[Special:Statistics|"articles that aren't really articles"]] (stubs, redirects, etc). Not sure, but that's my guess.--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 20:57, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
==The party guests==
+
So as of [[Uncle Dan]] and [[Uncle Dan (D-Bone Remix)]], we have like 10 new characters.  Most of these now have their own articles, which consist of one or two sentences saying that they were at the party.  This is bad form... perhaps we could have a page called "party guests" and list them there with short descriptions?  Then we could just make their character names a redirect to the party guests page.  If one of the characters turns out to have a larger role, we can move their info to a separate page.  [[User:OwenIsCool|OwenIsCool]] 16:44, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
+
:I actually think starting off with a picture would be a great help.  I'm having trouble putting faces to the character names.--[[User:Immortal1|Immortal1]] 16:56, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
+
::I got a few pictures up on a few of the pages. <span style="color:Blue">'''''-BRUCKER [[Image:EyeBlueSmall.jpg]] ([[User:Brucker|Home]]/[[User talk:Brucker|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Brucker|Contribs]])'''''</span> 18:43, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
== costs of a site like this ==
+
 
+
Just wondering how you guys are doing on donations and what it costs to run a site like this?
+
 
+
Traveling around, doing videos about basic or not so basic life situations sounds like a blast!!
+
 
+
Any hints of how to get started?
+
 
+
thanks! [[User:12.27.187.199|12.27.187.199]] 19:03, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
== Tasks ==
+
 
+
What do people think of having a page to list tasks that need to be done on the LGPedia? For example, right now there are lots of images in [[:Category:Images of fans and spinoffs]] that could be subcategorized to make them easier to find. While I could just do this myself, if I don't have the time (or don't want to spend the time), are there other people who are just looking for things to do? Sometimes I think it can be a little unclear what needs to be done on the LGPedia, so having a place that lists things might be helpful. People could add things they want done to the list (maybe these should be verified that they actually ''should'' be done) and then when the task is complete it can be removed from the list. Any thoughts?--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 21:41, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
:Hey look, we have a [[LGPedia:Community Portal|Community Portal]]. What do you know--I kind of forgot about that. It doesn't look like it's being used that much though, or at least it's not being updated very much. Hmmmm.--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 23:09, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
::Okay, I made [[LGPedia:Tasks]]. I guess we'll just see if this works or not. I'd love to hear others' thoughts on this.--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 23:37, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
+
:::I like what you did with LGPedia tasks.  You're right, a lot of times there are editors at the LGPedia that aren't sure how to contribute.  They either don't do much, or they create other random (though perhaps less needed) work.  The Community Portal was supposed to help with that, but you're right, it's not used much.  Perhaps something that should be added to tasks or community portal is pages that need to be updated frequently, such as character pages.  I don't just means in terms of "last appearance" but as to the content of the article.  [[User:OwenIsCool|OwenIsCool]] 23:40, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
== Vloggers ==
+
 
+
I've been cleaning up wanted pages and noticed a lot of them are the bloggers Bree mentioned on her early videos.  Since they were influences on Bree and also used to gain popularity, I think they should have some sort of joint article.  I'd like to start it, but not sure if the already existing "[[Vlog]]" or perhaps a new "Vlogging influences of lonelygirl15" or some similar name would be a better place for it?
+
 
+
{{User:Phuncknasty/sig}} 17:00, 28 February 2007 (CST)
+
:Taken care of, more or less. I should have done that a long time ago. --[[User:Brucker|Brucker]] 17:51, 28 February 2007 (CST)
+
 
+
::Well, first, I think it's a good idea for an article, Phuncknasty.  I could help out.  [[Thewinekone]] and [[paytotheorderofofof2]] had real articles attached, btw.  But, more importantly, I think we need to figure out what we're doing with tags.  A lot of the wanted pages are tags.  We don't really seem to have a clear policy on where tags should direct or even what videos should have tags.  Phuncknasty redirected [[Lonesome]] and [[October]] to [[LonesomeOctober]] but since they were tags on a Tachyon video, OIC suggested this might not be a good redirect.  But since we don't really have a clear policy, it's causing some confusion and ''lots'' of broken pages.--[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 17:59, 28 February 2007 (CST)
+
 
+
:::I agree that the tags are sometimes confusing.  Maybe we should ask Jonpro because it looks to me like he's the tag master.  He has "the vision."  I think I'll start work on a vloggers article at [[Vlogging influences of lonelygirl15]], and if you guys want to move it, that's totally fine with me.    And I also had another good (I think!) idea... how about a page on Jonas's movie references.  I saw the [[four-letter words]] page and I thought it'd be cool to have a similar list with short entries of all the times Jonas mentions a movie.  Who knows, maybe it adds up to something or maybe it will just be a fun list.  But for now, I'm going to start doing research for a vlogging article.
+
 
+
:::{{User:Phuncknasty/sig}} 10:05, 1 March 2007 (CST)
+
 
+
::::Thanks, [[User:Phuncknasty|Phuncknasty]]. I think the current policy for official LG15 videos is to put them in Category:YouTube tags and redirect them there if it does not have a page or there is no more logical place to redirect. I was thinking that perhaps instead of this each YouTube tag page could contain a list of which videos have that tag. Doing this manually would be a pain, though, and it would have to be updated for each new video. If there was a way to do it with a template or something that would be ideal. If not, I think the current set-up is fine as well.
+
 
+
::::For other (non-canon) videos, I see no reason for a category containing their tags, but I see the problem with the broken links. I think the obvious way to fix this is to only have a tag link if a page of that name already exists. The video [[What's in the Box/Bree & Daniel Update - NBR 3]] is a good example, as it links to pages like [[Bree]] and [[danielbeast]] since they already exist, but not "charlie" and "horus" since they don't. If a useful redirect of page could be made of either one of those, then the tag would be changed to link there.
+
 
+
::::As far as where to redirect them, I think using disambiguation techniques is the best idea. If a word is clearly ambiguous, make a disambig page for it. Otherwise, simply add a disambig line at the top of the page to link to what the user might be looking for. If a template or something could be made to list the videos that contain a certain tag, then users "searching by tag" so to speak could look at that and find the video they're looking for. Sorry about the long post. Hope this helps.--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 10:27, 1 March 2007 (CST)
+
 
+
As I hinted at above, I don't think the tags on unofficial videos deserve links in general. If there is a page that's pertinent to the tag, then sure, link there. Sometimes, it might not be a link to what the tags says; for instance, the "house" tag on [[Where Is Jonas? - NBR 6]] should probably be linked to [[Jonas's house]] if linked at all, instead of to [[house]], where it currently links. On the other hand, the "squrrel" link probably ought to be dropped. That's my view on the matter of fan video tag linking. <span style="color:Blue">'''''-BRUCKER [[Image:EyeBlueSmall.jpg]] ([[User:Brucker|Home]]/[[User talk:Brucker|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Brucker|Contribs]])'''''</span> 17:04, 1 March 2007 (CST)
+
 
+
:I agree with Brucker on "un-linking" those fanvid tags that don't pertain to any particular article.  [[User:OwenIsCool|OwenIsCool]] 19:53, 8 March 2007 (CST)
+
 
+
==Excluding YouTube tags from Random pages ==
+
Is it posible to Exclude YouTube tags from the Random pages link,i noticed that half the time when i click on random pages i get a Youtube tag.  I think it would be more interesting if it only took you to real articles. -[[User:Misty|misty]] 19:31, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
:Oh oh I'm with you there!  If it's possible, my vote on this would be YES!  --[[User:Zoey|Zoey]] 20:23, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
::Unfortunately I don't think there's any way to do this. --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 15:59, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
+
::: How about if we get rid of all the YouTube tag pages or combine them into one page -[[User:Misty|misty]] 16:04, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
::::I've been thinking about this recently and it does seem kind of silly to have a bunch of pages whose only content is the "tag" box. One possible solution is to make the "tag" pages with an associated page redirect pages, but instead of replacing <nowiki>{{tag|page=PAGENAME}}</nowiki> with <nowiki>#REDIRECT PAGENAME</nowiki>, we could incorporate the redirect in the {{tl|tag}} template. This way, the box would still be on the pages, but you would only see it if you click on the "(Redirected from PAGENAME)" link after being redirected. That would save everyone from having to click on the associated page link, and I think it would keep Category:YouTube tags working fine. I'm not sure if it would fix the "Random Page" problem, but it might. Hopefully this makes sense. Any thoughts?--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 19:22, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
:::::Okay, I'm going to go ahead and try this out. We'll see if it works.--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 15:07, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
::::::Well, it didn't work so I changed it back to how it was. Does anyone know if what I'm trying to do is possible?--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 16:10, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
+
::::::: Ok I found a couple things that can help http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Special_page and http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Custom_namespaces.  What you need to do, is put all the youtube tags in a custom namespace -[[User:Misty|misty]] 20:11, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
:::::::: That's way more trouble than it's worth.  We'd have to redirect every tag in every video with a piped link <nowiki>[[Tag:Purple|purple]]</nowiki>.  Plus adding a custom namespace isn't something that we can just snap our fingers and do.  We have to get FTP access from Miles and then reinstall the wiki.  Totally not worth it just so people don't have to hit the random page button twice. --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 23:03, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
+
:::::::::Ok I think this will work without creating a new namespace.  I did a little experimenting, by clicking random page dozens of times. I noticed that anything in subpage doesn't come up (e.g. List_of_Lonelygirl15_videos/redesign).  So I think if we were to move all the tags to a subpage of YouTube_tags (e.g. people to YouTube_tags/people) , and modified the template to use the new location, then it would work. The bot could move all the pages, (but I think it can't leave a redirect in the old location for this to work). -[[User:Misty|misty]] 14:32, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
:::::::::: Actually, the random page button will get subpages too.  Less than 1 percent of our pages are subs, so you'd expect to get one once out of every hundred random pages. --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 15:23, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
+
::::::::::: Well something needs to be done, I've gotten 15 youtube tags in a row. Why do we have Youtube tags anyway? -[[User:Misty|misty]] 21:40, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
At this point, I'm wondering if we should just do away with most of the YouTube tag stuff. I think that we might be able to apply our policy for fan videos to official videos. What I mean is that we could only make a tag a link if a page already exists. The way I see it, the point of a link is to find out more information about whatever you're clicking on. If I'm on the page for [[Quitting The Sauce]] and I click on <nowiki>[[sleep]]</nowiki>, it will take me to a page that is esentially useless to me. I could click on "what links here" but even that doesn't seem very useful. Also, if it's a page like [[Bree]], it won't be easy to sort out the videos in that list anyway. We also run into problems like [[help]] which should redirect to [[Help:Contents]] but is also a tag. Then of course there's the "random page" problem that started this discussion. Anyway, enough with the problems. Here's what I'm proposing:
+
#Change most (if not all) of the tag pages with an "associated page" to redirect pages. (The bot can handle this rather easily.)
+
#Delete the tag pages that contain only <nowiki>{{tag}}</nowiki> and remove links to those pages on the video pages.
+
#Keep Category:YouTube tags (perhaps rename it), but have it include only tags that have pages, such as [[Bree]], [[inebriated|Drunk]], etc.
+
#Keep [[Template:tag]], but perhaps modify it to fit with the new structure.
+
#Keep all of the [[:Category:Strange tags|strange tag]] pages that still seem worthy of a page, and delete or redirect the rest.
+
 
+
With this system, if I'm on the page for [[Quitting The Sauce]], I'll notice that <nowiki>[[sleep]]</nowiki> is "grayed out", so I won't have to waste the time clicking on it hoping to find more information. If I click on [[inebriated|alcohol]], however, I'll be taken straight to the [[inebriated|drunk]] page where I can read about something alcohol related, which was the whole point I clicked on the link. As far as the amount of work involved to do all this, the hardest part would be #2, which will probably take a lot of time. I should be able to get the bot to help out somewhat, but I'm not sure how much. Anyway, what does everyone think of this idea? Is it worth it? Improvements and suggestions are also much appreciated.--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 14:27, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
:I like this new approach very much, Jonpro.  We started keeping a record of YouTube tags in the earlier days when it was thought that there would be special significance behind them, but over time it became clear that it was kind of a waste of time.  Most things that need to be linked to will be mentioned in the notes anyway.  If a certain tag is so irrelevant that it doesn't even have a related page, we shouldn't bother giving it a link.  I almost want to just completely do away with tags, but that would be too extreme and I like your approach better.  [[User:OwenIsCool|OwenIsCool]] 15:01, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
+
:: I don' think it's too extreme, but I also like the new approach -[[User:Misty|misty]] 19:19, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
: Okay, perhaps it is just me, but I happen to really ''like'' being able to see which videos have used which tags, and etc.  I do get that the tag pages are causing a lot of problems though, and I agree that it wouldn't be horrible if they were gone :P  Can people other than admins delete pages?  As always, I'm happy to help out in any way I can, so let me know if you need deleting help (as you said this would be the most troublesome part).  --[[User:Zoey|Zoey]] 23:22, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
+
:: Actually it wouldn't be too difficult to delete the pages, if the bot can scan the pages for the <nowiki>{{delete|youtube tag}}</nowiki> and delete the pages it's found on. Then the rest of us can just put the delete template on the tag pages without needing Admin privileges. -[[User:Misty|misty]] 00:55, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
:::[[User:Zoey|Zoey]], sorry but only admins can delete pages. And yes, the bot does have a "delete" script which would actually use my account to delete the pages. The simplest way it works is just by deleting all the pages in a category. And I'm thinking now that [[Template:tag]] doesn't seem very useful anyway, so maybe that can go too. The one thing the bot won't be able to do is tell the difference between a page that contains ''only'' <nowiki>{{tag}}</nowiki> on it and a page which has other content too. So, here's a sequence of steps that I think should work:
+
:::#Have the bot change all the pages with <nowiki>{{tag|page=PAGENAME}}</nowiki> to <nowiki>#REDIRECT [[PAGENAME]]</nowiki>.
+
:::#Remove all instances of <nowiki>{{tag}}</nowiki> from pages that have other content as well (e.g. [[Bree]], [[Daniel]], [[Lonelygirl15]]). This would include [[:Category:Strange tags|strange tag]] pages.
+
:::#At this point only pages that have only <nowiki>{{tag}}</nowiki> on them will be left in Category:YouTube tags. So, I can run the "delete" script on pages in that category.
+
:::Steps 1 and 2 can really be done simultaneously, but step 3 can't be done until steps 1 and 2 are complete. Sound like a plan? I can run the script to do the redirects tonight if this sounds good.--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 15:33, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
+
:::: Sounds good to me -[[User:Misty|misty]] 23:03, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
:::::Okay, I'll go ahead and start changing the ones that need to be into redirects and removing <nowiki>{{tag}}</nowiki> from pages with other content.--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 13:31, 5 May 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
::::::The redirects have been created and content pages have had <nowiki>{{tag}}</nowiki> removed. Next, if everything thinks it's a good idea, I'll change everything so it uses {{tl|tags}} then delete all the other tag pages.--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 15:56, 5 May 2007 (CDT)
+
:::::: is this a bot task or a manual task? if it needs to be  done by hand, I'll work forward on the official List of Videos, someone else can start with the fanfic videos -[[User:Misty|misty]] 16:25, 5 May 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
:::::::It's a bot task actually. I just wanted to make sure it sounded like a good idea. I guess I'll go ahead and run the bot script.--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 16:39, 5 May 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
:::::::: Thank you Jonpro, you did a great job. Everything seems to be working great. Maybe we can archive this topic.-[[User:Misty|misty]] 00:10, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
:::::::::One more thing before archiving. I managed to convert most of the video pages to using {{tl|tags}} with the bot, but I ran into a few problems so I couldn't get them all. If anyone sees any pages where it's not being used, it shouldn't be too much work to convert it. Other than that, I think this is pretty much resolved.--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 11:43, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
Okey, I manually went through all the [[:Category:Videos]] and added the tag template where it was missing and fixed up the pages it was messed up on.  I could have missed a few, but I'm pretty sure I got them all.  I even did the [[LordGreystoke422|LG422]] videos even though I still don't think they should be transcribed at all.. xP.  So um, yes.  Hopefully this works out better!  --[[User:Zoey|Zoey]] 15:23, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
+
:I double checked your work, and if you missed any, then I missed the same ones. -[[User:Misty|misty]] 18:40, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
+
 
+
<center>[[LGPedia:Lucy's Balcony|<-- Back to Main Page]] | [[LGPedia:Lucy's Balcony/archive2|Next -->]]</center>
+
  
 
==No uploading??==
 
==No uploading??==
Line 496: Line 311:
 
::::Hmm.  Actually (again, if uploading an extension were possible), the [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ImageLink ImageLink Extension] is a lot better. - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 18:29, 24 November 2007 (CST)
 
::::Hmm.  Actually (again, if uploading an extension were possible), the [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ImageLink ImageLink Extension] is a lot better. - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 18:29, 24 November 2007 (CST)
 
::::Also thought I'd add that we probably shouldn't use [[Template:Imagelink]], as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Clickable_images Wikipedia is phasing it out] due to many problems it creates. - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 18:44, 24 November 2007 (CST)
 
::::Also thought I'd add that we probably shouldn't use [[Template:Imagelink]], as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Clickable_images Wikipedia is phasing it out] due to many problems it creates. - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 18:44, 24 November 2007 (CST)
 +
 +
<center>[[LGPedia:Lucy's Balcony|<-- Back to Main Page]] | [[LGPedia:Lucy's Balcony/archive2|Next -->]]</center>

Revision as of 08:43, 17 March 2008

This is the archive of discussions from Lucy's Balcony that are no longer active or have been resolved. To revive an old issue, please start a new thread at Lucy's Balcony.

Finally, for discussions deader than Bree's dad, please visit the older archives.

No uploading??

The "Upload File" function doesn't seem to be working since the site renovation (for me, anyway, and judging by the fact that Mission Possible still doesn't have a pic, probably for everyone else). Is someone actively working to fix this? (Please???) ~ JBSHRYNE 17:33, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

Hmm, I don't know, but it's not working for me either. Someone should probably send an email to the right person if no one already has. I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure if I should just send it straight to the Creators or to someone else. If it's not fixed in the next few hours and no one has responded here, I'll go ahead and send them an email.--Jonpro 19:18, 23 July 2007 (CDT)
Zoey mentioned she had e-mailed BK an hour ago.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 19:20, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

We can upload files now (and quite amusingly, EmoGlasses and I uploaded nearly identical pictures, respectively called NinjaSpencer and SpencerNinja). However, the picture doesn't appear on the episode template, and in its place is a distracting error message. I've left it up there for now, but I'm sure that someone will revert that... ~ JBSHRYNE 23:03, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

*Hair pull out* Darn error messages! Okay, I'm working on it.. contacting people. Hopefully we get this all sorted out soon! :( --Zoey 23:32, 23 July 2007 (CDT)
Make sure to tell them the problem is most likely a faulty installation of libgd, specific error messages being "Incomplete GD library configuration: missing function imagecreatefromjpeg" and "Incomplete GD library configuration: missing function imagecreatefromgif".
Googling the error messages should give them enough results to find the error.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 08:18, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
P.S.: Did I mention it takes extra-effort to fuck up server libraries while moving around content?
The new lonelygirl15 site is blah, IMO. I don't even see why they had to tinker with the LGPedia. Our old design matched, but now the portals, particularly the LG portal, really clash with this new gray/modernist design. --JayHenry 09:20, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
Wait, are you saying you dislike the LGPedia design or the Lonelygirl15 design? I'm confused. --Zoey 21:42, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Missions Page

I was thinking about having a missions page for the lonelygirl5 characters. Like a list of their missions, and what worked, what didn't, who was involved, why were they doing this. Sort of like one part of it could be about obtaining jules. Does anyone think we should do that, or not? Does anyone have any new missions? Like they can work with me to find all missions.Houdini 23:14, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

I support this idea. It's good to gather information on a wiki. Anyhow, the capturing of Jules, the getting Bree back millions of times, the breaking into Lucy's apartment twice, the whole deal. Should we create it at Missions?   •Silver•   Talk | Contribs 11:27, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, I'm imagine we could add Daniel's rescue, the tailing of Alex, and the search for Isaac Gilman as well! --Pheon 11:32, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
Someone need to put it on a sandbox and we can all work on it together. I'm not sure how to work with a sandbox.--Houdini 14:26, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
There i tried to start it, but it wasn't very succesful. If you are good with codes please go here. http://www.lg15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=User:Houdini/sandbox
That was just an idea to have the blue border and the table format. If you like can you spoof it up a bit. And if you don't, feel free to change it.--Houdini 22:35, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
We could do the capturing of Jules, the Vegas capturing of BDJ, the tailing of Alex, the search for Isaac Gilman, the race to contact Spencer Gilman, Daniel breaking into the EPOGEN warehouse, Daniel breaking into Lucy's apartment, the Mexico capturing of Alex by Lucy, getting Bree back, Bree escaping to be with her fellow Hymnies, getting Bree back again, the Order murdering Drew and Isaac, Brother murdering Gemma, Tachyon exposing Gemma, and so the saga continues. It's a lot, but I think it'd be nice to keep all the missions somewhere. Strong support.   •Silver•   Talk | Contribs 11:41, 29 July 2007 (CDT)

Show Template?

Considering that lonelygirl15 and KateModern right now both use Template:FakeBlog2, I think it's time for a show template. The show template could have slots for the creators of the show, the main cast of the show, an image of the main cast of the show, a caption for that image, beginning date to end date (end date optional - if you don't fill it in, it would say "to present"), optional spin-off slot, & more. Any opinions?   •Silver•   Talk | Contribs 10:10, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

Any thoughts at all?   •Silver•   Talk | Contribs 11:38, 29 July 2007 (CDT)
Hello?   •Silver•   Talk | Contribs 15:32, 29 July 2007 (CDT)
You remind me of a child..."Mom, look what I'm doing! Mom! Mom! Look! YOU'RE NOT LOOOOOKING!!!"
Isn't the fact that nobody responds answer enough?
We. Don't. Care.
The current setup works fine. On a theoretical level, you are right. FakeBlog2 is abused in that situation, and a dedicated template would make sense. But practically, it's overkill. Why create an entire new template for two pages if the hack works flawlessly?
The only difference a dedicated show template would make is that a dozen fan series would start using it.
So, as said...nobody responded for a reason. If you consider it necessary, go ahead and do it. But the fact that not even Houdini, who's enthusiastic about pretty much everything, replied, should give you a hint about how much interest there is in this topic.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 17:34, 29 July 2007 (CDT)
That was harsh Renegade. Anywase i honestly didn't get what you meant silver. I must have read it while i was tired. Anywase i say go ahead and do it. It doesn't hurt to do it. It only adds to LGPedia in a good way. Oh and renegade what did that enthusiastic thing mean.--Houdini 21:42, 29 July 2007 (CDT)
What was harsh about that? If all other discussions on this page get replies but this one doesn't, that is a pretty good indicator that nobody cares. There's nothing harsh about that, and it's not even ment in an insulting way. That's just how it is. As I said, on a technical level, he's right, so there's probably no one here who'd object - but on a practical level, everything works, so no one here is motivated to change it, either. So, nobody cares. If he wants to change it, fine. If not, everything still works. Nothing harsh about it. Just human nature.
And that enthusiastic thing was pointing out that, even though you are involved in everything and always happy to edit and start new projects, not even you cared before you saw me reference you. I was just trying to put the lack of interest into perspective.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 22:40, 29 July 2007 (CDT)
Guys, please take it easy around here . . . .--Pheon 22:09, 29 July 2007

(CDT)

Alright sorry Pheon.I wasn't going to start a fight i was just wondering what that statement meant.--Houdini 22:15, 29 July 2007 (CDT)
I figured no one was responding to this, so I haven't checked Lucy's Balcony in a while. When I saw it... Renegade, that was harsh. I remind you of a whining child? I was just wondering if any administrators had any opinions or input to my idea, because, as always, I am trying to help the LGPedia. You're just hurting its members. Thanks for your support Pheon, and Houdini.   •Silver•   Talk | Contribs 16:09, 12 August 2007 (CDT)
It was the truth. If you consider the truth harsh, then fine, it was harsh. But I am not to blame for the truth. You posted thrice and the only reason I replied was because I feared you wouldn't stop unless you got some feedback.
If nobody cares, nobody cares. That's not my opinion, that's not an attempt to insult you, that's just reality.
Seriously, think about it: If I was wrong, if "nobody cares" was a lie, why am I the only one responding? Houdini replied to me, because I mentioned him. Pheon replied because a fight seemed to start. The only one replying to you was me, and only because you kept spamming "hello? Hello? HELLO?".
If you hadn't kept posting until someone replied, I'd have never replied, so Houdini would've never replied, so Pheon would've never replied. If you hadn't spammed, you would've gotten no reply at all. That is fucking reality, not an attempt to insult you. That alone should prove that I'm right.
I have given you my opinion. You are technically right, but it doesn't matter. And I'd bet the fact that it doesn't matter is the reason you weren't getting any replies.
So excuse me for not getting all touchy feely when the sole reason for my post was to stop you from posting "hello? someone there?" until the end of eternity.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 16:38, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

This = Stupid. Everyone = breathe. Conversation = over. --Zoey 16:47, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

LGPedia: pages

Now that the LGPedia is thriving, perhaps we should have some more LGPedia: namespace policy pages, plus things like LG:CHU (LGPedia:Changing username) and LG:SHORT (LGPedia:Shortcuts). I'm just trying to get some wiki-like content from Wikipedia, so let me know what you think.   •Silver•   Talk | Contribs 11:38, 29 July 2007 (CDT)

Hello?   •Silver•   Talk | Contribs 15:32, 29 July 2007 (CDT)
I say go ahead. But talk to an admin first.--Houdini 15:36, 29 July 2007 (CDT)
I'm going to say something to Zoey right now.   •Silver•   Talk | Contribs 09:22, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

I Finished the Missions Page

I did it today, man that was work. Anywase tell me what you think, and also thanks silverbullet for all your help. If you see something that need changes then go ahead and change it. If you don't see a mission that i missed than put it in there.--Houdini 16:08, 29 July 2007 (CDT)


Potential naming problem

I've just noticed that KM-images are named using the same scheme as the LG15 ones; sure, the probability it comes to actual naming conflicts is low, but shouldn't we add an infix for organizational purposes? Otherwise, we'll have stuff like

  • 00XA-blablabla
  • 00XA-blablabla
  • 00XA-blablabla
  • 00XA-blablabla
  • 00XA-blablabla
  • 00XA-blablabla

in a few months, and no one will be able to tell which blablabla belongs to KM and which to LG15. I'm thinking of force-suggesting 9999-KM-Description-Modification.xxx here. Alternatively, KM9999-Description-Modification.xxx would separate them entirely in file listings. Opinions?

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 06:16, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
ill try to stick to it, you should talk to psmith he uploads a lot of pictures--Houdini 20:18, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
Psmith is doing LG15, but Truncatedslinky seems to be the KM equivalent. I'll message him. Good idea, thank you. :)
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 20:48, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
thats true, he/she i dont know is doing a lot of pictures and this would help out a lot for orginization
good idea--Houdini 21:03, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
Cool, that's fine, I just didn't know you guys wanted to do that. I can rename the pictures and upload them again if absolutely necessary. I don't always upload a ton of pictures, but there were basically none on the KateModern site and it definitely needed some. Oh, and by the way, I'm a girl. --truncatedslinky 22:42, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
Damnit! 50/50 chance...I chose "him" because of the Daniel/Jonas hook up support userbox (guessed you were a gay male). Sorry for the misinterpretation.
Anyway, I don't think re-uploading will be necessary, as long as we start doing that from now on.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 05:40, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
Amended image naming convention for KM sounds good. Let me know what you decide and I can change the MediaWiki:Uploadtext to reflect it. I prefer having KM at the very beginning (e.g. KM0006-KateHoldingASandwich.jpg to replace "0006-YummyPiggies.jpg"). We probably also need 2 new image categories ("LG show images" and "KM show images") but that would require a lot of tedious categorizing (maybe a job for LGBot?) Your opinions on this would be appreciated. Psmith 15:42, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
P.S. I haven't got involved in KM images yet as I haven't watched any of the shows. Are they any good? Psmith 15:42, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
Eh . . . it's got potential, IMO. But frankly, I've been more concentrated for the LG Season Finale, so don't take my criticism too strongly. --Pheon 15:47, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
I'm with you on that, Pheon. I'll hold out on it for a while longer because I think the Creators deserve that much. Anyway, if you guys need something done with the LGBot, just let me know. I am still here reading things; I just don't have the time to get into very much editing.--Jonpro 16:26, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Personally I like, and have been using 9999-KM-Description.jpg. I think we should definately make a decision soon though, before too many images get added. Please, everyone, post! :P --Zoey 23:42, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

If the KM is at the beginning it is easier to sort through a whole bunch of files ordered alphabetically (i.e. the LG and KM files separate out as Renegade mentioned). This probably only affects me because I have so many images on my laptop from which I upload on to LGPedia. Psmith 15:37, 20 August 2007 (CDT)
P.S. Is there an easy way to tag images with the show name and episode number without embedding in the name or is the only way to tediously categorize every image with "Images of Episode 9999" and "Images of Show XX"? Could LGBot categorize by looking at the file name? I'm thinking it would be nice to have a page that works like Category:Lonelygirl15 videos by length called something like "Category:Images_by_episode". Anyone know how to do this? If not, don't worry... not important. Psmith 15:37, 20 August 2007 (CDT)
That's fair, I see your point. Is there a way to update image names online.. or would someone have to reupload all of them using the new name. Er, would anyone want to volunteer for that? XD haha. And yes, I agree, that would be an AWESEOME page to have. I think we'll have to ask Jonpro if the bot would make this possible though.... Jon? --Zoey 23:58, 20 August 2007 (CDT)
The last time we started an image naming convention we just decided to leave current images as they were and start being strict from then on. However, I might go back and redo some image names if I have time (yes it will require reuploading and deleting the old one). Do you want to update MediaWiki:Uploadtext or shall I? Psmith 11:10, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Oh you can go ahead and do it, if you dont mind. You're good at explaining these sorts of things. So any KM images will start with KM.. but leave the LG ones as they are, right? Sounds good.. I'll let you update the mediawiki page though (and I'll remove this from active discussions, since this seems to be resolved, yay).

Portals

I know this is going to sound really bad coming from be but, should the missions page be on Portal:Lonelygirl15 and Portal:KateModern because the page is a big part for both series. If it need some touching up before it is put on there thats ok, but what do you guys think.--Houdini 23:26, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

I do think its got potential, but in its preliminary stages I still think it needs some "fine-tuning." Let's give the page some more time to develop and then we can worry about where it should belong --Pheon 01:33, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
Since it's cross-series, it might be positioned better in the "LG15 Universe Central" box on the main page. But before it goes that public, it needs some visual touch ups. ;)
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 05:44, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

it definately needs touching up thats for sure--Houdini 14:34, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Maddison Atkins

Should the character page change to Maddison and the ARG page move to Maddison Atkins.--Houdini 15:23, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

I see no reasoning for that, but it's a good idea as always, Houdini. Thanks for the idea, but I think that the equivalent of Maddison is indeed Maddison Atkins, and that the ARG page should stay at Maddison Avenue. Thanks, though!   •Silver•   Talk | Contribs 16:12, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

Relationships

Also should we move relationships to Lonelygirl15 relationships, and add Katemodern relationships, because we already know a few relationships for katemodern such as kate and tariq...charlie and gavin...and kate and scott or is it steve. Anywase if not that then i think we should make relationships as a link for the main page, just like what were doing with missions.--Houdini 17:53, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

Location pages for KM

About Location pages for KM... we may want to wait a bit before we decide how to do this because at this rate they'll be filming all over London. So we could end up with:

  • By City - "Images of London."
  • By Postcode - "Images of EC1", "Images of W1" etc. (London postcodes that UK people will easily understand and can be explained to others - EC1 = East Central 1, W1 = West 1 etc.) Advantage = exact with no discussion required.
  • By London Area Name - "Images of Spitalfields", "Images of Soho" etc. (these are the names of small areas of London). Advantage = friendly names rather than impersonal postcodes but there are grey areas as it were on deciding where one area starts and another ends.
  • By Street Name - "Images of Brushfield Street", "Images of Carnaby Street" etc. This could become a problem given the number of streets that will be filmed upon.
  • All of the above so you can browse images however you like. Disadvantage = lot of work for every image.

Psmith 18:25, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Shoot. Okay, well I was just going to do the ones you took of Carnaby Street, simply because it was a notable location where a major fan interaction took place. I figured for the episodes where they were just out and about in London, we could do a "General London area" or whatnot. I think with the big thing that just happened at Carnaby St, it's worth a location page, IMO. Er, do you disagree? Blah... --Zoey 18:33, 18 August 2007 (CDT)
Given a lot of the pics are actually Broadwick St. rather than Carnaby St., my first instinct is "Images of Soho". Especially as more videos may be set in and around these streets given how the Bebo offices are located there. Tariq/Gavin will probably be filmed a lot around Spitalfields/EC1 given that's where their office is supposed to be. But then I understand that maybe someone just wants to search on "Carnaby Street" because of how prominent the street name is in all the videos and interaction. So maybe it should just be "Images of the Carnaby Street area" which is more accurate but longwinded. Psmith 19:27, 18 August 2007 (CDT)
Well, as for the categories themselves, I see no reason not to make specific categories and then group them all into [[Category:Images of London]] or something similar. As far as location pages, I also don't see why we can't have specific pages for notable locations.. and maybe have a "General London area" page... similar to how we have a specific page for Topanga Canyon but still have one for General LA area. I think this works nicely... not sure though? What do you think? :/ --Zoey 23:54, 19 August 2007 (CDT)
Ah... actually I meant to say "location categories" in the first place and not "location pages" (by which you mean the articles I presume). Woops.
It would be nice to have both a London category and subcategories for different parts of London. My rather pedantic point about "Carnaby Street" is that maybe "Carnaby Street area" is more accurate given most of the action took place on Broadwick Street. And yes we definitely need a location page for this. Psmith 15:48, 20 August 2007 (CDT)
Ahh, okay. I wonder if Jon could do this with the bot so I wouldn't have to.. if not, I don't mind going in and adding "area" to the end of the location. Sounds good. --Zoey 23:58, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

KM Forum Links

KM episode page forum links are pointing to http://www.lg15.com/lonelygirl15/ instead of http://www.lg15.com/katemodern. I think the template has a switch for lg/km but I'm not sure how to use it. Jonpro & Renegade created it so if you see this please update one of the KM video pages as an example and we can do the rest. Thanks. Psmith 11:04, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Nice catch, Psmith. It's not the KM video pages that need to be updated, but Template:Blog. I tried to fix it but failed :(. I'll work on it later if no one has figured it out by then.--Jonpro 11:55, 21 August 2007 (CDT)
Oops :X
My bad, consider it fixed.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 11:56, 21 August 2007 (CDT)
Thanks. Psmith 12:25, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Re-Organization Day

Okay, this conversation has been going on for a while, and now I'm starting to agree with it. We need to find a way to separate KateModern and LG15. The answer: change everything from Characters to KM:Characters and LG:Characters. Sounds easy, right? Wrong-o. There has to be an easier way to do it. There needs to be some idea that we can do and devote a day to changing links and reorganizing the entire LGPedia. I know it sounds like a lot of work, but we gotta do something... fast. The only thing I can suggest thats better is for the tech people at LG15.com to set up another wiki. That'd be the easiest thing to do (and probably most organized) Love, Randy (Say Wha'? | Whachu Doin'?) [Sept. 21, '07 - 9:25 PM, Central Daylight]

I'm sorry, I don't really see what you are talking about. There ARE seperate pages for KateModern characters and Lonelygirl15 characters. Why do we need to reorganize the wiki? What's wrong with the way it is now? And yea, we're definitely not getting a new Wiki. I just... don't understand your argument at all! --Zoey 01:01, 22 September 2007 (CDT)
I have no idea why he wants to do this, but the syntax he uses would mean entirely separate namespaces for LG and KM. (Which would be a re-linking nightmare, and totally useless.)
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 08:03, 22 September 2007 (CDT)
Thats why we SHOULDN'T do that. But there are a lot of other page crossovers where it contains information from both series, and sometimes gets tangled up. Love, Randy (Say Wha'? | Whachu Doin'?) [Sept. 22 - 2:03 PM, Central Daylight]
What pages are you talking about, specifically? --Zoey 14:05, 22 September 2007 (CDT)

Need help with title!

There's a new KateModern video named "Hymn of One" but I don't know how to make a page that has the same name as a page that already exists - anybody that can help? -- Theresa 11:54, 3 October 2007 (CDT)

I used Hymn of One (video) but if there is a better way, please to let me know? -- Theresa 12:42, 3 October 2007 (CDT)
Relax, Theresa, what you did is perfectly fine. :) --Pheon 21:49, 3 October 2007 (CDT)

Vandalism

I was shocked by the amount of vandalism that is talking place on the lgpedia lately. I just went to recent changes and half of them were banning of vandals/spammers. This is becoming a serious problem, as our hardworking members should not have to constantly ban all these IP addresses when their time could be better spent. I'm opening a discussion on the topic as to find a solution. The floor is open. Any ideas/comments? --FH14 17:45, 22 October 2007 (EST)

I'm glad you started the discussion. I'm not really sure what the best solution is this time. Before, when the spamming took the form of external links, we were able to filter those by requiring verification when an external link was added. The only solution I can think of for this problem is to require something similar for every edit that is made. I'm not sure if it'd be possible to restrict that to anonymous users or not, but if so that's a possibility. The obvious downside is that it could become a huge hassle for people trying to edit normally. But maybe there's a creative solution that hasn't occurred to me. Ideas?--Jonpro 18:30, 22 October 2007 (CDT)
The current external link verification is already annoying. A general captcha for every edit would be death.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 05:35, 23 October 2007 (CDT)
Isn't there a way where only people with a username can edit? I know it might sounds dumb, but I think it could relieve a few headaches. Who is xwestsidex or whatever? I dunno who he is. --free2liv4evr 03:22, 23 October 2007 (PST)
Yes there is - to set that up, we'd either have to protect each page manually (or, they), or we need the FTP access I requested months ago. But both options would put off casual, unregistered users. You'd be punishing a large majority of users for the deeds of a small, non-community minority of spammers.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 05:35, 23 October 2007 (CDT)
Requiring a username was brought up a while back, and we decided that it's simply not worth it. As Renegade said, it'd be cutting off a lot of people who would otherwise contribute. When I first started editing, I didn't have a username and I don't think I would have gotten involved if I had had to register right away. Besides, being a place that anyone can edit is somewhat of a cardinal rules of wikis in general. Oh, and xwestsidex is a vandal from a while ago who pops his pathetic head in every once in a while to cause what he thinks is mischief. Suffice it to say that anything from xwestsidex won't really make sense and can probably be reverted.--Jonpro 11:36, 23 October 2007 (CDT)
But it's so annoying having to go around stopping the spam. I just spent a good part of my morning chasing around some spammers. I feel like I spammed the recent changes page. Lol, if you go look there, there's a whole page of just my edits. It's quite embarassing. I know it would cut a whole bunch of ppl out of the loop, but I kinda wish the username verification system was in place. I'm so selfish. --free2liv4evr 04:16, 25 October 2007 (PST)

I don't usually make comments on pages like this, but I thought I'd point a few things out.
-In the last day, there have been 68 edits by anonymous users. 55 of those edits were made by IPs currently banned for being a vandal.
-5 of those remaining 13 were reverted.

As far as edits go that actually "improved" this wiki...
-2 were people reverting poor edits (one was me!).
-There was an edit that corrected who posted clues to Emma's code.
-One changed a period to a question mark.
-Three edits were right after each other, and probably could've just been one.
-There was an edit to theories about Purple Monkey, which is a funny section.

--Ricket 16:38, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

Ricket makes a good point. Surely Registering for an account can't be that big of a deal? I see a lot more benefits than, er, non-benefits, from requiring a username to make edits. From what I've seen, of the dozens of spammers/vandals banned, only one or two were registered users. But seeing as so many people are against it, maybe we could require some question to be answered? (I don't mean 1+4=?, I mean Basic things that anyone who has ever seen the show would know: "The 'p' in "P. Monkey" stands for..." "The lonelygirl15 is _____'s account", stuff like that? EDIT: Questions are for unregistered users, of course.--FH14 14:09, 30 October 2007 (EST)
Erm, no. Maybe that would be a hassle. I mean, that will discourage even more users from editing. (Laziness factor) I've been up until 5 in the morning on LG15 ('cause I have no life) and about more than 90% of the vandalisms that occur during that time is from non-registered people. I've only seen one registered user vandalize and one non-registered person actually contribute to the LGPedia. I do understand that we are trying to include everyone, and that that's what a wiki is all about, but you gotta decide which is th lesser evil: Cutting out non-registered people out and prevent vandalism, or allow everyone to participate even if that includes vandalism. I doubt that this xwestsidex fellow isn't gonna stop any time soon. And who knows? Maybe other people who aren't xwestsidex will vandalize under that alias, just for the fun of vandalizing. Then the problem will never go away. I don't think, in my opinion, it's worth it. It'll just make the LG15 experience more enjoyable and less of a chore to edit. --free2liv4evr 11:57, 30 October 2007 (PST)
We should be more worried about the spammers (the ones who put random letters all over pages) than that westside guy,all he does is say 'fish taco' alot. The ones that actually spam the pages are the worst because they are able to work so quickly and we don't block them fast enough. I think the answer is blocking the spammers faster and making more pages have to answer the math questions..thats my thoughts on it. EDIT: We also need to make it to where people who arn't signed in can't change Lucy's Balcony. IP users hardly ever participate in these talks anyway and it would cut down on about half of the spamming. Poor Lucy's Balcony gets it everytime!Nancypants 20:11, 9 November 2007 (CST)
I actually semi-protected this page a couple of days ago for the very fact that it was getting hit so often. Only registered users should be able to edit it now.--Jonpro 22:34, 12 November 2007 (CST)

man, must i say..that its getting horrible with each passing grade. --TJ Marsh 10:08, 18 November 2007 (CST)

KMProduction and Sophie Recap vids deleted??

Just wondering, why were my KateModern Production and Sophie Recap videos deleted? The pages, I mean. The KateModern Production videos are very much a part of KM and the Sophie Recap videos were posted on the official KateModernLG15 YouTube account, as well as Sophie's own Bebo. And Sophie is just as much official as Nikki B is on LG. So, why were they deleted?   •Silver•   Talk | Contribs 15:40, 30 October 2007 (CDT)

Looking at the deletion log, Zoey put "see Talk:Portal:KateModern" (I added the link) as the reason for the deletion. I looked there and there seems to be part of an explanation for why the videos shouldn't be included in the official list, but I'm not sure why they can't have pages. Back in the new ceremony girl phase, there were a lot of videos that got pages because they were related to the lonelygirl15 story. Unless there's an explanation somewhere that I'm missing, I'm for restoring the video pages. But since Zoey deleted them, I'll wait for her response before I do anything.--Jonpro 13:45, 31 October 2007 (CDT)
I understand Zoey's point but I still think that since the videos were made by the official KM team, they should at least have pages on here. Don't include them in the list, as they're not canon persay, but they still deserve a page.
  •Silver•   Talk | Contribs 15:50, 31 October 2007 (CDT)

I deleted the KateModern production videos because they are not official videos by any means, they are just BTS extras for anyone who wants to watch them. Not to mention, they are heavily edited and would be hard to transcribe. There's really no purpose to doing so because they don't futher the story in any way. It's like offering a "script" to the bonus features on a DVD. That seems silly. Why not just link to the bonus features and let whomever wants to enjoy them enjoy them?

About Sophie's videos, I removed them because, they, too, would be hard to transcribe, and are literally just recuts of what already exists in all of the previous transcripts, whereas the lg15 recaps are actual... recaps. But the big deciding factor for me was their lack of placement in the official list of Katemodern videos on the Bebo page.

I know that we created a bajillion pages way back in the day of the "new girls," and I'm on purpose trying to avoid going that route again. It was chaos trying to keep up, and I was the one who ended up taking the grunt of the work. For me, it's way more important to focus on videos that are actually important in furthering the two main story than "extras" that are unnecessary and can be understood by watching the other videos or reading the other transcripts. If someone wants to personally take responsibilty for the maintenance of the pages, and not just create them and never transcribe them... or start out working on them and then give up (meaning this would be something you'd have to keep up long term, because I do not personally see the point of doing any more than just linking to the pages and will therefore not be responsible for their upkeep), then fine, I will undelete them. But if they are just going to sit there as halfway completed pages, there is no reason for them to be created as pages on here. They aren't official, they don't further the stories, and they can, and most likely will end up just cluttering the LGPedia if people don't actively take responsiblity for them. So yes, that was my logic, at least. --Zoey 20:36, 31 October 2007 (CDT)

PS I thought I should note, the recap videos haven't been totally removed from the LGPedia by any means. They are still listed on: Sophie. And the BTS videos are still listed on KateModern.

OpAphid mess

Silver recently tried to unify the OpAphid bloglines, and the situation currently is kind of a giant mess. We need a consent on how we're going to treat the series and all connected blogs.

  • Before, we had separate templates and "series" strands for Brother, Tachyon and OpAphid. The only thing crossing over was Miss Me?, which used Template:Blog rather than Template:Aphid. Apart from that, all bloggers were independent from each other, using their own templates.
  • Now, all pre-canon and parallel videos, including Brother's and Tachyon's, use Template:Aphid, up until Miss Me?, which uses Blog, and all following ones use the brand new Template:Redearth88.

I was tasked with deciding whether to revert this change or not. In theory, Silver's system does make more sense. We do not have separate bloglines for Daniel and Jonas either, and neither do we do that in series like Maddison Atkins. However, since this is a rather drastic departure from our previous (year-old) system, which, among other things, means that videos by OpAphid use three different templates by now, I'd like to hear everyone's opinion on this before I go through and revert dozens of videos, when it's actually a logical change.

On the other hand, it's rather unfortunate that Tachyon's vids have the look and feel of OpAphid now, so if we do keep it the way it is, we should go all the way and create a "neutral" theme for the Aphid template, just as we have for other series. (Not to mention that the transformation wasn't 100% pretty, and all videos would need a post-change checkup of the links and variable settings.)

In addition, I just heard that it's, for some reason necessary that the new vids use the RedEarth template, so changing the post-canon vids over is kind of out of question.

Even though I loathe the work, I, personally, vote for a cleaned-up unification, including a new template theme, simply because we're doing it everywhere else as well, and it actually makes sense to have Brother's and Tachyon's videos, which are more or less a back-and-forth in communication, lined up next to each other.

Still, the old system is over a year old, and it's a rather drastic change, so...what's your opinion?

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 14:29, 5 November 2007 (CST)
It seems like nobody has replied to this for a while, so I thought I'd chime in with my thoughts. After thinking this through, I agree with the cleaned-up unification that Ren proposed.
Since it has been so long, if no one objects in the next day or so, I'd say you can go ahead and go for it :) --Zoey 00:03, 11 January 2008 (CST)
Okay, I changed the template and marked the other three for deletion, but it's been so long, I forgot what I wanted to clean up :/
I checked all pages, and the template was applied correctly, the numbers go through, they're linked correctly and all have bloggers. Lookin' good to me.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 23:55, 15 January 2008 (CST)

The new favicon

Who the fuck is responsible for the new favicon and how can I punish him?

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 15:59, 16 November 2007 (CST)
  • sorry to be dense, renegade, but what's a favicon? --Milowent 16:05, 16 November 2007 (CST)
Favorites Icon - the ugly black thing in your browser's title bar/tab row, next to "LGPedia:Lucy's Balcony".
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 21:11, 16 November 2007 (CST)
Ah, i see it now. Thanks. --Milowent 22:10, 16 November 2007 (CST)
It's Ugly....With a capital "U" ... I mean....What were they thinking?! Nasty :( --free2liv4evr 17 Nov 2007 00:08 (PST)
I completely agree. We need to start a protest or something.--Jonpro 14:28, 17 November 2007 (CST)

Image Redirecting

At first, I was willing to put up with it... but now, I am finding image redirecting OUT OF CONTROL. The idea is to use it on pages like Characters or something.. when someone could click the image, because they'd think it would take them to that character's page. We do NOT need to redirect every single image is uploaded.

Redirecting makes everything harder to keep track of... harder to see what images have been categorized and what haven't... harder to read any image descriptions or whatever, etc. Plus, plenty of times images are used in more than one place, and if they redirect to a certain page, it may not take you to the page you want to go to. And.. also, it's a lot harder when trying to snag an image for use on a page if you have to go to the page they redirect to, then unredirect yourself back to the image and snag the URL, and yeah... I could go oooon and onnnn.

Image redirection used to be the exception, not the rule. And ever since that has changed, it has been a nightmare for me. So please, can we please go back to making it the EXCEPTION again? Pretty please? --Zoey 01:36, 17 November 2007 (CST)

I've never really like the idea of image redirecting although I do see it's usefulness. You'd think there would be a way of having an image link to a certain page rather than the image page itself. I'm sure I'm not the first person to bring this up. Has anyone heard if this is possible, or if not, why this functionality hasn't been added?--Jonpro 14:28, 17 November 2007 (CST)
If there is a way to do it, I haven't yet figured it out. We do not, however, have the latest version of MediaWiki, so it's possible the functionality has been added, but that we do not have the ability to use it. I agree, there is a time and a place for image redirecting, but I really believe that redirecting every image that comes up on the pedia is WAY overkill and ultimately does more bad than good. --Zoey 17:55, 17 November 2007 (CST)

}:::There is no such feature in MediaWiki; there would be a more or less convenient way if this installation supported embedding of "external" images, but whoever made the config turned that of. Should we get FTP access to the installation, I could change that, and one could use the image path instead of a descriptive text in normal external link code. (At least theoretically. And practically, I'd probably write a template to do that.)

We do have Template:Imagelink, though, which superimposes a link area over an image.
@jonpro: I assume the reason for the lack of this feature is that the MediaWiki software is developed for Wikipedia, which primarily uses free licenses - these often include an attribution clause, and that attribution wouldn't happen if a click on the image didn't lead to the image page.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 18:24, 17 November 2007 (CST)
A good way to take care of the problem is to install the ImageMap Extension, assuming we can. All of the templates would need to be updated, but it would be probably be trivial to do so. - Shiori 10:19, 24 November 2007 (CST)
I don't know why I labeled that as a minor edit, but I thought I'd mention that that's the only way (other than the template Renegade mentioned) that I've found to do that without redirects. - Shiori 10:28, 24 November 2007 (CST)
I didn't mention the extension for a simple reason: Even if we could install it (which we can't until we get FTP access), the syntax is hardly something you'd want to impose on a casual user. Simply being able to use the address of an image as the link text would be a lot easier to comprehend. We're talking about
<imagemap>
Image:Foo.jpg|200px|picture of a foo
rect 0 0 199 199   [[Foo type A]]
desc bottom-left
</imagemap>
vs. [page address image address].
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 15:28, 24 November 2007 (CST)
Would that really be that difficult to put into a template, though? For instance, for the character listing just plop this into the code in place of the current image call:
<imagemap>
Image:{{{image}}}|{{{imagewidth|{{ #expr: {{{width|240}}}/2 }}}}}px
rect 0 0 1000 1000   [[{{{charactername}}}]]
desc none
</imagemap>
It was just a suggestion, though. The other stuff would require template changes anyway. The image address being able to be used as the link description would be awesome, but it still doesn't exist... :/ - Shiori 18:19, 24 November 2007 (CST)
Hmm. Actually (again, if uploading an extension were possible), the ImageLink Extension is a lot better. - Shiori 18:29, 24 November 2007 (CST)
Also thought I'd add that we probably shouldn't use Template:Imagelink, as Wikipedia is phasing it out due to many problems it creates. - Shiori 18:44, 24 November 2007 (CST)
<-- Back to Main Page | Next -->