LGPedia:Lucy's Balcony/archive

From LGPedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the archive of discussions from Lucy's Balcony that are no longer active or have been resolved.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.

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?--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: [1]. I can authorize a bot if somebody else can program one. --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. 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.--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. --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.--Jonpro 12:05, 14 March 2007 (CDT)
This may not look impressive, but I finally got the bot to work with this edit. I'm going to try to test it out in a few other ways to make sure everything is working correctly.--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 ''(whatever)'' with (''whatever''). 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?--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 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? --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. 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. --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. --JayHenry 12:35, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
Looks goo to me!-BRUCKER EyeBlueSmall.jpg (Home/Talk/Contribs) 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? --JayHenry 17:32, 5 March 2007 (CST)

Maybe Caping lg15? other then, it would look great. --TJ Marsh 18:40, 5 March 2007 (CST)

I'm sorry, what does "Caping lg15" mean? --JayHenry 10:41, 6 March 2007 (CST)
Capitalizing, perhaps?--Jonpro 14:34, 6 March 2007 (CST)
Ah, so it says LG15 links instead? Good idea! I agree! --JayHenry 14:37, 6 March 2007 (CST)
Yeah, all of them should be capitalized, I think. Those options look good to me, Jay. -BRUCKER EyeBlueSmall.jpg (Home/Talk/Contribs) 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 MediaWiki.org for the answer. --JayHenry 21:42, 6 March 2007 (CST)

New admin -- Jonpro

I'm pleased to announce that 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. --JayHenry 13:56, 8 March 2007 (CST)

Thanks 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 :) --Jonpro 15:32, 8 March 2007 (CST)

Kongrats man! --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 |disambig would be added for pages that are also disambiguation pages.--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? --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?--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. --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 "articles that aren't really articles" (stubs, redirects, etc). Not sure, but that's my guess.--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. 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.--Immortal1 16:56, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
I got a few pictures up on a few of the pages. -BRUCKER EyeBlueSmall.jpg (Home/Talk/Contribs) 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! 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?--Jonpro 21:41, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

Hey look, we have a 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.--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.--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. 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?

Phunck! 17:00, 28 February 2007 (CST)

Taken care of, more or less. I should have done that a long time ago. --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.--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.
Phunck! 10:05, 1 March 2007 (CST)
Thanks, 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.--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. -BRUCKER EyeBlueSmall.jpg (Home/Talk/Contribs) 17:04, 1 March 2007 (CST)

I agree with Brucker on "un-linking" those fanvid tags that don't pertain to any particular article. 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. -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! --Zoey 20:23, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
Unfortunately I don't think there's any way to do this. --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 -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 {{tag|page=PAGENAME}} with #REDIRECT PAGENAME, we could incorporate the redirect in the {{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?--Jonpro 19:22, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
Okay, I'm going to go ahead and try this out. We'll see if it works.--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?--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 -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 [[Tag:Purple|purple]]. 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. --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). -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. --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? -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 [[sleep]], 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:

  1. Change most (if not all) of the tag pages with an "associated page" to redirect pages. (The bot can handle this rather easily.)
  2. Delete the tag pages that contain only {{tag}} and remove links to those pages on the video pages.
  3. Keep Category:YouTube tags (perhaps rename it), but have it include only tags that have pages, such as Bree, Drunk, etc.
  4. Keep Template:tag, but perhaps modify it to fit with the new structure.
  5. Keep all of the 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 [[sleep]] is "grayed out", so I won't have to waste the time clicking on it hoping to find more information. If I click on alcohol, however, I'll be taken straight to the 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.--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. OwenIsCool 15:01, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
I don' think it's too extreme, but I also like the new approach -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). --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 {{delete|youtube tag}} 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. -misty 00:55, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
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 {{tag}} on it and a page which has other content too. So, here's a sequence of steps that I think should work:
  1. Have the bot change all the pages with {{tag|page=PAGENAME}} to #REDIRECT [[PAGENAME]].
  2. Remove all instances of {{tag}} from pages that have other content as well (e.g. Bree, Daniel, Lonelygirl15). This would include strange tag pages.
  3. At this point only pages that have only {{tag}} 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.--Jonpro 15:33, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
Sounds good to me -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 {{tag}} from pages with other content.--Jonpro 13:31, 5 May 2007 (CDT)
The redirects have been created and content pages have had {{tag}} removed. Next, if everything thinks it's a good idea, I'll change everything so it uses {{tags}} then delete all the other tag pages.--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 -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.--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.-misty 00:10, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
One more thing before archiving. I managed to convert most of the video pages to using {{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.--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 LG422 videos even though I still don't think they should be transcribed at all.. xP. So um, yes. Hopefully this works out better! --Zoey 15:23, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

I double checked your work, and if you missed any, then I missed the same ones. -misty 18:40, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

Bottom indexes

We all like bottom indexes, right? At template talk:Bree's religion we have a prototype sitting around for the religion pages. My only concern with the Bree's religion index is that I don't understand what "related videos" means. Do we want to implement a bottom index for other types of pages as well? --JayHenry 23:01, 26 February 2007 (CST)

I ♥ bottom indexes. Last time I tampered with the one for Bree's religion, I took out the "Related videos" thing altogether. I think we should leave it that way unless someone proposes a good way of determining what a "Related video" is and how that would be useful. OwenIsCool 00:02, 27 February 2007 (CST)
In addition to a "thumbs up" on the bottom indexes, I'd like to say that while I think naming related videos is a good idea, it probably should be done in the body of the page. Rather than vaguely saying "Video X had some info on subject Y," which is what the "related video" concept meant to me, the article should outright say, "In video X, Bree said that her parents were always talking about subject Y." --Brucker 10:00, 27 February 2007 (CST)
Agreed. If it's related, then the article should mention it. I can see how we could use it with location pages -- you wouldn't call it related, but you would say the location appears in: Motel Pool, Breakfast In Bed, etc. Let's go ahead and implement the religion bottom index. --JayHenry 11:19, 27 February 2007 (CST)
hehe, thanks for adding the semicolon to my ♥ and nice work putting the template back on the religion-related pages. OwenIsCool 15:10, 27 February 2007 (CST)

In thinking about a bottom index for locations I tried to create a list of all the locations. Does anyone have input on the two proposed lists? --JayHenry 11:37, 2 March 2007 (CST)

Puzzles

I'd like to always include puzzles in the "Recent Developments" column. Good idea? It could be a way to increase visibility like OIC was talking about at Talk:Miss Me? puzzle. --JayHenry 23:11, 26 February 2007 (CST)

Good idea! I second. OwenIsCool 00:02, 27 February 2007 (CST)

i third, i know im not a admin, but i contrbute as much as i can. --TJ Marsh 01:22, 27 February 2007 (CST)

I like the idea, but just a thought: If a new puzzle comes up within the context of the latest video, the puzzle should be listed below the latest video just so the video is at the top of the list. For instance, the latest puzzle is fine, but it we had listed the "semiotics" puzzle, it should have been below Jonas Sucks. Just my opinion. --Brucker 10:03, 27 February 2007 (CST)
OIC also suggested somewhere that we could use Template:Init with puzzles and possibly all events. I'm wondering though -- puzzles don't lend themselves well to dates; they're not really events. Should we create a separate main page template for puzzles?--JayHenry 00:16, 28 February 2007 (CST)
We'd probably be ok just using the date that the puzzle was "posted" (via video, message, wherever it started). And even though the template is called "event", it looked fine when it was used for the puzzle. Maybe we could just add the Init and perhaps link to the forum thread, and keep them optional? If that's complicating things too much, we could just make a separate template. It shouldn't be too difficult since they're similar. I just care about adding Init, and perhaps the forum thread; it doesn't matter so much to me how we get there. OwenIsCool 19:51, 8 March 2007 (CST)


Recent vandalism

I've noticed that there have been a number of vandalism edits from various IP addresses that simply remove a large portion of content from a page. Here are some examples: 1 2 3 4 5 6. Anyway, I think everyone gets the idea. Does anyone know what could be the cause of this? It's not like all the vandalism is coming from one IP address so we can't just block it.--Jonpro 00:04, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Well, really the only way to deal with vandalism is to revert it when it happens and to block offenders. However, I do notice a similarity between all these addresses. They're all anonymous--a WhoIs lookup provides the country, but is unable to process any abuse reports. These addresses are originating from Mexico and Asia, from ISP's that don't release user information. This is just a shot in the dark, but it could all be the same person coming back through proxies. If this is the case, they should get tired of the molasses-slow internet speed that they must be putting up with, and it will all stop when they do. Then again, OIC is not psychic... this is for entertainment purposes only.  ;) OwenIsCool 01:02, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
Ok, well this latest streak was weird. Several IPs and a couple of nonsense account names each blanked one page, but not completely. I banned each for a month since they might not be connected, but I think they are. Should we go back and ban them indefinitely? I'm not sure what's up with the recent wave... might be a vandalbot. I haven't had the change to look up the IPs. OwenIsCool 08:32, 18 April 2007 (CDT)

Spam wave

Yikes, any thoughts on how to stop something like that from happening again? --JayHenry 11:06, 28 April 2007 (CDT)

And here I was about to ask you that.  :-x
OwenIsCool 11:15, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
As far as I know there's not even a way to temporarily stop IP addresses from making edits. --JayHenry 11:18, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
We could look into this. I think we'd need to get TWJaniak to come back and install it because we can't get into the MediaWiki configuration settings. --JayHenry 11:29, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
Hm, that might be helpful... so what that blacklist does is prevent edits containing those domains from being done? I guess BK could install it, he's the new Buka, isn't he? OwenIsCool 11:36, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
Sounds like a good idea to me. I've encountered this editing Wikipedia when I tried to add a link that was apparently on the blacklist. It just gives you a message saying that the link is on the blacklist and you'll have to remove it before saving.--Jonpro 11:41, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
Blacklisting links will be halpful, but I don't expect that it will completly solve the problem, my guess it that this was an attack from the fish taco guy, and he will just comeup with a new form of vandalism, I think he's more focused on vandalizing , than getting clicks. Also I checked the location of those IP Adresses using | Geobytes IP locator and they were comming from all over the world, so this guy has a major proxy network or know some other way to spoof IPs -misty 11:57, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
I think you're grossly overestimating that guy, misty. Using the web through proxies is really easy to do, he wouldn't have his own "proxy network" or anything like that. This spam was definitely from someone else's spambot, but I guess it doesn't matter who it was anyway, just whether we can find an easy way to control it. OwenIsCool 13:05, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
well if you think it was a bot, then maybe CAPTCHA verification will help, I think wikipedia uses something like that. And even though everyone disagrees, I still think logins should be required -misty 13:23, 28 April 2007 (CDT)


I moved yesterday's discussion into its own thread. I think we had even more spam this last wave. I was at the computer until very late (studying for finals) and I kept checking periodically. I reverted one spam thingie, but went to sleep soon thereafter and then it started for real! The same thing happened the night before! grrrr! Anyway, I think the blacklisting isn't going to work so well. If you look at the links posted by the spammer, the domains are harmless! There's Harvard (harvard.edu), Stanford (stanford.edu), John Hopkins (jhu.edu), U South Florida (usf.edu), Central Michigan U (cmich.edu), plus a few random domains, like forumhosting.org, jubiiblog.de, blogdiario.com, blogspot.com and more universities. Interestingly, if you click them, you do get redirected to a Samsung ringtone page like the link label said, it just gets routed through the Harvard Computing Society's website or whatever the REAL link is.
Instead of blacklisting, I think what Misty suggested (CAPTCHA) will be more effective for us. That, or find another MediaWiki add-on that lets us limit the amount of external links posted in one edit. I can handle the inconvenience of posting one at a time. In the meantime, perhaps we should limit anonymous IPs from editing. Less time wasted blocking them, more time to figure out what to do about it. At this point, spammers make more edits than other well-meaning anonymous users. I'm just suggesting it as a temporary thing while we figure out how to control this intelligently. Whether it's simple to implement, I don't know.
OwenIsCool 11:06, 29 April 2007 (CDT)

Some (hopefully) helpful links. WikiMedia anti-spam features covers CAPTCHA, blacklisting, proxy blocking, and lockdown (blocking anonymous users). I think proxy blocking might be a good option. MediaWiki ConfirmEdit extension (captcha), asks you to enter verification codes when inserting external links. OwenIsCool 11:17, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
PS: I went through all the edits, Jonpro, and it looks like you got them all. *whew* another morning at the wiki...
I can't figure out how to install these. Can anyone make sense of these extensions? --JayHenry 11:55, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
Hmm, Confirm Edit seems like it would be a good idea to me. By default it uses Captcha on new accounts and external links and that won't be too big of a hassle. As for installing it, the instructions don't look too difficult, but I don't know much about that sort of thing so I'm kind of lost. I'm assuming we would need one of the site administrators or something to install it. The way I see it, the sooner we get this done the better. This spammer is getting really annoying.--Jonpro 12:15, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
I'll PM Broken Kid and see if he has the access. If we add captcha and the spam blacklist that should shut the spam down... if it's a human spammer we're just going to have to hope he gets bored. --JayHenry 12:27, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
Well, I've read through the mediawiki manual and I understand how to install it. It looks very simple. And there's no reason we can't go through and block almost all those sites he lists. On real wikipedia you wouldn't want to block links to Harvard.edu -- but there's no reason we need them here. We just need someone with FTP access to the site. Hopefully BK will get back to me soon and we'll be able to get it up later tonight. --JayHenry 18:50, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
Mmmkay well... I still haven't heard from BK. I hate to leave things like this overnight, but I don't know what else to do... I'll e-mail Miles tomorrow if I haven't yet heard from BK. --JayHenry 23:10, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
How about that temporary (overnight) lockdown? I think all you need to do is use the User Rights permission stuff. I don't have access to that though, so I don't know how it works. Maybe it's not as easy as I think it is. OwenIsCool 23:21, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
We can't do the temporary lockdown either. It's an installation setting. The only thing I can do with regards to user rights is make people admins or bots. We could make the LGBot an admin and then have it go through and protect everything (or at least, I assume the pythonwikipediabots can do that). But, the spammer has the ability to create new pages, so it's not a very useful fix. We can't protect every possible page. --JayHenry 00:25, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
ah ok. we'll just have to hold out until someone with installation privileges comes to the rescue. we can wait, the spam is controllable, it's just annoying as heck. OwenIsCool 00:46, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

Le sigh. Just when we thought the spamming was easing off... Maybe it kicks in on the weekends when less people are editing. I blocked a few spammers throughout the night, it looks like if you "nip it in the bud", it stops, waits, and then tries again like 30min. later. Otherwise it just keeps going. rawr, want lgpedia anti-spambot extensions. OwenIsCool 17:05, 4 May 2007 (CDT)

Actually, what you want is simple FTP access. If anybody had just added "ringtones" to $wgSpamRegex right after the first bot attacked, all the others would have been unable to post - the entire wave would have bounced right off the editing page.
Sure, it'd still have stressed the server, but at least we wouldn't have had to clean up afterwards...
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 18:01, 4 May 2007 (CDT)

Performance issues

I've noticed that the use of alot of templates or included page, can have a big effect on the loading of pages. This can really be seen on list of videos page. does anyone know something that can be be done to improve the performance. -misty 15:31, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Well, I don't think it's templates or transclusion that's causing the problems on List of Lonelygirl15 videos. No matter how it's organized, with templates or not, the page is simply enormous -- more than 7 times bigger than the Main Page. Other than dumping the videxpand template or really reducing the number of images (or shrinking the size of the actual image files?) there's little we can do. --JayHenry 10:31, 13 April 2007 (CDT)


Fate of AphidPedia?

Now that OpAphid is no longer, official. should there still be an AphidPedia section or should it be downgraded to Catagory:OpAphid and removed from the left menu? -misty 02:32, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

We can still keep the OpAphid page, I'm sure. We have pages for other non-canon/non-official ARGs. I don't really know the structure of all the OpAphid pages, but we might want to remove the link from the left menu. I'm not really sure on that. The pages definitely need to be updated to indicate that OpAphid is no longer the official ARG if that hasn't been done yet.--Jonpro 21:43, 15 April 2007 (CDT)
Oh, I missed this conversation. I just came here to ask the same question. I don't think we should delete OpAphid from the Wiki, but we should be sure to note that it is no longer official. And I think we should take it off the sidebar, although if anyone has a good reason it should stay I would listen. --JayHenry 11:25, 17 April 2007 (CDT) 11:15, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
I wasn't suggesting getting rid of OPAphid, I was just wondering if it was still apropriate to call it AphidPedia, or if that should just be merged into the OpAphid article and not be so prominent. When it was the official ARG it made sense for it to have it's own main section, but now it's just another part of the of the extended Breniverse. -misty 10:31, 18 April 2007 (CDT)
I guess my vote would be to keep the AphidPedia -- it's still a good index for the material -- but move it off the sidebar and probably off the Main Page too. --JayHenry 14:19, 18 April 2007 (CDT)
I went ahead and removed it from the sidebar and the main page. I didn't make any mention of the scandal, because I think it's best to just move on. We really need some new stuff to add to the main page. Maybe links to pages about all these new girls?? --JayHenry 10:55, 19 April 2007 (CDT)


Distribution for LonelyGirl

I'm interested in talking with someone at LGPedia about additional distribution of Lonely Girl. Can someone please advise me who to contact? I can be reached at lannick@licensinganimal.com Thanks for your help.

Here at the LGPedia we're all just volunteers. We can't help you unfortunately. You need to contact "The Creators" of the series. You can send them a private message at the forum. Good luck! --JayHenry 15:17, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

Special:Wantedpages cleanup

I've started going through Special:Wantedpages, and I'm trying to eliminate references to deleted pages (or pages that don't really need to be created). I'm adding nowiki tags or removing the brackets, where non existent pages are referenced in talk pages, and adding redirects where appropriate to existing pages. Hopefully soon that list will only contain pages that really should be created. anyone else who wants to help it would be appreciated. -misty 02:03, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

Also PLEASE clean up any references that are on your own user pages, talk pages, sandboxes, etc. If everyone does that it will make the job a lot easier. -misty 02:10, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

FYI about the spamming

I've contacted Broken Kid. It turns out that there is now a Web site guy and he's been notified. I didn't even know there was a Web site guy (hence the red link!), and he hasn't contacted me yet, to either give someone temporary FTP access or to ask what sites need blacklisted. Apparently things are a bit hectic because MM&G are/were recently in London laying the groundwork for Kate. --JayHenry 22:09, 7 May 2007 (CDT)

I noticed that we have a new spambot check in place :) Now we can see if its a bot or a person spamming-misty 23:38, 7 May 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, at some point someone installed the ConfirmEdit extension. Nobody ever identified themselves as this mysterious Web site guy, but it's up and running. Did we have any incidents last night? It's only sorta annoying. There should be some way to set up a "whitelist" or, a list of sites that it won't ask the question for. This should include lonelygirl15.com, revver.com, youtube.com, IMDB.com, wikipedia.com -- can anyone think of other sites that should definitely be on that list? --JayHenry 08:45, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
Perhaps myspace.com? Other than that, I don't know of any. And how does this confirm edit thing work exactly?--Jonpro 08:53, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
The feature doesn't apply to admin or bot accounts, I believe. When adding an external link it asks you a quick math problem -- "what is 11 - 6?" for example -- and apparently the bots don't know how to parse this. Has the spammer struck since last night? If this isn't sufficient deterrent I think we'll want to disable this and try the blacklist instead. --JayHenry 09:13, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
This is the last spam edit we've had, so I don't know when this was installed, but it might be working. Then again, the spam bot seems to be pretty sporadic, so I guess we'll just have to bide our time for a little bit to see if it comes back.--Jonpro 09:28, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
It doesn't seem to have a whitest of trusted URL's, but I could modify it to have one. -misty 10:33, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
Wait, really? I thought only Web site guy could make the modifications. How do we add the sites mentioned above to the whitelist? Can anybody think of any other sites that should definitely be whitelisted? --JayHenry 15:45, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
Well, I can modify the script, but the web guy (or anyone with ftp access) will have to upload it. I just need the list of sites we want included. -misty 16:33, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

whitelist

Gotcha -- the whitelist feature is built into MediaWiki, so we can just give him a list of the sites and it's simple. I think we need to whitelist

  • lonelygirl15.com
  • lg15.com
  • youtube.com
  • wikipedia.org
  • hymnofone.org
  • myspace.com
  • revver.com
  • imdb.com
  • bebo.com

Can we think of any others? I'll make the request early tomorrow to give people time to think of other sites. --JayHenry 16:38, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

that list looks pretty much complete. I looked at ConfirmEdit.php and it doesn't use any global whitelist from the rest of MediaWiki. Instead you need to Hard code the white list, as a Regex, assigned to the variable $wgCaptchaWhitelist. on line 145. For the list above it would be:
$wgCaptchaWhitelist = '#^https?://([a-z0-9-]+\\.)?(lonelygirl15|lg15|hymnofone|wikimedia|wikipedia|youtube|revver|myspace|imdb|bebo)\.?(com|org|net)/#i';
--Misty 18:11, May 8, 2007 (CDT)
Any word on when the whitelist will be implemented? Has the web guy seen the instructions above? -misty 17:15, 19 May 2007 (CDT)

trusted users

Is it possible to create a group for trusted users (perhaps people who have over 200 unreverted edits), and give them exemption from ConfirmEdit and the ability to edit protected pages? -misty 22:00, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

Anybody with an account should be able to edit any of the protected pages. As for ConfirmEdit, I think our best bet is to get the Web site guy to add the Whitelist. --JayHenry 11:23, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
This isn't true, I was not able to edit Glenn Rubenstein, until the protection was taken off. Any word when the whitelist will be implemented? ConfirmEdit challenges are fine for occasional edits, but when you are doing a bunch of edits in a row it gets annoying. -misty 14:01, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
Let me explain. There are two levels of protection; protection and sysops only. Even if we created a new class they wouldn't be able to edit sysop only pages. The only time we protect anything to sysop level is when nobody should be editing it, as was the case with Glenn Rubenstein. You already can edit any page that's under regular protection, which is what I meant. I'll send an e-mail about the whitelist this afternoon. --JayHenry 14:54, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

New admins!

In case people don't know, Zoey and Psmith were recently made admins on the LGPedia. Congratulations to both of them and a big thank you for all of their hard work.--Jonpro 13:26, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Just don't let the power go to your heads :P Just kidding. Congratulations to both of you ----misty 15:28, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
Yay thanks! And oh look, I get to be Snow White!! -blinks- Are any other admins female? Whoa.. strange. --Zoey 19:43, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
I guess it doesn't say who's who in the picture of OIC, Brucker and I. But apparently two of us are female. --JayHenry 21:53, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Image naming convention (for episode-related pics)

Just to finish off the discussion we had at Image_talk:Cassie.JPG a while back... Are you happy with 9999-Description.xxx being the convention for images taken from official episodes, where:

  • 9999 = episode number;
  • Description = brief description of who/what is in picture and what they are doing or where they are;
  • xxx = file type, usually jpg.

E.g. "0169-JonasAndAlexHugging.jpg". If the picture is modified significantly (e.g. greatly reduced, resized, lightened etc.) then the convention I use is 9999-Description-Modification.xxx, e.g. "...-Cropped.jpg", "...-Stretched.jpg", "...-Detail.jpg" etc. (so as to distinguish it from the original whilst retaining the same name). I would like to put this type of guidance on the Special:Upload page but don't know how. Any thoughts on the above? Psmith 17:26, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, that sounds good to me. And since that's what you've been using, it only makes sense to stick with it. It will make images a lot easier to find, etc. To edit the upload page text, you just have to modify MediaWiki:Uploadtext. Just in case you're wondering, you can get to this through Special Pages -> System Messages then search for what you're looking for. It's probably not a good idea to just modify anything in there, but for something like this I think it's a good idea.--Jonpro 17:43, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
OK. I made the change. Tried to keep the extra blurb down so that there is no vertical scrolling... but if you want me to prune it further let me know. Psmith 19:42, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
I turned the examples into bullet points and this may cause a little scrolling at some resolutions... revert if necessary. Psmith 22:20, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Does anyone mind if I put a note on the uploads page about categorizing images? Ack, this is bugging me lately! --Zoey 19:36, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Sounds good to me. You'll probably want to make sure to include the format for people unfamiliar with wikicode.--Jonpro 21:43, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Black Bands (for episode-related pics)

While we are on the subject of consistency for images, I would like to see consistency for whether or not we use black bands on widescreen pics. I could go either way, but I lean just a little toward no black bands. -misty 13:35, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

I'd say no black bands as well. There's no reason to have just black space in an image as far as I'm concerned.--Jonpro 15:51, 13 May 2007 (CDT)
ok I removed the black bands from a lot of images. I'll do more later -misty 20:34, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
Please save at least one with black bands for the Notable Details page, thanks. :) --Zoey 20:37, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
Ok Human Ransom is kind of in a class by itself. I can see leaving the black bands on that one, as well as the opAphid eyes. -misty 20:40, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
I believe that My Parents... Let Us Go Hiking!!! was the first video that had the black bands (because it was filmed on Daniel's camera he got for graduation), so it'd be good to keep (or create) an image with the blackbands there. --JayHenry 20:42, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
No black bands in general sounds good to me. See Letterbox format#Letterbox_in_LG15 for guidance on pixel heights/widths for exact cropping of letterbox screen-shots. Psmith 12:52, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

New page look

Hey everyone, check out Template:Header and Template:Subheader that Misty designed based on the redesign look for pages like Characters and Locations. We're thinking about extending this format to all or at least most of the pages on the wiki so they all have that look. First of all, do people think this a good idea? Secondly, Misty pointed out that when using the template the "edit section" thing doesn't work. Does anyone know a possible way around this? I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this issue.--Jonpro 22:20, 12 May 2007 (CDT)

I personally like the look, although I will say I dislike the way Table of Contents now look. They are centered, which I think looks odd, and the first header of the page is right up against it. That's the only thing I would change. Great job, Misty! --Zoey 22:31, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
I'm just learning how to do templates, and shit like that. Basically, I just look at other examples and try and figure things out, but sometimes, I spend hours trying to figure things out, only to fuck it up and have to undo it. I really need someone who knows what they arre doing to debug Template:Header and Template:Subheader. When they are fixed then they should work on any page ( I created a Redesign test page to try and see how to make it work for video blog pages). -misty 23:14, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
I really like the new character and location pages. I think they look snazzy, and the new designs makes them real gateways into the rest of the Wiki, they are effective index pages. But that's exactly the reason I really strongly dislike using this layout on video pages. It's just over-designed. Too many lines, too many colors, and no particular reason for it. The lines in the infobox clash with the header lines -- they are different colors, different styles. Incorporating this design everywhere really mutes its impact on the indexes and main page. It's bells and whistles and no substance. Other wikis that I am aware of do not incorporate their main page theme into individual pages, and for good reason, there is an elegance in modesty. I'm glad we're thinking creatively about ways to work on the wiki, but this isn't an area to focus our energies, sorry. The video pages work well, our contributors like and understand them, they are elegant pages, but also very flexible. I vote strongly for keeping them as is. --JayHenry 09:27, 13 May 2007 (CDT)
I disagree, i think that the video pages look pretty good, but if you think that the blog template clashes, we can modify the blog template to match. We Need to hear more voices on this. Either we go ahead and make it all over, or we revert the the text oriented pages like relationships and story so far. Can we get a final vote? -misty 17:34, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
I'm going to have to go with Jay on this one. It's just a bit much for the video pages. I do like the look, but we have to limit it. I'm still not really sure about the Relationships page and The Story So Far.... Part of me likes the new look, but another part just says to keep things simple.--Jonpro 17:56, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
I think the 'misty-style' design is great for the LGPedia gateway pages but agree with keeping most pages, inc. video episodes, in a relatively simple format. I see no problem in having both designs within the wiki but on different types of pages: the 'misty-style' for our showcase pages and the simple style for general use. Psmith 13:05, 21 May 2007 (CDT)
I think simple and elegant often looks better than fancy and overdone. I think the video pages look better the way the were originally. --truncatedslinky 14:06, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

How much fan stuff?

I've been really impressed with Zoey's (and others) work creating pages for the fan fiction and other fan stuff. But I'm wondering how far we should go with it? Should we have a page for every fan blogger we can find, and and a page for every video they produce? Should we have fan clubs for for fans of fans? Should we have pages for individual item's mentioned in a fan video? Personally, I'm ok with all of it, but given that I don't know the limits of the resources, I'm wondering if it could be over taxing the server. And I don't know what the Creators would think, if the fans stuff on the site became 10 times the cannon stuff. Do we need to be concerned about any of this? -misty 02:06, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

I personally think we need to go by a series by series basis. If it gets to be overwhelming, we can get rid of some, but till then, if they have a following, and are posting related to lg, what the heck, why not? --Bxman 08:00, 25 May 2007 (CDT)


Sandbox

Hey, I was just wondering where I could get my Sandbox at/create it. Chelseyrl 00:54, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

User:Chelseyrl/sandbox --Zoey 01:01, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Ah! Thanks so much, Zoey. Chelseyrl 01:03, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Anyone can create their own user sandbox, right? --Bxman 08:01, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Yep, you sure can. Just make a subpage of your userpage called "sandbox" like User:Brooklynxman/Sandbox.--Jonpro 10:20, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Transcribing videos

This is one of those things that really isn't a problem yet, but I can see that it might become a problem soon if we don't figure it out. In the past, transcribing videos would get a little messy due to the fact that many people would try to work on it at the same time (i.e. right when a new video came out), resulting in edit conflicts and a lot of wasted work. I've noticed that Zoey and others have sometimes put a little message requesting people to not edit while they write the transcript. This has seemed to fix the problem somewhat, but I'm wondering if there's a better solution. At heart, LGPedia (like any wiki) is a community effort, and I think some people feel left out when they are not able to help in writing the transcript. I don't like the idea of refusing people who want to help, but it's also good when things run smoothly and efficiently. Can anyone think of a possible way to reconcile these two things so everyone is happy? Oh, and I'm not picking on you, Zoey, please don't take it like that. I just figured I should mention this now rather than later :).--Jonpro 22:16, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

I didn't think you were picking on me :) I know full well that I have been doing this a lot. I mean hm... I don't really know how people feel "left out". When a new video is added, the transcript goes up.. and then people edit it mercilessly/make notes, etc.. so everyone is still contributing. And I've found it MUCH more frustrating when everyone tries to transcribe at once. No one's work ends up being of any importance because everyone saves over everyone else. And things end up messy because no one really knows who's going to edit over them, etc. It just seems so much more efficient to have one person initially transcribing. That way the transcript gets up neatly and in a timely manner. THEN everyone else can feel free to get at it :D. JMO. --Zoey 22:43, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
Okay, well, seeing that no one has responded yet, perhaps you're right. It is true that everyone gets to contribute this way, and maybe no one is really bothered by it. If that's the case, then I think we should by all means continue doing what we're doing. The other way definitely isn't any better. I'm really just trying to fix problems, but maybe I get too excited sometimes and see problems when they're not there :).--Jonpro 10:04, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, I sometimes get a little sad when someone else is already transcribing, but speaking from experience, it's WAY more frustrating to constantly be saving over each other. It tends to make you feel as though you have just done a lot of work for nothing. --truncatedslinky 14:00, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

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)

"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.

Thanks!

Miles

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. 72.77.92.54 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
KateModern1.jpg
KateModern2.jpg
KateModern3.jpg
KateModern4.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! 72.77.92.54 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 Image:Human Ransom.jpg for lonelygirl15 and Image:KateModern cast.jpg for KateModern. 72.77.92.54 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)

The new pages are live!! --Zoey 18:41, 15 July 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)

--Pheon 14:23, 16 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
    5. JayHenry
  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

This is a non-issue

  1. We currently test LGPedia pages in the main browsers of the day and check their specific rendering results in something that ranges somewhere between OK and excellent in all of them, accepting they will not be identical. For major pages/portals, the standard is higher and must be in the good to excellent range. I vote we continue this policy and not waste time making pages absolutely identical in all browsers or even declare that we care more about one browser than another. I can live with a bit of white space at the bottom of the List Of Videos in IE... it still looks very good overall but not identical to the better fit in Firefox. (Although, Firefox users can change their font settings to produce a variety of different display results that we just can't second guess.) In the past we have relied on the LGPedia community to spot if a major page falls under the good-to-excellent range in a particular browser and then reacted accordingly. I vote to carry on with this. If you agree, add your name to this list... Psmith 07:26, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
    1. Psmith
    2. Phoenician 14:22, 16 July 2007 (CDT)



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)

Well It looks like Browser Neutrality won out. I managed to make a Browser Neutral version of the LIst of Videos, and maybe tomorrow I'll add Browser Neutrality into the style guide. -misty 01:52, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Congratulations, Misty...you just destroyed half the usability and a good deal of the design of that page just because you didn't like the line height. Way to go. *thumbs up*
Having it look like crap on all browsers is so much better than having it look differently good on each of them.
Just look at the fucking mess that is the TOC now - isn't that so much better than having a real list, people?? *rolleyes*
This is fucking ridiculous. Without the numbering, the page is only a slight bit better than a pure category listing. The lack of numbers also puts all episodes on the same status, meaning early NBR and OpAphid episodes look like they're just as official as a normal Bree-blog. But hey, the line height is equal everywhere! What's factual accuracy if it looks the same on all browsers? *rolleyes*
I also highly object to the way this was inserted. The Portal/Main Page switch had to be done by today, as per Creator request. We had no time to consider your sudden uprise after you decided to ignore that project for two weeks, only to start bitching on the last day. That was not the case for a LoV redesign. It would have been perfectly possible to leave this piece of crap in your sandbox for a few days and listen to opinions before you make this horrible abomination our official video list.
Now we're gonna get a flood of bebo-users today who'll think we're too stupid to use a list over a billion <br>s.
Now tell me, Misty...what is the great advantage we have from equal line heights in FF and IE?
What enormous change does the "browser neutrality" of your version bring us that it justifies destroying the main focus and the factual accuracy of the page and turning it into a design- and code nightmare?
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 03:22, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
What are you talking about????? First of all the it was decided that the OPaphid and NBR videos are as official as the BDJ videos. And if the numbering is so important to you, add the numbers back in. The design of the page hasn't changed very much just the alignment. Maybe you and I, are seeing something different, but besides the line numbers, it doesn't look that different, other than that things line up correctly. Here's a screenshot that directly compares my version to the previous one. How is it any more crap than the old version??? screenshot -misty 05:32, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
"Add Poe Hinder Vilification" is not the nineteenth episode of the Lonelygirl15 video series, "An update of sorts" is not the 43th episode, and NBR1 is not the 80th episode - yet that is exactly what your list states. Yes, later episodes have been accepted into canon, but that doesn't change the fact that Miss Me? is the only Op video officially listed as an episode, and it doesn't change the fact that even Miss Me? was more of an "evil Danielbeast" blog than an actual OpAphid video. Even the video list on the main page, which most definitely is authoritive, lists OpAphid videos as ####b, not as ####+1. It doesn't matter if you are incapable of seeing how much more crude and less well designed your page looks through your omissions, or if you understand what a horrible faux pas your abuse of <br>s is - the important fact is that your list is just factually wrong and cannot stay that way.
And I refuse to fuck up the code even more by manually numbering through and handling 250 forced line breaks when a simple ordered list works fine and the only problem was that one browser has 0.1em more space per line.
There is no justification for this violation. The fact that a page is slightly longer in one browser, without even changing the layout or altering information, cannot possibly be a valid reason to destroy the code, the appearance, and the factual accuracy of a page.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 06:36, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
The LGPedia is browser neutral people. Deal with it, or leave. Seriously. It's not even negotiable. We're here for LG, not to promote Mozilla. --JayHenry 12:19, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
It's not about promoting Mozilla. It's about commensurability. If you check the discussion logs for the re-design, you'll see that we went through great lengths to ensure that the layout looks equal in both browsers. Have you actually checked the "unneutral" version in both browsers? The only difference is that one is slightly longer, because the line height is minimally higher. That's it. Nothing more. It's not even noticable if you don't know it's there. And for that tiny, little, insignificant difference, Misty wants to remove the numbering, making the list itself incorrect, remove the list code as a whole, making the code semantically incorrect, and she wants to optically destroy the TOC layout. All because of a little more whitespace.
This is not about "promoting Mozilla" - if that was my goal, I'd have refused to even look at it in IE months ago. The very fact that it is that similar proves that I'll go through great lengths to ensure it looks as similar as possible in both browsers, just as the recent re-designs of the main page/portals prove (it's no coincidence there are several revisions referencing "IE fixes" in the history). This is not about promoting Mozilla. This is about stopping an insane crusade with no basis. There is simply no reason to destroy a perfectly fine page on multiple levels, just because Misty doesn't like whitespace.
Oh, and for the record: I find it rather cheap of you to discard all factual arguments I made and drag this down to a supposed browser evangelism issue. I don't know if Misty bugged you or if you hold some personal grudge against me, but I made quite clear in my first comment on this issue that I'd of course like FF to be the official browser, but that I do support a sane neutrality dogma instead.
But killing pages over slight whitespace differences is not sane.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 12:32, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
I'm all in favour of passive browser neutrality, but not "enforced browser neutrality" if by "enforced" you mean every page must look identical in every browser down to the last pixel. This may put off the average wiki editor from making changes lest they break the policy and get pounced on by the "enforcers". That is why I voted for the status quo.
As an aside, this discussion is going the way of others on Lucy's Balcony in recent times. A bit too much sound & fury which I'll just put down to everyone's passion for LG. Let's tone things down a bit lest Lucy hears us and finds us all squabbling on her balcony. Psmith 14:02, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
No by enforced I don't mean identical down to the pixel, all browsers render differently, I mean that making the page lay out in one browser doesn't throw it off for another. In the case of the list of videos, if the page length in 2 browsers were 300 pixels apart, but the items on the page still lined up that page would be browser neutral. But the reason the list of videos isn't browser is because, if the list is aligned to the montage in 1 browser, there is an almost a 300 pixel offset in another. The 'status' quo you are talking about, means that people can change it back and forth to align for their own browser. I have no problem with choosing 1 browser as the standard for alignment, but the greatest consensus was for making it neutral, so I devoted my whole weekend to figuring out what would work. -misty 15:04, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
Vote to dismiss as non-issue, problem not reproducable under IE 6.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 15:54, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
Okay, I agree. Non-issue. Let's move on. --JayHenry 16:19, 16 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)

LG15/KM

This morning I got on the LGPedia for the first time in a while, and found all these changes on the main page and subsequent new main changes. And now, when I browse through articles, I find all this Kate Modern crap mixed in with the Lonelygirl15 information.

I get it. Kate Modern -- woohoo, a new project for the Creators, and hopefully it gives them some added income. But do we really have to mix them? I come to the LGPedia to read about... go figure... LG. So why must I see all this stuff about Kate Modern? From what I understand, they're completely two separate projects.

Can't Kate Modern have their own wiki? I came here for Lonelygirl15, not Kate Modern. The two don't have anything to do with each other, aside from the same creators, so why would we combine them? --Andy 22:26, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Read this page for the information regarding inclusion of KateModern in the LGPedia as per the request of Miles Beckett. --Zoey 22:32, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
I'd argue this further, but since Miles said it should be done, it seems pointless. Thanks. --Andy 22:39, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Redesign of our redesign in response to their redesign?

Jay's comment above got heads spinning, and the question of the moment is: Should we redesign our recently redesigned pages to fit the new look of LG15 and KateModern, or should we stick with what we have now, given that several people commented favorably about it?

I, personally, don't particularly like the new logos (I find them ridiculous), and see no problem with the visual difference between pedia and main site, so I'm not particularly keen on going through an entire redesign again. I'll do my very best if it is wished, though.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 22:35, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
I'm with Renegade on this one -- the new LG15 logos seem very weird indeed In fact, When I first saw the red LG15 logo (with a red dot) in the corner, I thought it was going to flipflop to a KM logo (with a blue dot) when I visited the KM portal. Sadly it didn't. --Pheon 22:46, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, I don't think it's necessary to go through an entire redesign. I just wish they'd put our old and familiar blue LG15 box back in the corner of the LGPedia. Unrelatedly, I gotta say, so far, hot as Kate is in a sundress, the KM series isn't doing anything for me. --JayHenry 16:33, 25 July 2007 (CDT)


Award Ceremony

We should have an annual award ceremony for all lgpedians. If you go onto Zoey talk page you will find my message to her about ideas of awards. If not a whole entire ceremony that the adminastrators can run then it can be just random awards that anyone can give out to who they see fit. Houdini 23:22, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

I'd like to nominate User:Admin in the category "Award for Best User Page," for the original version on display here. --JayHenry 16:44, 25 July 2007 (CDT)