LGPedia:Lucy's Balcony/archive5

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This is the archive of discussions from Lucy's Balcony that are no longer active or have been resolved.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

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)


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)

No uploading??

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

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

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

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

Missions Page

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

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

Show Template?

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

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


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

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

LGPedia: pages

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

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

I Finished the Missions Page

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

Potential naming problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Maddison Atkins

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

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


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

Location pages for KM

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

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

Psmith 18:25, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

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

KM Forum Links

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

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

Re-Organization Day

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

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

Need help with title!

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KMProduction and Sophie Recap vids deleted??

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

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

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

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

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

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

<-- Previous