LGPedia:UGC desk

From LGPedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Crystal clear alert.png
This page is part of the LGPedia Fanfic Revamp and is not finalized or "live" until this notice has been removed. Please do not edit it.

Welcome to the User Generated Content desk on LGPedia. As part of the grand LGPedia UGC/Fanfic Revamp, instead of regulating which series gets the most pages by pure manpower, user generated series are now evaluated by the community.

The reason for this is that, in the past, user generated series (UGS) would often create many pages soon after their inception, but not maintain them afterwards, or tag them for deletion once the series shut down, leaving the burden of maintenance to other users.
In the new system, after a one month grace period, the community as a whole decides whether a user generated series is notable enough to be listed permanently on LGPedia, or if it should not be covered. The extent of coverage is illustrated and described by assigning a Tier.


Tier 1 Tier 1 UGS are not notable enough to be covered permanently on LGPedia. All vlogs not belonging to a series fall under this category. See Notable non-series UGC for those.
Tier 2 Tier 2 UGS are presented on a single page with basic facts like creators, general plot/topic outline and maybe a list of characters.
Tier 3 Tier 3 UGS are presented on a comprehensive single page, including a more detailed plot outline, episode lists, and similar additional information.
Tier 4 Tier 4 UGS are series that, under all objective considerations, should belong to Tier 3, but for some subjective or organizational reason are allowed to branch out and create more than one page. There is a wide range of possible reasons for ending up in this Tier, including appearance of Creators or canon actors in the series, pure size reasons or specific agreements with the community or administration. Tier 4 series are not Tier 5 series, and, as such, the number of pages created is limited to a few community-agreed ones.
Tier 5 Tier 5 UGS are all "big" series, like OpAphid, Maddison Atkins or Redearth88. Due to their size and the generated user interest, these series have an array of pages similar to canon series, including templates, separate episode and character pages and categories.

The current Tier for all UGS covered on LGPedia can be looked up on the UGC Tier List.


After each evaluation, including the initial one, UGS pages should be converted to a proper format for their Tier as soon as possible. Since series grow and events happen, a series may - of course - over time change to a degree that makes a different Tier seem more appropriate. In such cases, a Tier re-evaluation can be requested.

How to request a re-evaluation of a series

Please make sure the following conditions are true before you request a re-evaluation:

  • The series has spent at least one month in its current Tier.
  • You have read and understood the discussion that lead to its current Tier.
  • You believe the leading argument or multiple supporting arguments are not true anymore and you can support this belief through factual evidence, or you can add new supportive facts to the discussion.

Re-evaluations do expressedly not always have to be promotions. Demotions are entirely possible under the very same conditions. However, should a series get moved in one direction in one month, and moved back to its original place in the next month, the "spent time" condition for that series is automatically extended to two months in order to allow a closer look if the current Tier is truly adequate or not.

Should a series be eligible for re-evaluation and you would like to request one, proceed as follows:

  1. Go to LGPedia:UGC desk/evaluations/SERIES NAME/MONTH_YEAR. Should this be the first evaluation, put "initial" instead of month and year.
    If you wanted to evaluate Lonelygirl15 today, you'd go to LGPedia:UGC_desk/evaluations/Lonelygirl15/January_2021
    If you wanted to evaluate KateModern for the first time, you'd go to LGPedia:UGC_desk/evaluations/KateModern/initial
  2. If that page exists, join the already running discussion. Do not restart an ended discussion unless a major point was not taken into account. Either way, stop following these steps.
  3. Should the page not exist, create it following the template posted below.
  4. Add the discussion to the list on LGPedia:UGC_desk/evaluations.
  5. Tag either the series's page or main page/portal with Template:Evaluation, using the parameter to link to your discussion.
  6. Add the discussion to LGPedia:Participate with the name "Evaluation of SERIES NAME"
  7. See After the request for how things will proceed after you requested an evaluation.

Please note: Requests not added to the publications lists are automatically invalid since no one would know they exist.


|style="font-weight: bold; text-align: right;"|Series:
|style="font-weight: bold; text-align: right;"|Current Tier:
|style="font-weight: bold; text-align: right;"|Date:
|style="font-weight: bold; text-align: right;"|Posted by user:
|style="font-weight: bold; text-align: right;"|Reason for re-evaluation:

Could look like this, for example:

Series: The Example Alliance
Current Tier: 2
Date: January 24th, 2021
Posted by user: FooBarMan
Reason for re-evaluation: The Example Alliance has rapidly expanded within the past two months, releasing a total of 30 new videos, having three character chats and even held a live event attended by Alexandra Dreyfus. The informational volume alone would bloat the page to Tier 3-like sizes, and if we bumped them up to Tier 4, we could even create a separate video list, a page for the live event and a list of videos. I think Tier 4 would be justified because Yousef Abu-Taleb was in lonelygirl362436, and that is Tier 4 because of it.

Please make sure you state your reasons calmly and rationally, and provide objective data to support your request. In this example, for example, the user could link to forum threads detailing the event and chats, and to the YouTube video list of their main account.

After the request

After a request has been posted, users will find it through the participation block on Recent changes or through the list of running evaluations below. Hopefully, they will then join the discussion, replying just as calmly and rationally as you began. (In this example, they might, for example, argue that a canon actress in a different role, while notable, is as per precedents set by Greek and Quarterlife not notable on its own, and that lonelygirl362436 is Tier 4 not only because of Yousef, but because it was also created by the Creators themselves, because of a famed Hollywood actress in the lead, and because it has several hundred thousand views on YouTube.)

Over time, a consent or compromise will hopefully emerge, allowing the discussion to end in one of the following ways:

  • Consent. A solution is posted and within 108 hours (four and a half days), no member of the community objects to it. Should somebody object, the same solution can be put up for public vote.
  • Public vote. A solution is expressedly put up for vote, and members have 60 hours (two and a half days) to vote on the matter.
Votes are cast by expressedly stating, in bold, one of the following phrases:
  • Agree
  • Disagree
  • Indifferent
in the first sentence in a reply to the vote. "Indifferent" votes are not counted. There have to be at least five (5) countable votes in order for the vote to become effective. Simple majority is enough. A failed vote does not automatically end the discussion.
  • Administrative decree. If a member of the administration, in his or her function as an administrator, declares the discussion over, it is over, and the administration's decision on the request will be authoritive.
  • Abortion. Should, in the process of discussion, the original poster come to the conclusion that the opposition is right, and there is no need to change the series's Tier, s/he has the power to officially abort the discussion by posting, in bold, "I am hereby officially retracting my request for evaluation.". The evaluation will then be over, unless the decision is overridden by administrators or if at least three (3) other users explicitly state they want to continue the evaluation by posting, in bold, "I would like to continue this evaluation.".
  • Time. Any evaluation whose discussion takes longer than two weeks is automatically ended with a "no change" solution, under the reasoning that, if there is enough opposition and enough to discuss for two weeks, then the request does not have the necessary community backing and/or factual evidence to justify a change of the status quo. (Keep in mind that, within two weeks, you could have 5 complete votes for a solution - if all of them failed, it's obvious there is strong opposition.)

After the evaluation

First of all, the "spent time" counter is reset to the day the solution became permanent - be it the end of a vote, administrative decree or abortion. Should the solution include changes to the current page(s) or pageset, these changes should be implemented as soon as possible; should no one else expressedly volunteer, it is the requester's duty to make sure the changes are implemented. Should the changes not be implemented within one month (i.e., when it would already be possible to request the next evaluation), the evaluation's outcome is automatically reverted for organizational reasons. This process counts as an evaluation (with the implicit result "the community does not support the previous solution enough to actually implement it"), and thus, the "spent time" counter is reset and, as per the rules above, the next possible evaluation date is two months in the future.

This whole process admittedly sounds giant and complex, but this is only due to the many ways a discussion can change. Under normal circumstances, an evaluation can be done within three days, if the original request already includes a solution (either implicitly or explicitly) or one is quickly found, a vote is set up, and after the vote period, the count shows the solution was accepted.

List of (re-)evalutions currently in progress

List of archived past evaluations

Notable non-series UGC

Due to the fact that LG15 has become very popular, every single episode alone leads to the creation of dozens of new fan videos. In addition to that, there are hundreds, if not thousands of one-time videos that explicitly are connected to LG15, but are not reactions to a specific episode and don't belong to any established series. Since it is humanly impossible to cover all of them on LGPedia, and independent pages for them would lead to hundreds of orphaned and unmaintained pages, the decision was made to create a List of notable non-series UGC. Should you wish to add a video to that list, please add a section to the list's talk page, detailing why you think a particular video is more notable than other videos.

In general, the same rules for discussion as for series apply, but given that a single additional row to the list is a vastly smaller task to handle and does not increase the overall pedia page workload, the discussion itself should be of light tone, and there is no need to create additional subpages, adhering to templates, and so on. Just civilly discuss with your fellow pedians if a video should be added to the list, and if they agree, do it.