We're off to a nice start with this article, people. Let's keep plugging away at it.
The link to clue #16 is broken.
I was thinking that it might be helpful to establish a complete-as-possible listing of theories related to cassieiswatching, its clues, and their meanings. There is such a large body of knowledge currently housed within the forums, that having a data repository of sorts could be extremely beneficial. Thoughts? --Twistofreality 10:46, 30 September 2006 (PDT)
Neutral Point of View
For those of you unfamiliar with Wikipedia, there is a concept at work there called Neutral Point of View (NPOV). I'd like to request that this approach be taken within the cassieiswatching section so that speculation is not presented as fact. Comments/objections? --Twistofreality 10:48, 30 September 2006 (PDT)
Every Clue gets a page?
It is my humble request that every single clue of Cassie NOT be given its own page in the LGpedia. Some clues are as brief as:
Clue #5 - A voicemail recorded on September 17, 2006 The voice message recorded from clue #4:  The voice message says " " in reverse.
So much of that is extremely short. Also, the clues have become so numerous because every time cassie says __.._. it now counts as a clue. While I agree the big clues 1 and 2 video ones, should have their own pages, please don't make pages for every single one. HyeMew 21:56, 2 October 2006 (PDT)
- I'm fine with every clue getting its own page if that's what the people working on this article want, but I do agree that consolidating the short clues is probably a more effective way of introducing new readers to the material. Thoughts from others? - Dharmabum420 15:45, 2 October 2006 (PDT)
- A further thought; the way you could consolidate the short clues into a single article yet still retain direct links to the clue, preventing you from needing to scroll through the article, is by wiki-linking subheadings directly. For instance, let's say you consolidated all the articles into an article called Cassieiswatching clues, and had a subheading using == == for each individual clue. You could then have a wikilink in this article that looks like this: Clue 3, formatted like this: [[Cassieiswatching clues#Clue 3|Clue 3]] which would take you directly to that subheading of the larger article when you clicked on it. - Dharmabum420 15:51, 2 October 2006 (PDT)
- I am all for a page just for Cassiewatching clues, and then links to each part of the page when reference is needed. The clues have clogged up the cassiewatching page anyway so it'd be good to seperate the two. HyeMew 21:56, 2 October 2006 (PDT)
While I agree each clue should not have it's own page, the amount of clues is getting unmanageable here IMHO. I have split each clue into it's own section. I don't know if that was the right thing to do or not, but it certainly makes edits easier. May I make a suggestion? We group groups of clues together on separate pages? For example First Video, Second Video, First Poem, Second Set of 6 Poems, Franks Blog? --Pcbbc 10:52, 4 October 2006 (PDT)
- That sounds like a good idea... there must be some rough, large chunks the groups of clues could be cut into for sub-articles. - Dharmabum420 15:12, 5 October 2006 (PDT)
I'm not quite smart enough, nor do I have the spare time to fully play these sort of games, but for those who do (or are interested), the last frame of the "Revelation 2" video shows a Bible open to Amos 5 with a phrase cut out. I believe the phrase is "...I cause you to go..." Is this a clue, or simply a more clever way to say "Come and get it."?--Brucker 14:46, 9 October 2006 (PDT)