Talk:List of Lonelygirl15 videos/redesign

From LGPedia
< Talk:List of Lonelygirl15 videos
Revision as of 03:01, 26 March 2007 by Renegade (Talk | contribs) (Going Live: Yay!)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Redesign discussion

Yikes, that is not working, especially the TOC. I think floating it is not a good idea. -BRUCKER EyeBlueSmall.jpg (Home/Talk/Contribs) 19:18, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

The TOC is temporary until Owen added the necessary CSS to get Template:HoverTOC working. Pretending the TOC isn't there, what doesn't work?
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 19:36, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
Other than that, I'd say it looks pretty good. The only suggestion I'd offer is a slight one: in the section that pops up, could you make the text wrap around the picture instead of the picture hanging on the left side with a bunch of white space? That ought to be an easy fix, and would make the look more in line with the main page style, perhaps. Oh, one more thing I forgot to mention before: the background blue is not a perfect match with your banner, but that also ought to be an easy fix. (Edit again to add: Oops, no it seems to be a faint gray line in the graphic; was that intentional?) -BRUCKER EyeBlueSmall.jpg (Home/Talk/Contribs) 20:18, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
Actually, that was the original setting, and I consciously coded it to not do that anymore - it looked like [expletive deleted]. Keep in mind that, with the TOC gone, the text has twice as much room to expand; also, in my tests, it was mostly a single line ending up below the image, which was why it looked so bad. That is not a no, more of a request to postpone the decision until the TOC is gone and/or more descriptions were added, so you can see the text flowing without restrictions.
[REMOVED - Owen added the code in the meantime]
The blue, well...are you looking through IE? 'cause on FF, at least on my screen, it's a perfect match. Although I did see in IE what you mean, there's no way around this...the color will always be off for someone. The color I chose, however, is the one told to me by Photoshop when I color-picked the large blue area in the graphic.
The "grey line" is part of the original LG15 header graphic, while the part below is just plain blue...a small part is kinda conflicting there. So no, it's not intentional, I just hoped nobody would notice :P I'll fix it as the last thing. (Remind me of it.)
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 20:41, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
P.S.: Waaaaah! Evil editing conflicts! Sudden edits mid-edit!
P.P.S.: Don't interpret my reply as an unwillingness to change anything...I'm just trying to explain why I did it the way I did it.
I don't see the difference in the colors... OwenIsCool 21:17, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
I just re-uploaded the header image, and while I did get rid of the "grey line", I accidently included a that darn star in the image...since it took me several looks to actually realize it was there, I assume it doesn't particularly destroy the image, but I'd still like know what you guys think...keep or kill?
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 22:41, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
The colors actually looked fine on my work computer, it was an optical illusion caused by the grey line. However, on my home computer, the page looks awful, and I don't know why. It's possible it has something to do with my dialup connection in an odd way. (You know, compressed graphics or who knows what?) -BRUCKER EyeBlueSmall.jpg (Home/Talk/Contribs) 22:44, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
It looks great in Firefox, but is hurting in my IE. Does anyone have safari? I have no access to server log information, but we should have a proportional number on Macs. And a photoshop tip: the coloring should be an easy fix -- in photoshop, don't use the color pick, but manually set that background color to #134b9c and then instead of saving the way you regularly do, you need to hit "save for web". This is how we made it so the images on the main page don't mismatch. --JayHenry 23:42, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
I didn't set the background color in photoshop at all...I just looked at it via color pick in order to set it as a bg color for the table (iow, I selected it once and copy-pasted the hex value). And I actually saved it with indexed colors, so I'm confident the colors got preserved correctly. (Which is kinda proven by the fact that both image and background match on FF.) Thank you anyway :)
Going back to earlier issues, how do you guys like the page as a whole and the slide out divs now that the TOC is out of the picture? And what about the star? Should I leave it in or not?
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 23:51, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
If it works on the Main Page I'm unsure why you think it's impossible for it to work here. And yeah, IE sucks, but it's what most people use, so we can't go to an option that doesn't load well or color match in IE. This redesign right now is def better in Firefox, but worse in IE. --JayHenry 00:00, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
if you look at the recent discussion on the main page the images there are set to #0F4C95, which OwenIsCool said he is going to make the official blue background color. For consistency that should be the color here too. Misty 01:14, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
Changed it...but now the color is off in both browsers. (And that's actually not true - the color used on the main page, at least right now, is #194B95)
@JayHenry: After telling you for an hour how much sh*t "Safe for Web" is and how it's nothing but a front end for Index Colors for those too afraid to touch that "technical looking" option in the edit before, I just proved and disproved myself at the same time: Looks like the first color in the index isn't necessarily the main color, so that part of my rant is void - however, the main color chosen by Safe for Web is...exactly the same as before. So, while Safe for Web doesn't automatically f*ck up the colors as I assumed (although I did find the slide to do that), it doesn't do anything I didn't do myself before, and it will not fix the situation.
In addition, it seems like the only "safe for web" color in that range is #003399, so not even that colorspace is available as a fallback. about whoever saved the images on the main page grabs my header and saves it for web? Maybe that helps?
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 08:33, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Okay, I sampled the color, and I came up with #0e4093, but when I tested it, although it looked better, it was not a match in Firefox. IE looks good though. I guess there is an issue of browser dependency. (Oh, and Renegade? Yes, I am, and I don't even follow OpAphid, so go figure.) -BRUCKER EyeBlueSmall.jpg (Home/Talk/Contribs) 14:26, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Since #194B95 from the main page magically seems to work, I'll try and see if I can give the header a nudge to use that as the base color, and then set the page to use that. Kinda sucks, but if the sheeple insist on using IE -_-
But...what about the damn star? Keep or kill? (Why is everybody ignoring that question?)
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 18:24, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

PLEASE EVERYONE READ THE COLOR DISCUSSION ON THE MAIN PAGE TALK. OwnenIsCool wants to have Official standardized colors, but currently there is too much difference in the color of different image files. The Images have to be standardized first, then we an match the HTML colors to it. If we solve the pronblem for the main page before trying to get the colors to "look right" here then maybe guys like renagade won't have to waste there effort getting it to match only to have to change it later to the OFFICIAL colors Misty 21:48, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

I have seen the color discussion, at least the table - point is, not only does the official color proclaimed in that table divert from the one actually used on the main page, but it actually, plain and simply, isn't the one used in the official lonelygirl15 flower background - at least not the one I downloaded. And given the fact that, at least under Firefox, both my header and the table background matched perfectly, I am inclined to believe that my color picking was correct, and the problem is merely Internet Explorer's inability to interpret hex colors correctly.
iow: Standards are a nice thing - but if they're wrong, they help no one. Your approach itself is wrong: There's no need to standardize the images first, then base the HTML on that. The original header image has a certain set of colors. I suggest a bunch of other people just downloads the header directly from, and they all color-pick various parts of the image. Then we can compare. We should all have the same values, and can then base all future images and HTML on that. Instant standard - "the colors used in the original header". If and image doesn't meet the original colors, do to wrong color reduction, the image is off, and has to be fixed - not the HTML. All I know, for now, is: Photoshop showed #134b9c for the base color, and Firefox's interpretation of #134b9c matches perfectly (on multiple machines, apparently). That all points to #134b9c being the correct base color. And I'd rather go with the correct color than a wrongly standardized one. Unfortunately, on Planet Microsoft, color codes don't mean jacksh.., and #194b95 (the one from the main page) seems to be the only one looking the same in both browsers.
·bling·...IDEA. Unrelated, but it just hit me: Apparently, IE renders HTML colors differently then the ones saved in images, right? So if everything else fails, I could just re-code the borders as table-cells, and make the background a 1x1px png with the correct color! That way, we'll have images next to images, and they'll all be rendered the same way!
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 22:43, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
I think we are actually saying the same thing, the images do need to be fixed, so that the edge pixels are the same on all the images that blend into the background. On the main page i started the discussion from a sample of an edge pixle of Leftcorner.png and just assumed that everything matched that (#0F4C95), but later I found out that other images had differeng shades of blue. when you got #134b9c were you sampling an edge pixel or a pixel from the middle? Misty 23:10, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
Several places in the middle of the large blue area to the right.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 09:22, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

I like the way it looks, it looks great! --TJ Marsh 21:13, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

photo montage

I think the photo montage would be better if we used tables, and had them lined up, rather than spacing them with
tags and staggering them. What does everyone else think? Misty 21:56, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

I actually just copied the one from the normal was no special design decision on my part. A table should work just as well, although I'd suggest making it two and generating an offset again...I kinda like that effect.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 22:43, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

expanding scroll to top

I noticed that with Safari, and Camino that when you expand a Video entry, it scrolls it to the top of the screen. This didn't happen with the examples on the template page. is this happening on other browswers, and is it supposed to happen? Personally, I don't like it, and think it would be better if it just expanded where it was and only scrolled up to prevent going off the bottom of the screen. Misty 22:03, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

It didn't do that with the examples because, unless you're running 640x480 or something, the page is not long enough to move the examples to the top. It boils down to the same as before: This is the way this solution works, because it's more or less and abuse of standard links. Prettier solutions are possible, but afaik, they all include JavaScript - making it necessary to hard-edit the template, and forcing all users to have JavaScript enabled (especially on Internet Explorer, that's usually not advised). If you do find a tutorial for a script-less solution, I'll be happy to implement it, but until then, this is the only thing I can offer. :/
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 22:43, 20 March 2007 (CDT)


I believe the colors are fixed. There's probably a slight appearance of different hues, but this should be an optical illusion created by the flowers that are cut off in the image. Part of the problem in IE was that there were actually two different background colors. The table for the images on the left and the images on the right both specified that other background color and for some reason, IE was having trouble resolving that difference. Anyway, it's now fixed super close to #194B95 and should display correctly in any browser. --JayHenry 00:15, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

The edge of the image is #1a4b97, and you still have a mixture of #0F4C95 and #194B95, so it can't be fixed. But why bother trying to "fix" it until all the images are fixed, and there is consensus on what color it should be. Misty 00:40, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
Okay, I put everything into #1a4b97 ... I don't see any reason to worry about these shades beyond making sure that a page is consistent with itself. The main page is displaying fine for everyone, this page is displaying fine for everyone. Problem solved, IMO. --JayHenry 01:26, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
Great! The corners are still off, but barely noticable in FF. Great job! Thank you :)
I'll convert the montage to tables then, add another round of video infos, and fix the corners. Was there anything else that needed to be fixed?
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 09:22, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
I didn't even notice the corners until you said that. They're actually a little image file in the corner of the box, huh? Is there any way that someone with IE can see the table of contents? And look, I'm not a big defender of IE or something, but our responsibility is to LG fans, not Mozilla. --JayHenry 10:16, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
I know, I know...I didn't realize IE doesn't even support :hover until it didn't work -_- I'll see what other options there are.
I re-uploaded the corners, however, while they fit perfectly again in Firefox, they are, for some reason, off in IE...again. -_- They definitely use #1a4b97 (as proven by the fit on FF), so I have no idea wtf is going on...the only thing I could imagine is that IE interprets the palette differently, but then the image would be destroyed as a whole, not just slightly darker...
What concerns me even more is that, for some reason, the corners are not actually in the corners anymore in IE. They worked fine yesterday. I'll have to look into that.
sigh...I f*cking hate it to destroy a perfectly fine webdesign just to support Microsofts broken piece of cr*p.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 10:38, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
(Whoops, edit conflict, I guess you got there ahead of me...) There are a few things wrong in IE, but rather than explain, here's a piece of a screenshot:

It's spaced wrong on the bottom, too. (And that grayishness around the "LG" is just a picture compression artifact, not an actual page problem.) I'm far more concerned about the spacing than the slight color difference. -BRUCKER EyeBlueSmall.jpg (Home/Talk/Contribs) 10:41, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

As I suspected, the problem is that it's centering vertically, and the size is different on IE than on FF. Putting "valign=center" takes away the problem on the top, but makes it worse on the bottom. Still This leads me to think that there is bound to be a simple fix for the problem. -BRUCKER EyeBlueSmall.jpg (Home/Talk/Contribs) 10:46, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Ignoring the issues of this page for a moment to illustrate, here's the bottom of the official list in IE:


and in FF:

There seems to be a difference in the way the text is displayed that causes the end of the page to be off by quite a bit between browsers. -BRUCKER EyeBlueSmall.jpg (Home/Talk/Contribs) 10:57, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

EDITING CONFLICT...again. Here's what I said before you illustrated:
Bah. I think the problem is the way I implemented the montage - I used borders to space the images. I assume IE is unable to understand that the space generated by the borders is part of the absolute height of the page, and assumes the cell with the list is actually 100% big, while it isn't. I'll re-implement the spacing through actual table cells, and see if things improve.
Did I mention I hate IE?
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 11:03, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
As for killing Bill Gates -- the LGPedia's own Brian Flemming once made a film on this exact topic: Nothing So Strange. --JayHenry 11:12, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
I really think the image spacing is fine, and it's the text spacing that is causing the problem. And when are we getting back to the TOC problem? As it now stands, the TOC is unreadable. -BRUCKER EyeBlueSmall.jpg (Home/Talk/Contribs) 11:16, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
Changed the space implementation, same problem. The destruction happened in the revision where I turned the montage into a table, so I guess that's the problem. I'll see if explicitly setting width and height to 100% or something helps.
As for the TOC...that's currently kaputt anyway, because someone is poking the CSS.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 11:28, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
FIXED. After being half-way through a re-write of the entire layout, I found a way force the layout down IE's throat. The content starts a little lower in IE, and IE's corners are darker, but apart from that, the designs are equal now - at least on my machine, through FF and IE 6.0.
It looks fine now on both my FF and IE7. I also see darker corners in IE, but it's not that noticeable. If anyone complains we'll suggest they try FF. After all, if the little dark corners bother them so much, it's less work for them to install FF than it is for us to get this page working perfectly on IE. Oh, and in case anyone is even remotely considering IE7... just say no. I was actually on IE6 until Microsoft pushed the IE7 dl, and then well... I had enough and switched to FF. And it's been glorious. =)
OwenIsCool 16:24, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Alternate montage table

I made an alternate to the current mntage that I think looks better, to see it go to the history and click on

  1. 18:10, 21 March 2007 Misty (Talk | contribs) (Alternate montage table)
I'm obviously a fan of the staggered look, but I would prefer if we were to do it that way that all the pictures would be sized the same. -BRUCKER EyeBlueSmall.jpg (Home/Talk/Contribs) 14:15, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
I think the staggered table looks more decorative, whereas the alternate table looks like, well, a table. I would go with the staggered one. I do have a question though, can we fill in the space in the left column (of the staggered table) with a picture? now that the "List of videos" header isn't there, the empty space looks kind of awkward. OwenIsCool 14:19, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
I like the staggered look better as well, for the same reason as Owen.
I agree the ex-logo-space looks kinda empty now, but that wasn't exactly my priority in the past few hours -_-
I'm open to suggestions, but I can't be arsed to think about it myself right now.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 15:04, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
What about putting the TOC where the ex logo used to be? We could also chop out the image from Danielbeast if we needed to. --JayHenry 16:03, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
Hmmm, I think the TOC might be too big. Jay, why chop out the Danielbeast image? Wouldn't that make the empty space even bigger? Ohhhhh never mind. You were suggesting we chop it out to make room for the TOC. Stupid Owen. Yeah that could work. Alternatively, is there some way we could nudge up the Danielbeast image a little to make the empty space less gaping? OwenIsCool 16:24, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
Before we try to move the table of contents, I thought I would try just adding an image, so I put Pmonkey in there Misty 16:48, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
I moved the TOC to the montage, and P. Monkey looks good next to it...unfortunately, the left montage-column is too long now, and I didn't want to decide what to kick or reorder...could you have a look at it?
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 17:35, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
If you put the TOC there it will be a problem as it keeps growing. I expanded the table of contents in a version fount in the history:
  • 22:43, 21 March 2007 Misty (Talk | contribs) (problem as TOC will Keep growing)
I rather doubt the TOC will ever grow twice the size in one revision...and one additional image in the right column should be enough to make up for three new TOC entries. (And since three new TOC entries imply about 15 new episodes, there's reason enough to add a few new images to the montage.)
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 18:02, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
the balance of images between the left and right is only one issue, theres also how it looks to have a long TOC in that column . Also there will be big differences in how everything lines up depending on the Font and Fontsize people use in their browsers 18:32, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
Well, the TOC will have to be somewhere...and that is the first solution that looks good, doesn't push the content down, and works on all browsers.
As usual, I'm open to suggestions, but I think this is the most practical solution...
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 19:03, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
I like the TOC where it is right now. Looks good. --JayHenry 20:07, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
Ok if we have the TOC here then there will need to be someone contantly adjusting the Images to make sure they stay in alternating sequnce as the TOC grows. Unless the consensus is that order doesn't reallly matter. one question though, do we really need a TOC? 20:18, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

About the growing TOC...
I still think this is a non-issue, and I think this empty space below the list looks kinda silly. The TOC will grow one way or another, and so will the why artificially make the design ugly?
Not to mention that Misty's implementation is non-dynamic, so not only will the TOC grow anyway, but people will also have to re-adjust the div height.

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 16:58, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
Agreed. It's not helpful to add the empty space at this stage. --JayHenry 17:31, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
renagede reverted too far back only my last edit expanded the TOC the others put the montage in chonological order Misty 18:46, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
Ooops! That was me, not Renegade. Sorry! --JayHenry 19:00, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

Lets get some consensus on TOC/Montage

Lets gets some opinions here and try to form a consensus

Question one: Do we need a TOC at all?

Question two: If we have a TOC, does it matter if the montage is pushed out of chronological order by the expanding TOC?

Question three: If we need to keep the montage is chronological order what should be the protocol for compensating for the growing TOC?

  1. Yes, we do need a TOC, because we're close to 160 episodes by now (not counting un-numbered Gemma, Jonas and OpAphid vids), and the sections are the only thing slightly bringing order to them - but the sections are useless if you have to scroll down three pages anyway.
  2. Not really, as long as it's not too much - that's what I ment with the image size and three TOC entries and stuff - even the smallest images are at least as high as three additional TOC entries. Since one TOC entry usually holds an arc of at least five episodes, that means that by the time the left column was pushed down by one image, there are at least fifteen new episodes that want to be represented image-wise. And I don't think it's that much work to compensate a one-image-shift when adding pictures for three entire story arcs.
  3. Column switching. Go to a point where the episodes start misordering, and simply switch column contents. That should instantly fix the order. Then adjust spacer-cells as needed. As implied above, finding the proper place to cut will probably take more time than performing the actual switch.
What's actually more of an issue is not the period where the images are mis-ordered, but when they line up next to each other - 'cause most people won't actually notice if episode image #124 comes before image #123, but they will notice if the staggered look suddenly converted to a tabled one.
...but even that should be easily fixable by adjusting the spacer cells.
That's my opinion, anyway...
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 20:06, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
That sounds like a workable approach. to try it out, I did a column switch to get them back in order. It seems like it could be complicated to figure out where and how much to adjust the spacing. Misty 20:42, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
  1. Yes. As the number of videos continues to grow, a TOC will be increasingly important to navigate this long page.
  2. *shrug*. The TOC only grows every 8-10 videos, and even then only in small increments compared to the size of the photos. The montage is decorative anyway, and it was already slightly out of order anyway before we started the redesign. Chronological is nice and accurate, but I think we're making a mountain out of a molehill. I'm more worried about when it starts to look tabled rather than staggered. In any case, Renegade proposed an easy fix.
  3. Ditto. Column switch and adjusting spacer cells sounds good to me.
OwenIsCool 22:11, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

adding videos

I discovered that the order of the feilds doesn't matter, so I started copying and pasting from the sidebar of each videpp page and deleting the extra fields. It was alot faster than copying info line by line. does anyone know a faster way to add videos? Misty 01:29, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

Hence why I named the parameters after their Blog* counterparts ;)
Faster...nothing that I could think of. Unless you want to write a script that compares name= and replaces the empty version with the full version. But if all take turns adding one arc at a time, we should get it done quickly.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 09:46, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
btw, for educational purposes ;) : The order of parameters doesn't matter because the parameters are named. If you had a template used in the style of {{template|first|second}}}, you couldn't just do {{template|second|first}}} - that'd misplace the values. You'd have to do {{template|2=second|1=first}}} in order for it to work (this is particularly important when passing equals signs - {{template|Co-Ed Foosball|}}} would try to pass "Co-Ed Foosball" to variable 1, and "213" to variable ""; if you do {{template|Co-Ed Foosball|2=}}} instead, "Co-Ed Foosball" gets correctly sent to 1, and "" to 2).
I know, boring - but I thought you might as well discover the whole "magic" of parameter names ;)
Actually, if it really just is copying and pasting stuff over, our LGBot might be able to work on it. We could ask Jonpro. OwenIsCool 10:53, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
That would be so cool, especially if the bot could keep the page up to date as well. Misty 12:03, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
Well, like I said, the name= field would have to be compared so it replaces the correct entry, and the url field has to be stripped down to the actual url (blog4 takes an entire link). Apart from that, I designed it to be the same.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 12:36, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
I'll put in the request on User talk:LGBot. It would be helpful for mass adding all this info. As for keeping it up to date, that's probably not as practical since Jonpro would have to operate it to do that anyway. It's likely easier if whoever starts the vid page could paste over the info. Besides, keeping it up to date is no big deal, it's having to add like 100 videos that's a pain for everyone. OwenIsCool 16:02, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, OiC is right that it would not be practical for the bot to keep the list updated. As far as the task of copying the information over, I'm not really sure if the bot will be able to do it. I've never transferred information from one page to another with the bot, so I'll have to look into it somewhat. I'll try to get around to it soon and let everyone know whether I think it's feasible.--Jonpro 22:38, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
If everyone would copy 10 videos a day we could get it done fairly soon Misty 00:41, 24 March 2007 (CDT)
Anyone willing to Help?? I think it probably will be less work to just do it, than having Jonpro script the bot to do it, since he's not really sure how to do it. I'll do 10 videos a day but only if at least 2 other people are going to do it too Misty 00:52, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
I didn't end up using the bot, but I was able to use something that I learned in the process of running the bot. Anyway, check out User:Jonpro/Sandbox. I basically used Microsoft Word's "replace" feature to pare down all the information to what we want and add the formatting. There might be some errors, but I think it's basically correct. There are no headings yet, but other than that I think it can just be copied and pasted over here. Hopefully this saves some people a lot of work.--Jonpro 20:36, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
Thanks Jon for your effort but the Videos have all been added. Is there something about your list thats better than what we have right now? Misty 20:48, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
Oh, I guess I should have checked that. I feel a little stupid now. Luckily I didn't put too much work into it though. But thanks to the people that added the videos, and I'll try to be a little more observant in the future :)--Jonpro 21:39, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

Going Live

Are there any objections to moving the redesign to the main List of Lonelygirl15 videos, as soon as we finish getting all the videos in? Misty 15:23, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

As far as I can see, the videos are all in. (Thanks for your help on that :) )
And theoretically no, no objections from me, but we might want to think about "outsourcing" the actual list to an included page instead of having it there...if I saw correctly, the page is up to 63 KB now (iow, painfully slow to edit).
Oh, wait...something's wrong with 157...let me fix that first.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 15:41, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
the list itself is 38 KB, wouldn't outsourcing it only be of benefit if it were under 32 KB? maybe we need to outsource it to 2 included pagesMisty 16:06, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
better yet, lets outsource just the earlier videos, so that the new videos are still added on this page, then whenever this page gets close to 32 KB we outsource all but the last arc to a new included page Misty 16:12, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
bah, editing conflict. In response to your first comment:
Well, outsourcing the list would bring the framework below the 32 KB threshold, and cut the loading times for the actual list by half - the actual list is over 32 KB one way or another, but 6 KB over is much better than 25.
In response to #2: Sounds more complicated than necessary.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 16:16, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
but it keeps all the editing on one page, and makes it easier for people to know what to edit, otherwise they wold need to know what the subpage is to know where to add new videos, my way is similar to archiving Misty 16:39, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
So...are we going live or what? (Or rather: Will we be live when I wake up?)
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 21:48, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
I say: Go for it Misty 21:50, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
Pfft...not even waiting to make it a wake-up present. Oh well. Looks good :) Good night, everybody.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 22:01, 25 March 2007 (CDT)