Difference between revisions of "LGPedia:Lucy's Balcony"

Revision as of 06:49, 2 February 2008

A couple of LGPedia admins (Jonpro & Psmith) take a breather to admire the view from Lucy's Balcony.

In happier days, friendly LGPedia admins, Brucker (now retired), OwenIsCool, and JayHenry (also retired) enjoyed unseasonably warm afternoons on Lucy's Balcony.

Welcome to Lucy's Balcony, a place to ask questions or discuss general issues about the LGPedia. This page is intended to be a place where admins and active editors can discuss ongoing issues, ideas and concerns. To start a new thread, click here. Please remember to sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end.

For old or inactive conversations, visit Lucy's archive.

Zoey, one of your LGPedia admins, frolics with the doves on Lucy's Balcony.

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

(CDT)

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: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).

Portals

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)

Relationships

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)

Vandalism

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.

OpAphid mess

Silver recently tried to unify the OpAphid bloglines, and the situation currently is kind of a giant mess. We need a consent on how we're going to treat the series and all connected blogs.

• Before, we had separate templates and "series" strands for Brother, Tachyon and OpAphid. The only thing crossing over was Miss Me?, which used Template:Blog rather than Template:Aphid. Apart from that, all bloggers were independent from each other, using their own templates.
• Now, all pre-canon and parallel videos, including Brother's and Tachyon's, use Template:Aphid, up until Miss Me?, which uses Blog, and all following ones use the brand new Template:Redearth88.

I was tasked with deciding whether to revert this change or not. In theory, Silver's system does make more sense. We do not have separate bloglines for Daniel and Jonas either, and neither do we do that in series like Maddison Atkins. However, since this is a rather drastic departure from our previous (year-old) system, which, among other things, means that videos by OpAphid use three different templates by now, I'd like to hear everyone's opinion on this before I go through and revert dozens of videos, when it's actually a logical change.

On the other hand, it's rather unfortunate that Tachyon's vids have the look and feel of OpAphid now, so if we do keep it the way it is, we should go all the way and create a "neutral" theme for the Aphid template, just as we have for other series. (Not to mention that the transformation wasn't 100% pretty, and all videos would need a post-change checkup of the links and variable settings.)

In addition, I just heard that it's, for some reason necessary that the new vids use the RedEarth template, so changing the post-canon vids over is kind of out of question.

Even though I loathe the work, I, personally, vote for a cleaned-up unification, including a new template theme, simply because we're doing it everywhere else as well, and it actually makes sense to have Brother's and Tachyon's videos, which are more or less a back-and-forth in communication, lined up next to each other.

Still, the old system is over a year old, and it's a rather drastic change, so...what's your opinion?

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 14:29, 5 November 2007 (CST)

It seems like nobody has replied to this for a while, so I thought I'd chime in with my thoughts. After thinking this through, I agree with the cleaned-up unification that Ren proposed.

Since it has been so long, if no one objects in the next day or so, I'd say you can go ahead and go for it :) --Zoey 00:03, 11 January 2008 (CST)

Okay, I changed the template and marked the other three for deletion, but it's been so long, I forgot what I wanted to clean up :/

I checked all pages, and the template was applied correctly, the numbers go through, they're linked correctly and all have bloggers. Lookin' good to me.

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 23:55, 15 January 2008 (CST)

The new favicon

Who the fuck is responsible for the new favicon and how can I punish him?

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 15:59, 16 November 2007 (CST)

• sorry to be dense, renegade, but what's a favicon? --Milowent 16:05, 16 November 2007 (CST)

Favorites Icon - the ugly black thing in your browser's title bar/tab row, next to "LGPedia:Lucy's Balcony".

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 21:11, 16 November 2007 (CST)

Ah, i see it now. Thanks. --Milowent 22:10, 16 November 2007 (CST)

It's Ugly....With a capital "U" ... I mean....What were they thinking?! Nasty :( --free2liv4evr 17 Nov 2007 00:08 (PST)

I completely agree. We need to start a protest or something.--Jonpro 14:28, 17 November 2007 (CST)

Image Redirecting

At first, I was willing to put up with it... but now, I am finding image redirecting OUT OF CONTROL. The idea is to use it on pages like Characters or something.. when someone could click the image, because they'd think it would take them to that character's page. We do NOT need to redirect every single image is uploaded.

Redirecting makes everything harder to keep track of... harder to see what images have been categorized and what haven't... harder to read any image descriptions or whatever, etc. Plus, plenty of times images are used in more than one place, and if they redirect to a certain page, it may not take you to the page you want to go to. And.. also, it's a lot harder when trying to snag an image for use on a page if you have to go to the page they redirect to, then unredirect yourself back to the image and snag the URL, and yeah... I could go oooon and onnnn.

Image redirection used to be the exception, not the rule. And ever since that has changed, it has been a nightmare for me. So please, can we please go back to making it the EXCEPTION again? Pretty please? --Zoey 01:36, 17 November 2007 (CST)

I've never really like the idea of image redirecting although I do see it's usefulness. You'd think there would be a way of having an image link to a certain page rather than the image page itself. I'm sure I'm not the first person to bring this up. Has anyone heard if this is possible, or if not, why this functionality hasn't been added?--Jonpro 14:28, 17 November 2007 (CST)

If there is a way to do it, I haven't yet figured it out. We do not, however, have the latest version of MediaWiki, so it's possible the functionality has been added, but that we do not have the ability to use it. I agree, there is a time and a place for image redirecting, but I really believe that redirecting every image that comes up on the pedia is WAY overkill and ultimately does more bad than good. --Zoey 17:55, 17 November 2007 (CST)

}:::There is no such feature in MediaWiki; there would be a more or less convenient way if this installation supported embedding of "external" images, but whoever made the config turned that of. Should we get FTP access to the installation, I could change that, and one could use the image path instead of a descriptive text in normal external link code. (At least theoretically. And practically, I'd probably write a template to do that.)

We do have Template:Imagelink, though, which superimposes a link area over an image.

@jonpro: I assume the reason for the lack of this feature is that the MediaWiki software is developed for Wikipedia, which primarily uses free licenses - these often include an attribution clause, and that attribution wouldn't happen if a click on the image didn't lead to the image page.

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 18:24, 17 November 2007 (CST)

A good way to take care of the problem is to install the ImageMap Extension, assuming we can. All of the templates would need to be updated, but it would be probably be trivial to do so. - Shiori 10:19, 24 November 2007 (CST)

I don't know why I labeled that as a minor edit, but I thought I'd mention that that's the only way (other than the template Renegade mentioned) that I've found to do that without redirects. - Shiori 10:28, 24 November 2007 (CST)

I didn't mention the extension for a simple reason: Even if we could install it (which we can't until we get FTP access), the syntax is hardly something you'd want to impose on a casual user. Simply being able to use the address of an image as the link text would be a lot easier to comprehend. We're talking about

<imagemap>
Image:Foo.jpg|200px|picture of a foo
rect 0 0 199 199   [[Foo type A]]
desc bottom-left
</imagemap>

vs. [page address image address].

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 15:28, 24 November 2007 (CST)

Would that really be that difficult to put into a template, though? For instance, for the character listing just plop this into the code in place of the current image call:

<imagemap>
Image:{{{image}}}|{{{imagewidth|{{ #expr: {{{width|240}}}/2 }}}}}px
rect 0 0 1000 1000   [[{{{charactername}}}]]
desc none
</imagemap>

It was just a suggestion, though. The other stuff would require template changes anyway. The image address being able to be used as the link description would be awesome, but it still doesn't exist... :/ - Shiori 18:19, 24 November 2007 (CST)

Hmm. Actually (again, if uploading an extension were possible), the ImageLink Extension is a lot better. - Shiori 18:29, 24 November 2007 (CST)

Also thought I'd add that we probably shouldn't use Template:Imagelink, as Wikipedia is phasing it out due to many problems it creates. - Shiori 18:44, 24 November 2007 (CST)

Video Dates In Pages

This is not a critical issue, but something worth discussion. At this point we are 18 months into the lg15 series. There are areas of Lg15 plot which were very important at certain points (like LaRezisto, or Gemma, or Tachyon), that later resolved or become less important. When viewing pages which discuss key character or plot issues (like Gemma, or Spencer, or the Order of Denderah, etc.), I myself find it useful to know when the videos about that subject were released, without having to click on every video link. I think in a chronological way. Thus, I sometimes put video dates into an lgpedia article to let readers easily know when something occurred in the context of the whole storyline. Like, for Ted McKinley i put it "He first appeared at the press conference filmed in What's Going on? (Oct. 19, 2007), where he helped ...". That way the reader easily knows, ok, this Ted guy is not relevant to the first year of the show.

We have no set convention for dealing with this issue that I am aware of, and wondered whether we should set one. I am not saying that every video link needs a date after it like a legal brief would cite cases, but there are articles where it would be useful. (For example, The order article has them; Emma does not). Even if we don't come up with any policy, I wanted to raise the issue for people to think about when editing. Thoughts? --Milowent 08:19, 20 December 2007 (CST)

Revamping FanFic

The "Plan"

Right now, I think we are faced with a situation where the LGPedia has become overloaded with fan fiction pages and this is a problem. Now, don't get me wrong, I am absolutely not saying that fan fiction pages on the pedia are bad. Quite the opposite, I'm saying that I think they're good! But with the massive amounts of scattered info we have now, I think we are making it much harder for anyone to really understand what's going on. We also have a lot of extraneous pages, (like video transcripts for obscure series that do not add value to the section on that series) which ultimately only overwhelms anyone who comes here to learn more about a fanfic series.

So, what I propose is this. I think that we should do a massive cleanup of the fanfic section of the site. I think that instead of treating the section as a free-for-all, we should try to get some sort of streamlined guide to just how each series will be treated.

The Types

I think we should divide the fanfic up into five types as far as how we deal with them:

Type 1 - These series get a single page similar to the current Lonelyjew15 page. They consist of one page where all the information you'd need to get an understanding of the series is found. The main things that show up on these pages are plot summary, character info, and important links for watching and following the story more closely. There can be other sections, such as a "Notes" section, but mostly the pages should follow the same general format. The page will serve as a "run-down" to the series it covers.

Type 2 - Unlike Type 1 series, Type 2 series will all be collected together on one massive page where each series will have its own description. Most of the time the descriptive info on these series is similar to what is contained in a Type 1 series, but to a lesser extent.

Type 3 - Like with any rule, there can and probably will be exceptions. What would go on these pages would be determined on an "as needed" basis.

Type 4 - This type covers any major relevant ARGs or series. Since series in this type tend to be complex, they often will require more than one page. Cassieiswatching and redearth88 are great examples of this. Because of the large-scale undertaking of these series, this type will have to be admin approved before they can go forward.

Type 5 - There are some series that simply don't belong on the LGPedia at all (adult film entertainment, anyone? :)). These ones do not need pages.

Qualifying

I think each series needs to be examined individually to determine where it best fits within the above types. A strong case should have to be made regarding why any particular series should receive a type of page. Some good reasons would be: number of subscribers, average number of views per video, notibility in the Breeniverse, and many more. Because of this, I believe we should evaluate each series independantly.

If the idea takes off, I'm happy to create a page where we can discuss statuses for each series. I'm not going to do that now though, because I want to make sure people are on board for the idea first.

Hopefully you guys like this idea, and hopefully you are on board with it! I truly believe it will do wonders for both getting more editors (who now mostly sit befuddled, wondering how to add such elaborate fanfic pages) and for getting new viewers for fanfic series, as viewers will be less confused when the content is laid out in a neat fashion. Please let me know what you think!!! --Zoey 02:57, 21 December 2007 (CST)

Comments

Yes, I made a section for comments, this would be too confusing otherwise, lol. --Zoey 02:57, 21 December 2007 (CST)

Well, if there's one project to rocket us to 2008, it would be this. Everything above sounds like a great starting point. To clarify, videos must be fiction, yes, in order to qualify for the above types. They can't just be a LG/KM fan responding, commenting, or spoofing (of course, if they've made themselves into an in-universe fictional character then that's different). I don't know, I just get the feeling that we're going to have to be painstakenly detailed in our discussions in the matter :P --Pheon 03:09, 21 December 2007 (CST)

Since I've been trying to get rid of the fan-series mess ever since I joined, I of course support this motion, but I'd like rules on series template creation to be included, i.e. whether your "Type 4" series should get their own blog- and other templates, or if they should use stuff like FakeBlog. I don't quite feel like eliminating another dozen uselessly created, outdated fan blog templates.

It should also be possible to create a Template:FanCharBlock, that simply takes a page and styling options as arguments - so you'd have one fan-char-block template, and the contents would be located at pages like Redearth88/charblock.

I do think your typification scale is counterintuitive, though - imo, it should be an ascending or descending scale, e.g.

Level 0	No pages	or, alternatively,		Tier 1	Full coverage
Level 1	Single page, few information	descending instead of		Tier 2	Tier 3 Exceptions
Level 2	Single page, comprehensive information	ascending		Tier 3	Single page, comprehensive information
Level 3	Level 2 exceptions			Tier 4	Single page, few information
Level 4	Full coverage			Tier 5	No pages

No matter how we name a series's grade, we have to find an acceptable way to rate them that doesn't look like pure arbitrariness to the community...something with hard data, like combined viewcount of the first twenty videos or something, with no chance to be selected before the series reaches at least twenty vids (unless it ends before that).

Beyond that, I suggest creating a Portal:Community, or use the existing (unused and barely known) LGPedia:Community Portal page to create a portal similar to the series ones, which only reports about Tier 1/Level 5/Type 4 series - like new Redearth videos released, link to series mainpages and similar things.

And more or less independent from that, the topic of spoofs that Pheon brought up is interesting...although I agree that mere replies should (of course) not be listed, certain spoofs should at least be collected on a central "LG15 Spoofs" page or something similar (or do we have something like that already?) - because especially milo's recent works are quite funny and deserve long-term exposure.

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 18:07, 21 December 2007 (CST)

Let me just clarify, this discussion is JUST for fanfic SERIES and how they will be treated on the pedia. Any discussion about what to do about it after the fact is arbitrary at this point, as creating a portal cannot happen unless we have some sort of focus. If we want to create a portal, or any other means of featuring the fanfic AFTER THE FACT, that discussion should take place after the fact. So let's please not discuss that at this time.

Also, I agree that there are many notable spoof videos and other notable single videos. I don't really think we need to decide anything definite for that at the moment, because that's not really what this discussion is about. However, I think making a single page where we list all of the videos with some sort of description or whatnot would work. Really though, that's also something we can discuss after the fact if need be, and not what this discussion should focus on.

Thanks. --Zoey 18:47, 21 December 2007 (CST)

Some quick points...

• I don't really get all this levels and tiers stuff. For one thing it does help new series. If someone starts a new series and wants to make character pages or transcript pages why should they be penalized from doing so just because they are new?

• Second "Fan Fiction" is a bad catch all category. The accepted industry related term is User Generated Content or (UGC), and while that applies to derivative series it doesn't apply to original series. The distinction in my mind being that a story be dependent on being a user of the site.

• I think you should really work with theCs and BK on this. There is a upcoming redesign that will effect UGC and the way it's presented and I assume terminology figures into that. I would think it would be logical tha the lgpedia be consistent with that.

--Immortal1 21:50, 21 December 2007 (CST)

In reply to your points, in order:

• The idea is not to "penalize" anybody. The idea is to keep the LGPedia clean. When a new series starts out, there is no sure-fire way of knowing how many hits they'll get, how notable they'll be, whether they'll even stick around, etc. Plenty of times we have people create something on the LGPedia when their series is new, and then stop adding things, which either leaves the burden of keeping a minor series up to date on the LGPedians, or leaves the LGPedia looking messy and incomplete, which is not "good for buisness," if you will. We have also had new series come on and create a lot of pages (some of whom eventually stopped, and the burden was shifted on to LGPedians, often me :() and then they decided they no longer wanted their pages on LGPedia, and asked us to delete all of that hard work. That just seems counter-productive. Instead, what makes sense, at least to me, is when a new series starts, their content can be featured on a smaller scale, and as they progress and we see what happens, we can easily promote the series to a higher level. There is nothing that says that the "level" or "tier" or whatever term we use is set in stone. Like I said, we are not looking to "penalize" anyone, but to keep things clean and effective from a Pedia standpoint.

• The term "fan fiction" is used in this dicussion simply because it is what the "Category" on LGPedia is called and has been since... well, I'd say the dawn of time, but I'm not sure how accurate that is :P. Either way, it is used in this discussion for that reason, and not to disrespect any UGC or other content-creators.

• Of course BK and the C's can be in on this discussion. But I wanted to bring it to LGPedia first, as this is, after all, a community site, and when I present the thoughts to BK/C's, I figured it is best to have a solid idea of where the community stands.

Hope this clears some stuff up, at least about where I'm coming from! --Zoey 22:14, 21 December 2007 (CST)

Immortal1 said:

“

”

I don't really get all this levels and tiers stuff. For one thing it does help new series. If someone starts a new series and wants to make character pages or transcript pages why should they be penalized from doing so just because they are new?

Counter-question: Why should a "series" that has barely released one episode occupy one episode page, one general description page, two character pages, two "xxx's blog" categories, a general category, a blog template and a character index template?

Just to add some math to Zoey's reply: We're talking about 9 pages for a "series" of one episode with two characters. If the "series"'s creators then decide to be even more important and add pages for the actors, director and other staff, as well as filmography categories for them, then you're (with only one camera man as staff) at 19 pages for one episode with two characters already.

And now imagine this: The "series" gets a mere 50 views on youtube, adds a second episode that never gets added to the pedia, and two weeks later, the projects is dead. And we're stuck with 19 meaningless pages, just because somebody made one video.

I have said this in the past, but I think I'll have to repeat it: I have no intent to belittle the efforts of the content creating part of the community - but the fact that somebody somewhere made something and declared it to be connected to the Breeniverse does not automatically make it significant enough to be included on LGPedia.

There is certain stuff that, no matter how much effort and love was invested in it, the general community just doesn't care about. The deciding factors for LGPedia pages are prominence and impact of the page's subject matter - not personal vanity.

Just think about it this way: There are canon characters and actors of the official main series that don't have their own pages - if we don't even give every canon character his own page, why should we add pages for non-canon characters that only five people in the community know so far?

If a series grows and becomes popular, it is inevitable to branch it out into multiple pages and categorize it - simply to conquer the growing amount of information. But if all information on a series fits on one page with no loss of clarity, then that's a pretty good sign it doesn't need multiple pages.

Zoey: Touching that topic, maybe we should assign "series maintainers" for branching out series. i.e. if LeetBlogger15 wants to add separate episode pages for a medium series, we could allow it under the condition that he actively maintains them, and delete them straight away if he doesn't. That way, series of a certain size could branch out without you getting a headache over half-finished pages and dead links. If it looks like crap and the page isn't maintained, it just gets deleted and the creator loses his chance to branch out due to lack of encyclopaedic interest (b/c, if other people had cared for the pages, they'd have fixed them).

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 15:49, 22 December 2007 (CST)

My response to this whole thing:

I love the idea of categorizing UGC/FanFic like this. Right now, the 'Pedia is a big mess full of barely notable "series" and the characters of that "series." (I have to say - and am sorry to say - that I am responsible with the community for a lot of that clutter.)

And I love Zoey's original Type 1, Type 2, Type 3, Type 4, and Type 5 ideas. However, I'm a bit confused as to what Type 3 is. Could anyone clear that up for me? What exactly are you talking about by exceptions? Hmm?

Just some comments/clear community understandings of Type 1... So, what I'm understanding is that Type 1 is a notable video series with more than 4 main characters and at least more than 15 videos. Type 1 series (whether they are Fan Fiction or User Generated Content) would only get 1 page with a template - however, I'm not liking the current fact that the Type 1 example Lonelyjew15 has a Person template... shouldn't there be like a FanShow template? The sections on the Type 1 series page would include a summary at the top (no section given), a characters section with brief character blurbs and actors if known (Characters and Cast section), a section with the production credits, if available (Production Crew section), and a section with links to where fans could watch the series and if there are any forums about it, etc. (External Links section). They would be in Category:Type 1 fan fiction.

Now onto Type 2... My understanding is that Type 2 is basically a Type 1 that is not as notable. Basically the same stuff, with less comprehensive information. Right? They would be in Category:Type 2 fan fiction.

Type 3... I do not understand what a Type 3 is. Could somebody please clear this up for the community? They would be in Category:Type 3 fan fiction.

Type 4... Major ARGs or fan series that are very notable, such as Redearth88 or Cassieiswatching, would get more than one page with Major character pages, Cast pages, Episode pages, etc. The main series page would be included in Category:Type 4 fan fiction.

Type 5... tsk tsk. Type 5 doesn't belong on the Pedia. No categories, please.

About using the Community Portal... Renegade, I like your idea about using the now hardly used Community Portal as sort of a portal for fan fiction. :) Type 4 would get episode pages linked, and it would be noted whenever Type 1, Type 2, or Type 3 released videos (they would just get linked to their YouTube video page, however).

)

Comments? Concerns? Questions?

Thanks,

  •Silver•   Talk | Contribs 13:07, 23 December 2007 (CST)

Zoey specifically stated we're not supposed to discuss portals or any other "later" stuff, I think we should respect that. We'll have enough time to do that once we figured out which content is important enough in the first place.

As for elaborating on the types, my previous table makes it pretty clear, imo: You have one "category" of series that get no coverage at all, simply because they're not notable. The next level gets a single page, with maybe a paragraph or two, giving an overview of the series. The next level still gets only a single page, but more comprehensive information, like a list of episodes and characters, and a general plot outline. The level after that is the "exception" level - these are theoretically on the level before, only big enough for a single page, but for a special reason get the big treatment - Lonelygirl362436 would be such an example. It only has 1 1/2 human characters and three episodes, so it shouldn't get the full set of pages - but it was made by the Creators and had very high prominence in the community, so gets treated like the next and highest level: A full set of pages and categories, akin to the canon series.

And yes, it'd be possible to create a full set of customizable fan templates to be used, in order to eliminate all the custom saved ones.

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 14:43, 23 December 2007 (CST)

Just to add my input here, I like the idea. Of course, all the details have to be ironed out, and one inherent difficulty with the system is that it is somewhat subjective. To fix this somewhat, I do think some objective standard should be set (as has been mentioned) like number of views or number of videos in order for a series to reach a certain level/tier. Personally I think view count would be better since having a lot of videos does not necessarily mean that the series is popular. For including videos on the massive "fan fiction" page (or whatever it's called), I think we should be fairly liberal in what gets added. Obviously, we don't want to be too liberal, but it takes minimal effort to add a short description about a series, and it can provide much-needed publicity for a new series. Maybe we could even split this page up into different types of fanfic series, like ARGs, spoofs (if we include them), spinoffs, etc. This should allow more series to be added without things looking as cluttered. Clearly, then, if we're liberal about this page, we'd be much more conservative about series which get more coverage. Writing an entire page on a series can take some time, and writing transcripts can take a long time (Jonas Conference Call anyone?), and there's no point wasting time writing them if no one really cares. Oh, and I like the idea of the customizable fan templates, Renegade. That'll standardize things and remove a lot of clutter. This whole thing is definitely a touchy subject, but I think everyone is handling it well. I hope we reach a good solution because this is something that's needed to be done for a long time now.--Jonpro 19:48, 23 December 2007 (CST)

I don't understand why the number of main characters in a show needs to be a factor in deciding whether or not it is worthy of a certain rank/class/type/tier/level/zone/whatever. ItsCassie, anyone? --Rekidk 19:52, 23 December 2007 (CST)

Nobody ever said it has to be one - it was just part of the example. One new character and three videos is vastly smaller than Maddison Atkins or Redearth are, for example.

First and foremost, "notability" is the important factor. In itscassie's case, video view counts would probably checked, and general community prominence would be tried to assess.

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 20:53, 23 December 2007 (CST)

Ah, okay; I apologize. I misunderstood. The number of characters was just being thrown out as an example, not something set in stone. I agree that notability should be the most important thing in deciding what gets put in what tier. For example, CassieIsWatching, while lacking a large story or many characters, had a HUGE following and a HUGE effect on the Breeniverse (Glenn created OpAphid after seeing CiW, which led to many events in LG15 from Nov. 06 to Mar. 07... Later led to RE88, etc.) --Rekidk 21:06, 23 December 2007 (CST)

Here's my two cents... I agree that guidelines definitely need to be set up. A great chunk of the "fanfic/UGC/Whatever you want to call it" seems to be the "New Girl" pages. A problem I have seen is that, with the exception of the Flock, the new girls are the most frequently... neglected, for lack of a better word. I'm sure there are other pages that also suffer from this, and we should find a way to condense information in places...

Credit Categories: The only UGC series that are significant enough to merit categories for filmography, credits, etc. would be OpAphid, Redearth88/MaddisonAtkins, and Cassieiswatching (if said info were ever to be released).

Response/Stand-Alone Videos: These should be evaluated on an individual basis. Many of these only take up the space of one page (both video and poster) and function fine (Deemontreal, breeiswaiting, etc.)

Ties to Canon: Videos that fall in the gray territory should also be considered (Paulmark18, watchyourjack, Immant, etc.)

Cassiemania: Maybe there could be a page of Cassie-spinoffs that could be restricted to one page, (in the way that the "List of New Girls" page is set up.) (Cassieresurrection, Frankiswaking, Frankiswaiting@gmail.com, etc.) (although some may merit more)

New Girl Mania: Maybe same solution as the one for Cassie listed above? Why have that list of New Girls page AND a stand-alone page? (Again, some may merit more).

The argument may be made that the level of info given on, say, the lonelyjew15 page isn't enough. Some series have successfully had more information than that and kept it limited to one page (TheLadyLazarus).

Wow, that turned out longer than I intended it to. --FH14 13:21, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Jumper/watchyourjack/whatweird

I'm starting a discussion on what type of exposure the Jumper videos should get. Keep in mind that the watchyourjack videos have a separate storyline from lonelygirl15, but are considered canon. In My Opinion, The Jumper Series should be organized like Redearth88 (but using the lg15 person template and the lg15 and whatweird categories). What does everyone else think? --FH14 11:52, 24 January 2008 (EST)

I'm disagree, for a very simple reason: It won't be important. Forget the canon thing for a moment, and view this realistically: It's a commercial. Nothing more. Yes, it has been included in a few canon videos, but the truth is, the moment the advertising contract is over, we'll never hear from Jack again, the Creators won't including "jumping" of any kind, nor will whatweird ever play a role again. On my talk page, you brought Nikki B. as the closest example - but as you yourself noted, Jack is not LG-based. Nikki B. is an important, if minor, influence to the universe. Hell, she even saved the kids' asses in the last season finale. Whereas this advertising campaign has no influence on the plot whats-o-ever. Think about it:

• Whatweird.com was mentioned a dozen times, yet it has never played a role in the plot
• Jack has been mentioned and shown several times, yet has never played a role in the plot

If it was something or someone like Nikki B. or Spencer, that/who leaves a lasting impression on the plot or the community, I'd agree. But the important point is, Jack doesn't. Jack will vanish, and it'll be like he never existed. The sole purpose of his appearances is drawing hits to whatweird and the Jumper ARG. He has nothing to do with LG15. He is basically living Ice Breakers Sours Gum. Just like all product placements, he's somewhat noteworthy. But not noteworthy enough to create a whole array of pages for him.

Jack's story is totally and entirely irrelevant to LG15, and, as such, there is no reason we archive it at LGPedia. Now, one might argue that Redearth88's story, for example, is not relevant to the plot either, but a) such thoughts are exactly the reason we're currently doing the fanfic revamp (to determine what's notable enough to stay), and b) Redearth is at least lg- and community-based. Jack is neither. Jack has a totally independent universe that only crosses with "ours" because it needs exposure. Nothing more.

Give Jack one summary page where everything is explained, with a whatweird section, a jumping section, an episode list with links to youtube, and link to the Cs admitting it's advertisement. And then be done with it. We're LGPedia, not JumperPedia.

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 11:41, 24 January 2008 (CST)

I'm agreeing with Ren on this one. The current sections used for the Jumper stuff seem more than sufficient. - Shiori 07:48, 29 January 2008 (CST)

I just thought I'd add that I don't even think the Jumper page is necessary; it just seems superfluous. - Shiori 09:11, 30 January 2008 (CST)

Renegade said: "He is basically living Ice Breakers Sours Gum." Haha. It does feel a bit weird to work too much on fan-run pages for advertising, now that the mystery behind jack's connection to lg15 is over.--Milowent 16:12, 31 January 2008 (CST)

Okay guys, I think it's about time we reached a conclusion on this thing. I moved all the Jumper-related pages (unless I missed some) into Category:Jumper. Here's a rundown of each page:

• Whatweird.com - I think this page should stay since the site was mentioned in several lg15/km videos and there is also an obvious connection to Jack.
• Suzie - After scanning this page, it seems to contain a nice narrative of the goings-on at the whatweird site. There might be a better place to put this information, but I don't think that's too big of a concern.
• Jumper ARG Characters - This page seems excessive to me. As has been stated, the purpose of LGPedia is not to chronicle the Jumper stuff to any large extent, so I think this page has to go.
• Jumper - Okay, right now this page is modeled off of the other ARG pages (Redearth88, AphidPedia), but that doesn't really work for Jumper. Again, this has been stated, but Jumper is not based off of lg15 (like those two are) and therefore doesn't deserve the same kind of treatment. Also, information about the story is found on other pages. So we should be able to use this page to talk about the crossover between the Jumper story and lonelygirl15. So far this has taken place through Taylor, so information about those videos can be found on this page. Also, if not included elsewhere, other references to Jumper-related things can be here. Basically the point is that we're not chronicling Jumper like we are Redearth88 and OpAphid (or did, I should say) because they aren't the same type of thing.
• Jack - This page seems pretty good as it is, although we may have to work on where we're going to keep all the aspects of the story somewhat.

Okay, that's what I came up with (with Zoey's help). Feel free to add your opinion about it but as this seems to be pretty close to the general consensus, we'll probably end up doing something like this. Thanks!--Jonpro 22:37, 1 February 2008 (CST)

I must preface this with an "I'm very tired so forgive me in advance if what I'm about to say doesn't make sense :P"

Anyways, I agree with the way Jon laid this out, but I wanted to kind of explain the reasoning behind it. There are three different aspects that make this whole crazyness up - lonelygirl15, the Jumper promo stuff (Jack, Suzie, Whatweird.com), and the lonelygirl15-Jumper integration.

So to look at these one at a time:

• Lonelygirl15 - lonelygirl15 is its own show. It has nothing to do with any of the happenings in the Jumper movie or any of what's going on with Jack/Suzie/Whatweird.com. Any mention of it in the series itself should go on the integration page (see below).
• The Jumper Promo Stuff (Jack, Suzie, Whatweird.com) - This is something that can be covered, but does NOT need to be covered in depth. The lonelygirl15 people are running a nice story over there, totally seperate from lg15.. .just related to the Jumper stuff. A FEW pages to track the happenings there are fine, which is what we have in pages for Jack, Suzie, and Whatweird.com. We do not need to get too much into it, though, as it is not relevant to anything beyond the promo.
• The Integration - Like Jon said, the page that covers the integration (which I actually think should be moved from "Jumper" to "Jumper Integration") should be used to talk about the crossover between the watchyourjack and loneylgirl15 stories. It can mention Taylor and Jack.. and include links to other pages that might provide more information on both of their stories repsectively. It can also include the full list of videos in the Jack-Taylor crossover, if you'd like. There can also be a section where we keep track of when other characters (in either LG15 or KM) have made shoutouts to the whatweird site, etc. I think that would make it a really great page that would keep it much more in line with the kind of information LGPedia should be covering.

I think the treatment of these pages as Jon and I laid out will best keep with the needs and goals of LGPedia in covering this story. Hopefully this all makes sense.... please let me know if you're confused about any of it.. I'll try to check in on this page when I'm a little less tired :) --Zoey 00:49, 2 February 2008 (CST)

Buckshot

OK, i created a page on Buckshot. What level of treatment should he get? Seriously though, if there are more behind the scenes vids coming out, we probably want to track them some way. Including the 2007 holiday video. --Milowent 12:34, 31 January 2008 (CST)

I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say that, assuming Zoey allows the page to stay, it should only be mentioned on the Yousef Abu-Taleb page. I already did that, though I don't know whether I should have put it in the Portrays part of the template... - Shiori 13:04, 31 January 2008 (CST)

well, who cares what zoey says!!! :-) but if the majority is against it, away it will go i guess. i do feel that we should see what other behind the scenes vids are released before Season 3 debuts, and then figure out a way to cover them all. The Buckshot page has already been viewed 200 times in a few hours, clearly its in demand! --Milowent 16:09, 31 January 2008 (CST)