LGPedia:Lucy's Balcony/archive3

This is the archive of discussions from Lucy's Balcony that are no longer active or have been resolved. To revive an old issue, please start a new thread at Lucy's Balcony.

Image naming convention (for episode-related pics)

Just to finish off the discussion we had at Image_talk:Cassie.JPG a while back... Are you happy with 9999-Description.xxx being the convention for images taken from official episodes, where:

• 9999 = episode number;
• Description = brief description of who/what is in picture and what they are doing or where they are;
• xxx = file type, usually jpg.

E.g. "0169-JonasAndAlexHugging.jpg". If the picture is modified significantly (e.g. greatly reduced, resized, lightened etc.) then the convention I use is 9999-Description-Modification.xxx, e.g. "...-Cropped.jpg", "...-Stretched.jpg", "...-Detail.jpg" etc. (so as to distinguish it from the original whilst retaining the same name). I would like to put this type of guidance on the Special:Upload page but don't know how. Any thoughts on the above? Psmith 17:26, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, that sounds good to me. And since that's what you've been using, it only makes sense to stick with it. It will make images a lot easier to find, etc. To edit the upload page text, you just have to modify MediaWiki:Uploadtext. Just in case you're wondering, you can get to this through Special Pages -> System Messages then search for what you're looking for. It's probably not a good idea to just modify anything in there, but for something like this I think it's a good idea.--Jonpro 17:43, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

OK. I made the change. Tried to keep the extra blurb down so that there is no vertical scrolling... but if you want me to prune it further let me know. Psmith 19:42, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

I turned the examples into bullet points and this may cause a little scrolling at some resolutions... revert if necessary. Psmith 22:20, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Does anyone mind if I put a note on the uploads page about categorizing images? Ack, this is bugging me lately! --Zoey 19:36, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Sounds good to me. You'll probably want to make sure to include the format for people unfamiliar with wikicode.--Jonpro 21:43, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Black Bands (for episode-related pics)

While we are on the subject of consistency for images, I would like to see consistency for whether or not we use black bands on widescreen pics. I could go either way, but I lean just a little toward no black bands. -misty 13:35, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

I'd say no black bands as well. There's no reason to have just black space in an image as far as I'm concerned.--Jonpro 15:51, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

ok I removed the black bands from a lot of images. I'll do more later -misty 20:34, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

Please save at least one with black bands for the Notable Details page, thanks. :) --Zoey 20:37, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

Ok Human Ransom is kind of in a class by itself. I can see leaving the black bands on that one, as well as the opAphid eyes. -misty 20:40, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

I believe that My Parents... Let Us Go Hiking!!! was the first video that had the black bands (because it was filmed on Daniel's camera he got for graduation), so it'd be good to keep (or create) an image with the blackbands there. --JayHenry 20:42, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

No black bands in general sounds good to me. See Letterbox format#Letterbox_in_LG15 for guidance on pixel heights/widths for exact cropping of letterbox screen-shots. Psmith 12:52, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

New page look

Hey everyone, check out Template:Header and Template:Subheader that Misty designed based on the redesign look for pages like Characters and Locations. We're thinking about extending this format to all or at least most of the pages on the wiki so they all have that look. First of all, do people think this a good idea? Secondly, Misty pointed out that when using the template the "edit section" thing doesn't work. Does anyone know a possible way around this? I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this issue.--Jonpro 22:20, 12 May 2007 (CDT)

I personally like the look, although I will say I dislike the way Table of Contents now look. They are centered, which I think looks odd, and the first header of the page is right up against it. That's the only thing I would change. Great job, Misty! --Zoey 22:31, 12 May 2007 (CDT)

I'm just learning how to do templates, and shit like that. Basically, I just look at other examples and try and figure things out, but sometimes, I spend hours trying to figure things out, only to fuck it up and have to undo it. I really need someone who knows what they arre doing to debug Template:Header and Template:Subheader. When they are fixed then they should work on any page ( I created a Redesign test page to try and see how to make it work for video blog pages). -misty 23:14, 12 May 2007 (CDT)

I really like the new character and location pages. I think they look snazzy, and the new designs makes them real gateways into the rest of the Wiki, they are effective index pages. But that's exactly the reason I really strongly dislike using this layout on video pages. It's just over-designed. Too many lines, too many colors, and no particular reason for it. The lines in the infobox clash with the header lines -- they are different colors, different styles. Incorporating this design everywhere really mutes its impact on the indexes and main page. It's bells and whistles and no substance. Other wikis that I am aware of do not incorporate their main page theme into individual pages, and for good reason, there is an elegance in modesty. I'm glad we're thinking creatively about ways to work on the wiki, but this isn't an area to focus our energies, sorry. The video pages work well, our contributors like and understand them, they are elegant pages, but also very flexible. I vote strongly for keeping them as is. --JayHenry 09:27, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

I disagree, i think that the video pages look pretty good, but if you think that the blog template clashes, we can modify the blog template to match. We Need to hear more voices on this. Either we go ahead and make it all over, or we revert the the text oriented pages like relationships and story so far. Can we get a final vote? -misty 17:34, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

I'm going to have to go with Jay on this one. It's just a bit much for the video pages. I do like the look, but we have to limit it. I'm still not really sure about the Relationships page and The Story So Far.... Part of me likes the new look, but another part just says to keep things simple.--Jonpro 17:56, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

I think the 'misty-style' design is great for the LGPedia gateway pages but agree with keeping most pages, inc. video episodes, in a relatively simple format. I see no problem in having both designs within the wiki but on different types of pages: the 'misty-style' for our showcase pages and the simple style for general use. Psmith 13:05, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

I think simple and elegant often looks better than fancy and overdone. I think the video pages look better the way the were originally. --truncatedslinky 14:06, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

How much fan stuff?

I've been really impressed with Zoey's (and others) work creating pages for the fan fiction and other fan stuff. But I'm wondering how far we should go with it? Should we have a page for every fan blogger we can find, and and a page for every video they produce? Should we have fan clubs for for fans of fans? Should we have pages for individual item's mentioned in a fan video? Personally, I'm ok with all of it, but given that I don't know the limits of the resources, I'm wondering if it could be over taxing the server. And I don't know what the Creators would think, if the fans stuff on the site became 10 times the cannon stuff. Do we need to be concerned about any of this? -misty 02:06, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

I personally think we need to go by a series by series basis. If it gets to be overwhelming, we can get rid of some, but till then, if they have a following, and are posting related to lg, what the heck, why not? --Bxman 08:00, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Sandbox

Hey, I was just wondering where I could get my Sandbox at/create it. Chelseyrl 00:54, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

User:Chelseyrl/sandbox --Zoey 01:01, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Ah! Thanks so much, Zoey. Chelseyrl 01:03, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Anyone can create their own user sandbox, right? --Bxman 08:01, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Yep, you sure can. Just make a subpage of your userpage called "sandbox" like User:Brooklynxman/Sandbox.--Jonpro 10:20, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Transcribing videos

This is one of those things that really isn't a problem yet, but I can see that it might become a problem soon if we don't figure it out. In the past, transcribing videos would get a little messy due to the fact that many people would try to work on it at the same time (i.e. right when a new video came out), resulting in edit conflicts and a lot of wasted work. I've noticed that Zoey and others have sometimes put a little message requesting people to not edit while they write the transcript. This has seemed to fix the problem somewhat, but I'm wondering if there's a better solution. At heart, LGPedia (like any wiki) is a community effort, and I think some people feel left out when they are not able to help in writing the transcript. I don't like the idea of refusing people who want to help, but it's also good when things run smoothly and efficiently. Can anyone think of a possible way to reconcile these two things so everyone is happy? Oh, and I'm not picking on you, Zoey, please don't take it like that. I just figured I should mention this now rather than later :).--Jonpro 22:16, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

I didn't think you were picking on me :) I know full well that I have been doing this a lot. I mean hm... I don't really know how people feel "left out". When a new video is added, the transcript goes up.. and then people edit it mercilessly/make notes, etc.. so everyone is still contributing. And I've found it MUCH more frustrating when everyone tries to transcribe at once. No one's work ends up being of any importance because everyone saves over everyone else. And things end up messy because no one really knows who's going to edit over them, etc. It just seems so much more efficient to have one person initially transcribing. That way the transcript gets up neatly and in a timely manner. THEN everyone else can feel free to get at it :D. JMO. --Zoey 22:43, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Okay, well, seeing that no one has responded yet, perhaps you're right. It is true that everyone gets to contribute this way, and maybe no one is really bothered by it. If that's the case, then I think we should by all means continue doing what we're doing. The other way definitely isn't any better. I'm really just trying to fix problems, but maybe I get too excited sometimes and see problems when they're not there :).--Jonpro 10:04, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, I sometimes get a little sad when someone else is already transcribing, but speaking from experience, it's WAY more frustrating to constantly be saving over each other. It tends to make you feel as though you have just done a lot of work for nothing. --truncatedslinky 14:00, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Unused images

In cleaning up location pages I've orphaned a rather large number of images. The location pages had an unfortunate tendency to just include random screen-shots from videos that had absolutely nothing to do with the location. I've been cutting them out. Do we want to have an unused image assessment of some sort? Use the good ones, and just delete the lousy ones? We really don't need to keep hundreds of unused images laying around. --JayHenry 11:06, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

Well I think that you should delete the unused images, that don't look like they can be useful, to add to later articles or updates. Several times I went to an image category to find an image for an article. -misty 17:40, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

"Have your say" page

I just had a read of the problems mentioned above (deletions etc.) and thought of an idea that might be of help to both this and other problems that arise from "normal users" scanning the last 50 recent changes to see what has been happening (thereby missing out when there have been lots more changes since they last logged in). I would propose having a LGPedia:Have your say page listed on the right hand column, perhaps under the "Recent changes". This page would then have links to all current discussions and votes that users may be unaware are going on at all, e.g. pic/caption votes, redesign comments, delete-tagged pages. This may help getting more people involved in decisions than at present (because they wouldn't necessarily be logging in as frequently as an admin, nor would they be visiting the various log pages that we know about). In addition, the delete period between tagging and deleting should be increased to 2 weeks (except where an admin is just rectifying a mistake).

This may not completely avoid the situation with deleted templates mentioned above, but if in addition we admins think twice in future before nominating something unused for deletion than that's probably all else we can do.

Having said that, as both Renegade and Jonpro have respectively pointed out, it is neither a big deal leaving pages that are unused alone until they become useful again, nor accepting that some pages which are deleted through lack of feedback can be restored afterwards. Let us not get heated about this either way. Psmith 15:27, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

I like that idea very much, Psmith. Renegade proposed something similar on Template talk:HoverTOC, but I think this would work better. I think people see that column a lot and "Have your say" if a very self-explanatory phrase that should hopefully draw people in to have their say about things. We would have to make sure to keep this page updated or it wouldn't work, but if we can do that, then I think it should work great. As far as extending the deletion period from 1 week to 2, it really doesn't make a difference to me. If people think this would help solve problems with deletions, then I'm all for it. I'd love to hear others' opinions on both of these issues, so please feel free to pipe in with your support or objections.--Jonpro 12:22, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

BEHOLD what Zoey and I crafted together!

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 18:07, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

Wow! Psmith 12:45, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

< -- Previous | Next -->