LGPedia talk:Community Portal

From LGPedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator Avalibility

Even though this wiki has been online for less than a day, we've already recieved vandalism! It's not that big of a deal, but they created a Silly page and have edited the community portal with no real content. I realize it's not that big of a deal, but normal members cannot delete pages.

That brought up the thought of administrator avalibility. The people who manage this are probably the creators or some of their trusted friends. They're probably all very busy with not only real life stuff, but with the actual making of the blogs.

I don't want to sound like I'm trying to tell you how to run your wiki. I just want to make sure that an administrator will be around regularly and that we have a way to contact them if we need to.

Alright, I was wrong. =D I'm glad to see the administrators are active here! --Andy 17:37, 1 October 2006 (PDT)

Episode page style

Now that all the transcripts are entered for the existing episodes, I would like to point out that the style of the episode pages are different from page to page depending on who entered the transcripts and/or notes. It seems to me that there should be a standardized style, and while I'd be happy to go through all the transcripts that others have entered and make them conform to my own style, it ought to be brought to discussion instead.

Obviously, all episode pages should have the informational sidebar, the transcript section and the navigation box below, but what of other things? How much and what sort of information should be in the summary above the transcript? Should there be a single section for all info about the video that is not part of the transcript, or a number of sections such as "information", "clues", "recurring themes", etc.? Is there info that should be included in a standard format that is not yet, such as which characters appear in the video?

For an example of a similar wiki with very developed style and standardized sections, see the HRWiki. Certainly this wiki doesn't call for anything so elaborate, but it's an interesting model. --Brucker 12:35, 10 October 2006 (PDT)

Ha, so funny that you mentioned the HRWiki. I've been an occasional editor there myself for a year or two, and it's the best fan-wiki I know of. With time (and a few committed editors other than you and I) we could get there. I think each video should have a brief one or two sentence summary before the transcript. For example, Video 49 is the 49th video. In this video, Bree and Daniel reconcile and make-out in Bree's room. As there are very few characters and locations, the summary can mention them. Then the transcripts. Beneath the transcripts I'd suggest simply a bulleted "significant details" section. I think this would be simple and sufficient as very few videos will have a great number of such details. I think a screen shot of each vid at the top of the info box would be a nice touch.--JayHenry 13:10, 10 October 2006 (PDT)
And, as I've said elsewhere, I think the pages all need to link to YouTube at least at the bottom of the article. I think it's really against the spirit of a wiki not to. Also, as I think about it more, I think you could have "recurring themes" and "significant details" be two separate sections on each video. Recurring themes should all have their own page, right?--JayHenry 13:17, 10 October 2006 (PDT)
How about this?--Brucker 09:33, 24 October 2006 (PDT)

Too many links?

I think there are too many links on several articles. I didn't think this would be controversial. Someone brings up the following:

I strongly disagree with the assertion that we should control the number of links. Most of the links presents add depth to the page and sources for people like myself doing research. Yes it would be nice to have the time to draw out the relevance of each individual article but there is not always time for that. Many of the articles originate from discussions following the release of videos. The titles alone on some draw relevant connections to the LG story. If there is duplication thats one thing........but just to delete references for the sake of someones personal preference is a waste of time and resouces.

My objection is not primarily to the quantity of links, but to their quality. The Aleister Crowley page links to duplicate articles, out-of-date Geocities pages, and articles of people that vaguely knew Crowley. For somebody trying to do research, it wastes a huge amount of their time filtering through low-quality information. It makes the LGPedia look amateurish. Remember, this is an LGPedia. It's not a search engine for the occult. It's not a repository for random garbage. If we don't even have time to determine if an article is relevant, we should get rid of it -- if we don't have time to read the outrageous number of links then how can we expect casual users reading the page for information to have time!--JayHenry 13:44, 20 October 2006 (PDT)

I just ran though all the links on the Aleister Crowley page and they all work and seem to contain legitimate information. I know I have posted some of these based on my own research and others because they were discussed by other users after the posting of certain videos. Until we know more about the plot and Bree's religion its hard to tell what is relevant to LG15 and what is not. I therefore think we have better thing to do with our time than worry about how many external links we have. Clues can be found just about anywhere and its not prudent to rule out a source just because its on a more amateur web site.
Israel Regardie, Jack Parsons. L. Ron Hubbard, Gerald del Campo and Gerald Gardner all have connections to Aleister Crowley that are potentially significant to LG15. If you want to know why then read the articles. Until we know more about Bree its hard to know which information to expand on within this wiki: blood ritual, scientology etc all may be relevant in the end but for now the links serve as a valuable connection to the linkages which exist with Crowley. - modelmotion

Firing of Yousef vandalism

Surely there is something we can do to stem the tide of all of this crap. Perhaps temporarily we could put a notice on the front page directing people who wanted to vent about the rumor to one central location (perhaps here, since it hasn't been erased yet) where they could vent without making random pages and edits about the whole thing at least until rumors are confirmed? --Brucker 12:24, 9 November 2006 (PST)

Please go ahead and add one. I am trying to clean up the mess. -- Twjaniak 12:26, 9 November 2006 (PST)
Another suggestion: Create the pages Allen Smithee and Alan Smithee and either leave them blank or redirect them to the page Talk:Firing of Yousef, then lock them. --Brucker 13:30, 9 November 2006 (PST)

Standardization of character page style

I noticed while fixing up the Gemma page that there is info on both Gemma and Jackie Jandrell there. I think we should have some sort of standard as to what info on the actor playing a character should appear on the character page, and in what manner. --Brucker 12:57, 22 November 2006 (CST)

There have been dual pages for all cast/characters from the begining. Personally I prefer it that way because in essence they are "different people', but lets hear what other have to say. I mean each of the actors may go on to play other characters in other productions and that does not really belong on the character page--modelmotion 13:12, 22 November 2006 (CST)
I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding me. I like the fact that there are dual pages for each character, I just wonder if the info on the character within the Breeniverse should be kept completely separate from the information about the actor and related fan speculations, etc. For instance, as I said about Gemma, the fourth paragraph on Gemma's page seems like it should be on Jackie Jandrell's page; the nature of Jackie and Jessie's relationship is a separate matter from the relationship between Gemma and Bree, you know? --Brucker 15:40, 22 November 2006 (CST)


Nice job sprucing up the Community Portal, Jay. For the articles that need frequent revisions in order to remain up to date, do you think we could have a page with a list of them? Or perhaps a Category:Current, or something like that? Things like the list of LG15 videos, all the fanfic pages that have lists of videos, the Soundtrack, and a lot of other stuff would fit that category. It would be a good place to look to make sure everything is up-to-date. OwenIsCool 16:40, 30 January 2007 (CST)

Yeah, that's a great idea OIC. Category is the perfect way to do it. We could even differentiate pages that need an update after every video, and pages that need periodic updates (like character pages). Also, I'd love your input on talk:Newcomer Guide. I think this page, the newcomer guide, the LGPedia:Welcome page and the Help:Editing page all need further integration.--JayHenry 16:46, 30 January 2007 (CST)
I just tried to update Lucy and Jonas along those lines. Hope that's at least a start. More later. --Phunck! 20:38, 31 January 2007 (CST)
Thanks for pitching in, Phunk! I'll take a look at those pages, Jay, and put my medulla oblongata at work. I think there's good potential in what you and Marbella are trying to do. I'm not sure yet what's the best way to integrate them, but I'll read them all and see if I get any ideas. I'm glad you like the up-to-date category idea. I can't think of a good name for it though. "Articles needing revision after each video?", "Articles needing frequent revision"? OwenIsCool 22:51, 31 January 2007 (CST)