Difference between revisions of "Talk:List of lonelygirl15 videos/Season 3"

From LGPedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(This needs to be rolled back. Quickly.)
Line 88: Line 88:
:~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 16:06, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
:~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 16:06, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
:<small>Edit: Oh and for the record, Misty: It was ''not'' a Gecko-bug. If you compare revisions, the line height changed minimally for FF (purely because I guessed the value rather than calculating it), but changed dramatically for IE.</small>
:<small>Edit: Oh and for the record, Misty: It was ''not'' a Gecko-bug. If you compare revisions, the line height changed minimally for FF (purely because I guessed the value rather than calculating it), but changed dramatically for IE.</small>
::Renagade good job,  that was a great find, but it only makes Gecko Browsers (FF,Camino,Epiphany, etc) and Trident Browsers( IE, AOL,etc) line up, but Webkit browsers (Safari,Omniweb,Swiftt, etc) don't. Before Safari and IE lined up. but FF didn't.  So this is what happened. Gecko does add an extra pixel to list items, that Trident and Webkit don't.  Trident accepts non-standard line-height 150% that Gecko and Webkit don't. so you compensated for a Gecko bug by exploiting a Trident bug, but now Webkit browsers which don't have either bug are not aligned.  The reason  I made the changes I did was that I started with Safari and Firefox, and tried to get rid of the extra pixel in FF, then only checked my when in IE when I was done, since i knew EI and safari had lined up before.  So since you now made it so that IE and FF both have the extra pixel, can you find a way to get Safari to have it too?  -[[User:Misty|misty]] 15:16, 17 July 2007 (CDT)
== Clickable Pics ==
== Clickable Pics ==

Revision as of 20:16, 17 July 2007

For older discussions see Talk:List of Lonelygirl15 videos/archive.

Adding Nikki Bower and Jules

Ok so it look like Nikki bower is clearly Canon now, as is Jules. Do they belong in this list? They aren't in the left colum yet, but I think that is an oversight by the webmaster, since they are a necessary part of the story -misty 09:35, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

I doubt it's an oversight, more of a way to keep us guessing. I still think we should stick with our rule about videos being in the left column. If they both turn out to be canon, I'm sure they'll add the videos to the column.--Jonpro 10:43, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
Bree's mentioning Nikki and Nikki's exposure of Jules to be semi-reliable, I think that's at least the Creators' way of saying that Nikki is canon. As for Jules, she may not be the "new girl", but she IS a canon character... Nikki (supposedly canon) acknowledged her as the "ceremony girl" and Bree showed a screencap of her YouTube channel in New Girl. --SilverBULLETx3 16:58, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
When you wonder whether a certain video should be on this list, first ask yourself "Is this video on the lg15.com site, in the left hand column with the Bree videos?". That's your answer; those are the videos the c's deemed "required viewing". The first Oppy vid was apparently [not] considered important. As for the screencaps, they're just decorative, but if it bothers you that they include some non-required vids, we can change that too. Sorry if it's confusing. OwenIsCool 14:20, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
Note:I added "not" in my post because I wrote it out from the first time. Sorry to anyone who got thrown off by that. OwenIsCool 18:42, 25 April 2007 (CDT)
I'm sorry, OwenIsCool, but I disagree. "The first Oppy vid was apparently considered important." The first OpAphid video, You Made the Right Choice, Bree!, was not on the left-hand column and was not deemed required viewing, and it is not on this list although IT IS a canon video. I think that all CANON videos should be on this list, and canon apparently now includes Nikki Bower and Jules, unless the Creators are just playing with our heads. Tachyon and Brother are CONFIRMED CANON characters from the Creators, even though they will not be on here anymore due to Glenn's firing... but Op is still on here! ...I stand my case. -- 15:45, 25 April 2007 (CDT)
Whoa, there no need to get excited. Sorry, I meant that it was not considered important. That's why it was left out of the left-hand column of lg15.com, and that's why it's not on this list. I apologize for confusing you with my slip-up. This is really very simple. All we want to do with this page is replicate the left-hand column of videos on lg15.com. If you want to know why Nikki B, Jules, and Tachyon are not on there, please take it up with the Creators. It's not our call and I don't know how they determine what goes and what doesn't.

Ok , I want to revisit the whole issue of including only the videos in the left column. if you notice Bree's first video isn't in the left colume, but no one would say it doesn't belong in this list. I would like to see all canon videos in the list, including all the Nikki Bower, Jules and Taylor videos. And I think that we can decide that by concensus regardless of what the creators do on the homepage. -misty 00:39, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

A couple of Bree's early videos are not on the left column because they are just not on Revver at all. This had to do with copyright issues and not whether the c's wanted them there. There's no question that all Bree videos should be there, the only reason we list them and the c's don't is because we can and they can't. It's a different issue with Oppy, Tachy, Nikki and Jules. They chose to leave those out, for their own reasons, and at LGPedia, we're just cataloging and organizing their stuff. OwenIsCool
I still disagree, OIC. I would love to see Nikki, Jules, Taylor, Tachyon, and Brother videos on this list. Or maybe Tachyon and Brother are out of the picture due to Glenn's firing? But then I would vote for removing Op's videos. The Creators can do what they want on the left-hand column, but just because they do something on the main page, that doesn't mean it can't be on here. I agree with Misty on this issue, and would like to see it resolved, so I am making a talk resolution page so we can figure out exactly what videos need to be on the list. silverX3 11:13, 13 May 2007 (CDT)
I would just like to say that like Gemma and Jonas, Taylor's should probably be included (her pre-Canon ones) --Pheon 19:11, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Okay, if I checked correctly, it appears that all the characters in question have been added except for Nikki B. I really think she should be added. It is extremely clear at this point that the videos have ties to the C's. They have also helped reveal a ton of secrets about the stories you cannot get in any other videos. They help bring a broader knowledge of LG15 to a viewer who is trying to catch up, but in a way that is intricately connected to the story (she was mentioned in a Bree video!) and to the people behind the stories (Alli Danziger).... Hm, I was thinking.. maybe this page shouldn't be a list ONLY of what the C's post on the main page.. but of the videos related to the series and that should be watched to fully experience the Breeniverse. Okay yeah. I need to stop making edits at 3 am :P Hopefully this is coherant.. I'd love your thoughts though!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zoey (talkcontribs) .

This is spectacular! I really like having a full list of canon videos instead of just repeating the information already on the front page.Anyways, I went through the list for completion and noticed that these videos weren't present. Now, granted, all of the following videos are pretty insignificant, but should they (as canon vids) be added to the list? Opinions on the following:
Of course, there are reasons why all of them have not been considered; Bree's first two videos were created essentially to gain an audience; Brother's first three videos were simply of fireworks; and Warpylol's video is less than one second long. On top of that, I still don't understand if Warpylol is canon (or was he a fan that took the side of OpAphid?). Anyways, these don't contribute much to the LG15 story, but if we're creating a 'complete' list... Should they be on there? My opinion is that the three Brother videos and the one by Warpylol should be included--but not Bree's first two. Opinions? --Rekidk 14:16, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
I added the Warpylol video to the list. I tried adding the other five videos before, but the way the formatting works made it look very strange so I didn't save it. --FH14
I added the first five videos with bullets. I guess it looks okay... what does everyone else think? --FH14 19:46 4 July 2007 (EST)
I think none of those belong, neither does the warypol video, for all the reasons Rekidk stated (up until "but if we're creating a 'complete' list..."). Also Waryplol is NOT cannon just like Maddie Atkins isn't, (even though NBR mentioned her). Since Rekidk apparently only conceded to having them, and there was no support for those edits, I think they should be removed for the moment, until there is clear support for them -misty 15:21, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
I have no problems listing the pre-Bree vidoes on that page, as it is a list of all canon videos, and those are included in said list. Also, Warpylol was a character created by Glenn Rubenstein to be an official part OpAphid, and therefore, I see the reasoning behind adding his videos as well. A deal was struck with Jeromy Barber and Glenn, incorporating this particular Op character into the Maddison Atkins storyline later, so any videos that take place with that series should not be included, however the ones where, for instance, Warpylol is revealing the location of Brother to Op, should be included, same as we have done for all the other Glenn-made characters in the series. Just my thoughts... --Zoey 01:14, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
Agreed. Besides, Warpylol's video was included in the Brother's last video. He was also confirmed as a canon OpAphid Agent. Though is there a way to make it so the first videos can be listed normally without bullets? I tried formatting them like the others, but there was a huge gap between the section title and the videos because of the lack of a numbered video to build off of. --FH14 13:40 6 July 2007 (EST)
Fixed it. --FH14 16:18 6 July 2007 (EST)

the enormous size of this page

Okay, so I'm at a slower computer than I'm normally at, and I just loaded up this page. It took 89 seconds, a minute and a half, to finish loading. I dunno, I think that's sort of a problem. --JayHenry 15:02, 11 May 2007 (CDT)

I brought this up a while back on lucy's balcony. The easiest fix I can think of, would be to get rid of the video expand, but renegade put a lot of work into it, so I think he should have som e say in the matter. -misty 16:02, 11 May 2007 (CDT)
I'm on a pretty fast computer and it takes about a minute to load every time. It gets on my nerves since I'm using IE and I would like it if we got rid of the video expand, but Renegade did put a lot of work into it. silverX3 16:34, 11 May 2007 (CDT)
It's interesting it's taking that long for some of you. It only takes a few seconds for me, and I don't consider my computer to be extraordinarily fast.--Jonpro 17:19, 11 May 2007 (CDT)
the speed of the internet connection makes much more difference than the speed of the computer -misty 17:36, 11 May 2007 (CDT)
I have Verizon FiOS which is supposed to be almost as fast as Comcast High Speed, and everything else loads super quick, but this page takes about a minute. silverX3 11:08, 13 May 2007 (CDT)
well I don't want to step on renagades toes, but it seems we have concensus here to remove the video expand. if anyone come back with a complaint we can always revert. -misty 18:09, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

well it seems like this page still takes a really long time to load. who thinks we need to do another redesign that uses less images than the current montage. Perhaps 1 per story arc. -misty 00:00, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

I don't know . . . sure it occasionally take me a while to load (FYI, I do use IE) I like how the current list is roughly equal to the picture montage (It was actually kinda short, but someone just plugged in the Tachyon/Brother vids, so now its really close). --Pheon 01:37, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
if you look at the discussion below, you'll see that that's another problem, the montage doesn't is either too short in IE and Safari, or too long in Firefox and camino. so we have one more reason to get rid of it. -misty 10:43, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
I object to removing the montage. I think it gives a great overview of the story in picture form that we don't have anywhere else. I think it looks really good on the page. As far as the browser difficulties, perhaps there is a way to work around it. I would just hate to see the montage go for that reason.--Jonpro 10:56, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
ok how about a more limited montage with fewer pics. I created it on List of Lonelygirl15 videos/redesign -misty 16:11, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
I saw the redesign, and honestly the pictures there don't flow as well as they currently do. BDJ & Co. have been through A LOT in the past year, and I like how the current list reflects it as such. --Pheon 18:10, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
If you don't like the limited montage what is the alternative that you propose? -misty 22:10, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
Now that the videxpand template was removed this page loads pretty fast for me. The alignment problems aren't fixed by switching to a single column montage, so we might as well keep the double column. --JayHenry 22:42, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
So do we have consensus that the speed is acceptable? The montage needs to be updated since the addition of the NBR videos, but before i do that I need to know we have consensus to keep it the way it is. -misty 00:39, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

Line-Height problem

In order for this page to look right we need to keep the line-height the same in all browsers. I've trid to specify the line height in various ways, but I always get more pixels per line in gecko browsers (Firefox, Camino, etc) than I do in other browsers (Safari, IE, etc). Currently I have line-height specified at 20px. Does anyone know how to make the line height the same for all browsers?

While there seems to be a known bug of sorts with IE and line-height (surprise!), are you sure, in this case, that it's not due to IE's different way of calculating height? 'cause, technically, I don't think the <li>s below each other count as a paragraph of text...they should be a bunch of formatted child objects of <ol>. Chances are that line-height would affect the line-height of the text written within the <li>s, i.e. not the space between the <li>s, but the space between multiple lines written within any particular <li>.
...which, of course, creates a new problem: There is no use setting a fixed margin, 'cause IE renders the height differently - you'd have to hack it (examples under the same link).
That's my guess, anyway.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 07:36, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
In this case it's a Gecko bug.Currently the line spacing is set to match the montage on Gecko browsers, but be offf on every other browser. Should we change it to match the spacing of IE, Safari, and most other Browsers, or Keep it to match only the Gecko Browsers. -misty 10:11, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
How exactly is this a Gecko bug, or rather: What is bugged? What exactly does FF do differently than IE? Where do the extra pixels come from? (Maybe we can find a workaround.)
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 10:43, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
gecko adds an extra pixel to text objects such as list items. -misty 00:49, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

Since it doesn't loook like there is a solution to the discrepensy, we need consensus for aligning to gecko browsers (Firefox, Camino, Seamonkey) or non gecko browsers (IE, Safari, Opera). Does anyone have an opinoion? -misty 00:49, 3 June 2007 (CDT)


ok after spending the whole weekend working on it I managed to make a version of this page that lined up the same in every browser. this is in complliance with the new Browser Neutrality Policy -misty 01:35, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Ooh, good job! When I view it, though, there is a lot of blank space around each of the images. I kind of prefered when the images were closer together, it made it look more like a collage. There seems to be a bit too much blank space now, IMO. Can this be fixed and still kept "browser neutral"? --Zoey 02:02, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
Zoey, In all the browsers I tested it on, the Blank space was lerr than before. I can shrink it down more, but I'm curious how it looks on your browser, can you post a screenshot somewhere? -misty 15:12, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

ok after spending 45 minutes googling it I managed to make a version of a single tag on this page that lined up everything the same in both browsers. this in in complliance with the goddamn idea that each pixel should have the same place in every browser ever coded into existence.

Oh, did I mention the page doesn't render correctly in lynx? Guess we'll have to strip it down to text-only...browser neutrality and all...

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 16:06, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
Edit: Oh and for the record, Misty: It was not a Gecko-bug. If you compare revisions, the line height changed minimally for FF (purely because I guessed the value rather than calculating it), but changed dramatically for IE.
Renagade good job, that was a great find, but it only makes Gecko Browsers (FF,Camino,Epiphany, etc) and Trident Browsers( IE, AOL,etc) line up, but Webkit browsers (Safari,Omniweb,Swiftt, etc) don't. Before Safari and IE lined up. but FF didn't. So this is what happened. Gecko does add an extra pixel to list items, that Trident and Webkit don't. Trident accepts non-standard line-height 150% that Gecko and Webkit don't. so you compensated for a Gecko bug by exploiting a Trident bug, but now Webkit browsers which don't have either bug are not aligned. The reason I made the changes I did was that I started with Safari and Firefox, and tried to get rid of the extra pixel in FF, then only checked my when in IE when I was done, since i knew EI and safari had lined up before. So since you now made it so that IE and FF both have the extra pixel, can you find a way to get Safari to have it too? -misty 15:16, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Clickable Pics

If no one objects, I think that each of those awesome pictures should redirect to the blog that they're from. (I found myself trying to navigate by clicking them...) I'm gonna start in on doing this. ~ Jbshryne 18:37, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

I think that's a good idea. We've been doing that with other pages like Notable Details so it makes sense to do it here too.--Jonpro
go for it -misty 18:24, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
Please do, I don't know how many times I've tried to click them. --truncatedslinky 02:14, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

story Arcs

I reverted the Bree Poster child heading because the story is really in the same arc as when Bree surrendered, the fact that she appeared on an order video didn't shift the direction of the story: we are still resolving the events of her surrender. -misty 18:24, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

"Getting Bree Back"

I would vote that this "arc" title be changed, as they didn't really effectively get her back. "The Rescue Attempt" or something like it might be better, IMO. ~ JBSHRYNE 02:21, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Maybe "Wanting Bree" to describe how they wanted her back as well as the now-clear feelings Jonas has for Bree? --Pheon 02:24, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
"Wanting Bree Back", perhaps?--jeans 23 June 2007
it's not important whether they actually succeeded, the arc is about trying to get Bree back, so the title is appropriate. of course if someone could come up with a more interesting title for the arc I'd support changing it. Wanting Bree, and "Wanting bree back" are Lame titles. -misty 20:08, 1 July 2007 (CDT)
Ouch, misty, there's no need to insult people. If you don't like something, say so, but please do so in a kinder fashion. What about "Found and Lost" (kind of a play on Lost and Found)? I also like Jbshryne's "The Rescue Attempt". I agree that "Getting Bree Back" doesn't quite fit, because she's never truly "back" at any point in the arc. --truncatedslinky 12:48, 2 July 2007 (CDT)
I like both JBshryne and Truncatedslinky's ideas.--jeans
I wasn't trying to be insulting, but I think that,there needs to be a sense of style around here, and it seems sometimes that means being less literal, also in TV a story arc, is describe by the focus of the recurring theme, and not on the outcome. For example the story Arc for this years season of Doctor Who is still called Mr_Saxon, even though we discover in the end, that Mr Saxon was really the Doctors Nemesis The Master-misty 15:47, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

The Gilman Files

Let's change the name from "In search of the Gilmans , to The Gilman Files. We already have the search for Jules, and it wouldn't be very creative to have a bunce of search for [xxx], titles. The Gilman Files, kind of has a feel like kind the X-files, and is very fitting for this arc. Any objections? -misty 12:42, 7 July 2007 (CDT)

Sounds pretty cool, and since the goal is to find a cure for Bree using a certain compound formula (and not just finding a new buddy), it sounds great. --Pheon 13:02, 7 July 2007 (CDT)

The Documents

Should we change "The Trait Negative Papers" to The Documents? Or something like "Spencer Reaches Out" or something like that? Love, -R- 19:53, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

I put that in as sort of a place holder, until we really find out where this arc goes. I considered something with "documents", but I thought it was kind of too similar sounding to "files", which is now in the previous arc's title. I like the idea of including Spencer in the title. ~ JBSHRYNE 23:24, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
I don't see jhow this is a new story arc, we are still dealing with the same thing, i suspect , tat the are about to figure what the way to mae Breee trit negative is, then we can start a new story arc. -misty 00:13, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

KateModern Vids

Should we add KateModern videos to this list or will we make a page called List of KateModern videos?

Given that we were expressedly asked to make changes to the LGPedia to seperate LGPedia from a KMPedia, I think it'd be contraproductive to put the videos on the same list.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 16:25, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Season 2

I think when season 2 starts we should move the current page to List of Lonelygirl15 videos/season1 and ut a list on a new list of videos page for season 2. the page would look the same but we would the list and the montage from the first seaon 2 video. What does everyone think -misty 02:27, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

I really like that idea.--jeans 03:26, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
No, that would make it too complicated to get to Season 2 videos. Especially since this main page is linked to on the navigation sidebar. I think that we should just separate this page into a Season 1 section and a Season 2 section.   •Silver•   Talk | Contribs 11:27, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

This needs to be rolled back. Quickly.

Just leaving a note here to catch those who usually don't visit the balcony. Please refer to my comment there.

The listing is simply wrong the way it is now. (And butt-ugly.)

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 03:25, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Ok I rolled it back so we can discuss it more. But it totally can't see your objection. What about it is Butt-ugly? It looks almost the same except the line numbers and the vertical spacing. The font face and the font size is identical to before, the general layout hasn't changed. True, the TOC uses stars instead of boxes, and the recently added horizontal line under is gone, but besides that, it's the same. screenshot -misty 05:57, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Renagade is just being bully, there is no reason to roll this back. It looks much better the way you did it and Zoey like it. What more do we need? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Nice try to destroy my link there to distort my argumentation, so nobody sees how I made quite clear the neutral version is factually wrong.
Also, posting unsigned doesn't add any weight to your opinion, sockpuppet.
As for "what more do we need?" - Factual accuracy, maintainable code, and visual appeal.
Link to argumentation restored.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 12:00, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
Whoever is, I don't think they deliberately meant to destroy your link. It just seems that all their edits result in apostrophe characters, " ' ", being replaced with " \' " automatically. This affected other comments on this page too which I have reverted. I'm not convinced anyone is trying to distort your argument using a sockpuppet, but I'll keep an eye on it. Please don't rush to accuse. Thanks. Psmith 16:36, 16 July 2007 (CDT)