Talk:Main Page/Archive of character box discussion

From LGPedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Char. List/Gemma

I switched the positions of Gemma and Jonas on the Char. List. It might have been alphabetical, sorry if I messed that up. I just think Jonas has surpassed Gemma in importance in the story, considering that his Dad was studing the Order. Malan89 20:31, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Well, they were really (at least in my mind) in order of appearance, but some people have talked about taking Gemma out of that box completely. Personally, I liked it as it was before, but maybe we should revisit the issue. -BRUCKER EyeBlueSmall.jpg (Home/Talk/Contribs) 21:40, 6 March 2007 (CST)
It's probably time to take Gemma out. Or at least make her image redirect to plot holes. I thought there'd be some resolution or fallout since her presumed death two months ago. I guess not. But she's definitely no longer a main character.--JayHenry 21:44, 6 March 2007 (CST)
It would make sense for them to be in order of appearance. But, I think Gemma is definitely not a main character anymore. Maybe we could have another link to her page and a link to plot holes somewhere in a different section. I guess we'll see how the vote going on a few lines north of here pans out. --Malan89 19:40, 7 March 2007 (CST)
I'm expecting Alex to become a main character, and if so, I have uplodaed a picture of her in the proper format to replace Gemma, as she probably should. -BRUCKER EyeBlueSmall.jpg (Home/Talk/Contribs) 13:14, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
I sure hope you're right. The first Alex vlog is going to be a momentous occasion if it happens. --JayHenry 13:16, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
I doubt Alex is going to start blogging. she's not exactly going to want to connect with us, gain our sympathy. but I think she should already be a main character, whether or not she's actually done a vlog. she's definitely more important right now than Gemma, and while she hasn't videotaped herself, she's had plenty of screentime. i think we should put her up now.--Skeeta 02:12, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
Maybe we've seen the last of Alex. Now that she's been exposed, she may never Appear on Camera again. Misty 02:48, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

Did ya'll see the character box at the end of each character's page and the actor box at the end of each actors page? They both have Gemma/Jackie Jandrell as a minor character/actor in the story, with Bree, Daniel, and Jonas as the main characters and the actors who play them as major actors. The main page should reflect the entire wiki. I propose waiting to see if Alex becomes an official vlogger, then either taking the Gemma spot out entirely or switching her for Alex. It's become clear that Gemma is most likely dead and that even if she isn't, no new vids will come from Gemmers15. Let's end this once and for all and keep the main page current! Malan89 20:06, 17 March 2007 (CDT)

I say we take Gemma out and replace her with the smaller picture option at Main Page/redesign. If Alex becomes more of a main character, we can add her. --JayHenry 21:01, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
I like the bigger option better, and I think that's a better pic of Daniel than what's on the main page now. But Gemma has to go, she hasn't been part of the story for nearly 4 months.Misty 13:03, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

Since no one has made a comment supporting keeping Gemma on the page, I make motion that without objection within the next 24 hours, we declare that we have consensus in removing her. Misty 13:30, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

If everyone agrees that Gemma should be removed, then the table should be replaced with the small table proposed by JayHenry at Main Page/redesign. Please do not simply remove Gemma from the current table; use the new table. If you're not sure how to do it, let someone else take care of it. OwenIsCool 15:58, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
I take that to be a technical point, not an objection. I wasn't suggesting that we leave a hole in the table, I was saying that we have consensus that whatever format table we use, should not include Gemma. Misty 16:36, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
I suggest that we use the following box as it is the same width as the current box, with only a little increase in the height Misty 18:19, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
Main characters
BreeChar.jpg DanChar.jpg JonasChar.jpg
Bree Daniel Jonas
Full list of characters

Looks good! Let's do it. But maybe you should change Main Characters to Current Bloggers. Similar to what's on the redesign. This would work as we it would only include BDJ but would not say that characters like Alex and Gemma aren't main characters (b/c they are) but it would specify who is producing the vids (BDJ)? Malan89 21:02, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

I think this table is much too large. When put on the Main Page the pictures will really jump out at you. A smaller table, like the one I pointed to in Main Page/redesign would be more appropriate. I'm adding the table I mentioned below this message. OwenIsCool 00:54, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
BreeChar.jpg DanChar.jpg JonasChar.jpg
Bree Daniel Jonas
Full list of characters

Well I think we should leave it as Main Characters initially. Then if there is a consensus to changing it to Bloggers, we can change it afterwards. Of course Vloggers would be more accurate than Bloggers Misty 01:07, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

Misty, I think you jumped the gun here. You proposed we wait 24 hours to hear others' opinions, and then you went and changed it 12 hours later. That shows less of a desire to create something everyone is happy with, and more so the urge to get Gemma out of there because you say so. I'm not going to revert it because I don't think Gemma will be missed that much on the table, but I just wanted to ask you to have a little more patience. It is, after all, just a wiki, not a time bomb. OwenIsCool 10:38, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
Actually I jumped the gun accidently, I was playing around with the table in previews and I hit "save page" instead of "show preview". I thought about reverting it, but decided not to since we were going to make the change anyway. Today I made a very slight color change to it, to make it match the rest of the page a little better Misty 12:57, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

However, surely if we do go with Bloggers (which I think we should, with the divide between main and secondary charchters becoming much more ambiguous), surely Gemma should be there, she is a blogger in the series after all. Even if she no longer is blogging (vlogging, whatever) she deserves to be recognised for her part in the series. Coffeeaddict 07:34, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

I bet now that Gemma has been taken off the mainpage that she will reappear in a video, just to mess it up again! SheriffOfNottingham 13:44, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

Ditto! I wouldn't be surprised! OwenIsCool 16:34, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

Color scheme

For reference. I got this from Talk:Main Page/redesign/archive of dicussion. OwenIsCool 16:39, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

Color scheme
Sample HTML Color name
background (0F4C95)
"A tribute to" (77C8E5)
"15" (6FC6E3)
Circles of dots (204C9F)
Light blue details (2574C4)
Faint dark blue flowers and circles (1B5FB7)
Bright blue unicursal hex (2450AE)
Center circle of flower (1E6BBF)
Navigation bar (535353)
Stars on the bar (909090)

I'm not sure why you changed those colors, the difference is almost imperceptible. I like the change to the background of "Full List of Characters" since it now matches the background of the column. However, I had to revert the changes to the background "Main Characters", "Bree", etc. because I didn't see the need to change from an official color to an almost identical (but slightly off) unofficial color. It's not your fault that you didn't know we had decided on a color scheme for the Main Page awhile back. I'm going to dig up that table and put it here for future reference. The color you put in was #0f4c95. The equivalent in our color scheme is #1E5DAA. OwenIsCool 16:34, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
#0f4c95 is the color used it the top banner and the logo. If #1E5DAA is the official color, the top banner and logo should use it too. Personally I think its better to have everything match at an unofficial color, than to have somethings the unofficial color and others the official color Misty 17:15, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
What gives you the impression that the banner is #0f4c95? I just checked the source code and the top banner actually uses #194B95 as the background color, which is neither of the colors you and I were talking about. I'm not sure why that discrepancy is there, but I didn't make the color scheme table, so I don't know how the colors were determined. (I think Brucker made it--correct me if I'm wrong). For now, I'm going to revert that last blue color you changed (in the Main Characters box), if anything to prevent yet another unofficial color from being in the mix. #1E5DAA may not be correct, but it's used elsewhere on the main page and at least this way we'll keep it uniform and we'll know what to replace if we decide to revise the color scheme. OwenIsCool 17:28, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
I got #0f4c95 by examining the rightmost edge of Leftcorner.png. It didn't occur to me to check the code for the banner, I just assumed it would be the same. But #194B95 and #0f4c95 are so close that you can't see the mismatch in the banner. however if you set the banner background to #1E5DAA it really doesn't match the corner pngs, as you will see below. Misty 17:56, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
I see what you mean now. What I'll do is make #0f4c95 the "official" background color since that should be the best match (instead of what we have now, #1E5DAA), and fix the characters boxes. Thanks for investigating; it's good that we'll be able to standardize this once and for all (I hope). OwenIsCool 21:21, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
Getting everything Standardized will require doing a color audit of all theme related images and backrounds. Right now there's some major inconsistencies. I just checked Rightcorner.png and it was #004d98, the List of Lonelygirl15 videos/redesign page uses #134b9c, and the header image on the lonelygirl15 home page is #005fad Misty 02:38, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Welcome to the LGPedia,
Your guide to the world of Lonelygirl15 that anyone can edit.
Now working on 3,320 articles
Warning: This wiki contains spoilers for the entire series.

No, the main page banner really has to use this color: #194B95. It might seem like the difference between this and other blues is imperceptible, but it's not. Was anybody seeing a color mismatch in the header bar on the main page? --JayHenry 10:01, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
Ah, sorry about that, Jay. My mistake. I actually didn't see a mismatch with this or the previous color. Maybe I'm just not very perceptive. Anyway, please change it to the correct shade (#194B95) on the Main Page and the color scheme table below. I really don't know how the color scheme table came about, so I'd rather take your word for what's right. I think Misty's browser might have shown some color difference, judging by how she keeps testing the colors on the Main Page. Then again, she did say that the diff between #194B95 and the color she found (#0F4C95) was imperceptible, so I think it should be fine if you use the one you have. OwenIsCool 17:10, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
#0F4C95= red:15,green:76,blue:149. #194B95=red:14,green:75,blue:149 so you see the differnce is just 1/256 more red and green. I used photoshop to determine the color of the images by sampling the edge pixel, I didn't base it on any of my browsers. Like I said above: there's a big discrepancy between different images that needs to bee addressed before any color can be standardized for backgrounds. and the peoiple on the video list redesign don't seem to be reading this discussion here so the problem could get a little worse. Misty 21:34, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Website font

On the website banner and the little banner up in the corner, What font are they using for the Lonelygirl15 part? --Michiev

I've personally tried to identify it with little luck. Maybe I'll ask a friend of mine who's a graphic designer...-BRUCKER EyeBlueSmall.jpg (Home/Talk/Contribs) 12:43, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

I just talked to my friend, and the while we could not identify the font, we decided a couple things: (1) It looks a lot like Serifa Black, although that doesn't seem to be it. (2) It looks like the 'g' is from another typeface entirely, since it doesn't really match the rest of the letters very well in a number of ways. This type of font is generally referred to as a "slab serif" style font, but I can't find a font of that type with the sort fo curl shown on the top of the 'r' and the bottom of the 'y'. I may do more research.-BRUCKER EyeBlueSmall.jpg (Home/Talk/Contribs) 16:24, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
"OL Egiziano Classic Black" is a very close match, and may in fact be the font. I think it is something in the Egiziano font family at least. (BTW, as I suspected, it seems that "Egiziano" is Italian for "Egyptian". -BRUCKER EyeBlueSmall.jpg (Home/Talk/Contribs) 10:59, 14 March 2007 (CDT)
Giza ThreeFive is even closer, it even has the overhanging serif on the lowercase g (i.e. the lowercase g in Giza actually touches the i if you write "Lonelygirl15", as in the logo, while g and i are seperate in OLEgiziano).
Just for reference, dunno if this is still current.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 12:53, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

Add to Main Page???

Malan89 15:06, 13 March 2007 (CDT)

Tachyon and Brother
95px Brother sidebar.jpg
Tachyon Brother

Needs some work, but maybe something like that on the AphidPedia if it's not already there. -BRUCKER EyeBlueSmall.jpg (Home/Talk/Contribs) 16:05, 13 March 2007 (CDT)


I just edited the daniel & jonas page to list the last appearance, i see on the recent changes list that people can like..put a little description of what they changed, i would like to know how to do that as well

--Michiev 00:20, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

There should be a comment box below the edit box. It says "Summary:" next to it. -BRUCKER EyeBlueSmall.jpg (Home/Talk/Contribs) 01:14, 15 March 2007 (CDT)


This page needs to be trimmed down. Anybody mind if I erase some of the old discussions? OwenIsCool 16:39, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

We could just archive them like at the top of the page -- move inactive discussions to "Talk:Main Page/Archive up to March 2007". --JayHenry 23:46, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

Require login to edit LGPedia

I think that people should be required to reqister and login to LGpedia in order to make edits. Almost all the valndalism, and alot of bad edits, are by people wo are logged only bt there IP adress. People are less likely to register, just to vandelize the site. And anyone who seriously wants to contribute wouldn't be put off by the registration/login process._ Misty 15:08, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Hmm, I see what you mean, but I think that requiring a login would discourage some people from editing. As it is, we need as much help as we can get. The vandalism is minimal right now, and this can also be helped by semi-protecting frequently vandalized pages, which has been done for some pages. I know when I first started editing, I did it with my IP address. I might not have gotten into it as much if I had had to create an account right off the bat.--Jonpro 15:24, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
Agreed with Jonpro. It's against the spirit of a wiki to block anonymous editors. And I'm of the opinion that they do more good than harm. --JayHenry 15:27, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
I wholeheardtedly agree with Jay here. The positive contributions made my anonymous IP addresses is by far outweighing any scattered vandalism that comes as a by-product. For instance, as of late I've noticed many of the video pages have transcripts that were worked on by several anonymous users. I like it better when they login because that way I remember them and get to know them, but it's really their choice. Registered users, on the other hand, have also caused their fair share of vandalism, spamming and trolling in the past. We just do the best we can keeping things in order and blocking those who can't play nice. OwenIsCool 16:56, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
I think that the positive contributions made with anonymous IP addresses, could be from registerd users, who either forgot or just didn't bother to login. several of my posts are under my IP address, for that reason, and i had to go back and reedit them to get my identity attached to them. Plus I don't think having to login would be much of a deterrent, on the forums, everyone needs to be logged in to post, and i'm sure most the poeple who edit here post ofn the forum too. Misty 17:20, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Another reason I think we need everyone to log in: if you ban someone a dynamic IP address, then they can just come right back the next time, when their DHCP server gives them a different IP address. Today they same person had to be banned twice Because he came here with 2 different IP addresses. -Misty 21:42, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

And yet it is still the case that the vandalism here is very minimal. And even if we required a login, a vandal could easily create multiple accounts to vandalize. The fact that it's easy for people to create an account only shows that it would be just as easy to vandalize with an username as with an IP address. Also, there really isn't a substantial difference between an editor using an IP address and one using a username. A username simply helps to give the person an "identity" so to speak--it's easier for other editors to identify them and they can feel more a part of the community. But I still respect all of the anonymous editors very much. After all, the point of a wiki is so that everyone can contribute.--Jonpro 22:37, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
We are not going to require login to edit. It just goes against the very core of wikitude. I don't like vandalism either, but it happens with or without usernames. I think what Jonpro said above sums it up pretty well. OwenIsCool 23:10, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

Blogger Pics

Does anyone think that its time we change Jonas & Bree's blog pics on the main page? Daniel's was changed fairly recently but i don't believe that Bree's or Jonas's has been in a while. ---Michiev

I'm up for a change. Any suggestions for new pictures?--Jonpro 15:24, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
I'd just vote for more recent pictures. I think it's safe to say that Bree is never going back to that bedroom. --JayHenry 15:27, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Well i can post a few pictures that i think would be the best for the main page of bree. but i have to upload them first. --Michiev

Hey Michiev,
You don't necessarily have to upload any pictures. You can go through Category:Images of Bree, Images of Daniel, and Images of Jonas to get some ideas from the pictures we already have. Just thought I'd mention it in case you wanted to look through them.
OwenIsCool 16:17, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
My visual thoughts...
Main characters
0136-BreeShrugging-Cropped.jpg 0118-BreeAndRandomGirlPosing-Cropped.jpg 0155-JonasAtTheParty-Cropped.jpg 0146-JonasAtHisAunt'sHouse-Cropped.jpg
Bree Opt. 1 Bree Opt. 2 Jonas Opt. 1 Jonas Opt. 2
New options for Bree and Jonas
Psmith 17:04, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
Main characters
0155-DanielAtTheParty.jpg 0136-BreeShrugging.jpg 0155-JonasAtTheParty.jpg
Daniel Bree Jonas
Same height but wide-screen versions (I think Bree looks better in the centre, between the 2 boys - aesthetically, rather than alphabetically, ordered)
Psmith 17:04, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

I like the pics you selelcted psmith andi like the wide-screen versions but i still think bree should be first. -Misty 17:25, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, I like the pictures too. I have to say that I prefer the current size rather than the widescreen. I'm not sure why, they just look better to me. As far as Bree being in the middle, I like that idea. Even though she is (kind of) the main character, I don't see a reason why she would have to be first. In fact, being in the middle might emphasize her even more. And sorry Misty if I seem to be contradicting you recently--it's nothing personal of course.--Jonpro 17:33, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
One more table...
Main characters
0118-BreeAndRandomGirlPosing-Cropped.jpg 0160-DanielLaughing-Cropped.jpg 0155-JonasAtTheParty-Cropped.jpg
Bree Daniel Jonas
This also includes a new Daniel pic - width increased from 95 to 100 pixels - traditional 4:3 ratio and BDJ order
Psmith 19:20, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

I like the last one the most. :) --Michiev

Yeah, I like this last one too...I don't really like the idea of Bree being in the middle...

I gave more thought to this and one thing that I noticed bothered me about the tables above, is that the focal distance of the shots is different on each pic. With the pictures currently on the main page, they all have approximately the same focal distance, and relative head size. That gives the Table a sence of balance and symetry. I think we should try to achieve that, in the new pictures as well. -Misty 00:36, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

I agree with Misty. I think it looks better to have them more or less in proportion with each other. We have a lot of material to work with, so we should be able to find good shots with almost any specs. --JayHenry 11:33, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
Main characters
0118-BreeAndRandomGirlPosing-CloseUp.jpg 0160-DanielLaughing-Cropped.jpg 0155-JonasAtTheParty-CloseUp.jpg
Bree Daniel Jonas
Balanced head shots (Bree and Jonas zoomed up to match the Daniel pic)
Psmith 20:11, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

Can you go the other way, and make them all like zoomed out more,to match Bree in the table above it? -Misty 20:31, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

I like the work done on the new characters table. I've noticed nobody has commented on which picture of Bree to use. I strongly prefer the one of Bree from Snow Angels (Op1) rather than the one from Truth Or Dare (Op2). I just think the visor in Op2 casts too much of a shadow over her face, you really can't see her that well. As for Jonas, while I do like the picture, I think it needs to be recropped. Right now he looks like he doesn't have a neck... it's just not too flattering. Other than that, thumbs up! OwenIsCool 23:37, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
Main characters
0136-BreeShrugging-Cropped.jpg 0167-DanielLaughing-Cropped.JPG 0155-JonasAtTheParty-Cropped.jpg
Bree Daniel Jonas
Head+neck+shoulders this time. Option 1 for Bree. Couldn't zoom out the other Daniel pic, but here is another one of him laughing.
Psmith 13:24, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
Perfect! Love the picture of Daniel in the big Mexican hat! He's smiling so big! OwenIsCool 14:33, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
I agree, lets go live with it tonight, if we don't have any objections -Misty 15:31, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
I have got to say that those pics are great (especially Daniel's LOL) Though I must say I will kinda miss that classic "Jonas smile." -- Phoenician