Talk:Main Page/Archive up to November 2006

From LGPedia
Jump to: navigation, search

YouTube videos

I understand the reasons for the policy regarding only posting Revver videos. I feel, however, that if this is to be a good wiki, we should at least always provide a link to YouTube as well. For several reasons: 1) Thoroughness is preferable. 2) Some browsers, especially on computers where the user does not have admin privileges (such as younger fans or people at work) and can't install different software, do not support the file format of Revver. The Wiki should not impede fans with such limitations 3) The tags and dialog that went with the YouTube videos are interesting to many people.--JayHenry 12:50, 3 October 2006 (PDT)

I agree that links to both YouTube and Revver should be provided.--Brucker 09:47, 10 October 2006 (PDT)

Terry might address this, but I believe the site owners specifically requested that wherever possible, the video links should point to Revver instead of to YouTube. There is even a note regarding this preference in the text of the MainPage. (Nora at work)
Hi Nora, did you read my original post on this? I acknowledged the note on the main page in my post. I think it's okay if they point first to revver, but I said they should also point to YouTube. I also explained my reasoning -- points 1, 2 and 3. YouTube links can go at the bottom, if they must. But for someone interested in the tags, or the video responses, or with software unable to watch Revver videos, it's just going out of our way to be unaccomodating if we censor the YouTube links. And that's not the sort of behavior a wiki should support.--JayHenry 11:04, 10 October 2006 (PDT)

Well, the site belongs to the site owners. The site owners legitimately want to promote getting a return on their investment, however small the return from Revver clickthrus might be. Having a resource on the site they own point to their preferred site for video embedding, *rather than* to another site, is their prerogative. I feel it's a gross misuse of the concept "censorship" to use it in this context. Censoring is done primarily by governmental entities, primarily to suppress information. This official site preferring one host site for its videos over other sites is no more censorship than Anchor Cove deciding not to host a forum for cassieiswatching. On the other hand, I'm not going to get into a revert war over this. Although this is a wiki, I don't the the culture of a promotional wiki is identical to the culture which wikipedia itself cultivates. Nora 16:34, 10 October 2006 (PDT)

I didn't mean censor as a loaded word. We're saying more or less the same thing -- I really, really understand their reasoning. They asked us to include Revver links in the templates. We've done that. By putting YouTube links at the bottom of the video pages (and they'll really be buried now that video pages have gotten so big) we're not hurting their project, but also not inconveniencing people who are going to visit YouTube no matter what for reasons 2 and 3.--JayHenry 17:44, 10 October 2006 (PDT)


We've had a small revert war going on regarding Bukanator and Grant Steinfeld. Full disclosure: I originally created both pages because I thought they were significant. But it's not productive to keep deleting and undeleting his name from the main page. I think we should discuss if he belongs on the main page and where, and see if we can reach a consensus.--JayHenry 08:44, 8 October 2006 (PDT)

I started a discussion about this just before getting this message in a private part of the forum. So Nora and I will probably sort it out there. Thanks for intervening though, and we will keep you updated with what gets decided, I agree something had to be done. HyeMew 08:51, 8 October 2006 (PDT)
I think it should be an open, not private, discussion. It seems to me that it's a problem because of Bukanator's strange status within the Breeniverse. He is a creation of The Creators and lonelygirl15 and Danielbeast both acknowledged him, and his administration of the fansite, in the comments of YouTube, thus he is a character. Comments from the YouTube accounts are canon, thus he is canon. So he's a canon unseen character. I think you could make the case that a better classification could be used than "unseen," but rather than add a category that's only Bukanator, I think we should leave him as an unseen character, and explain his story fully in his article--JayHenry 09:19, 8 October 2006 (PDT)
It is only a private convo because of the category I placed it in. It could very well be moved to a public one, I know I'd like you to see it Jay. Of course lg15 and db "acknowledged" Buka, there is no question that he is "canon" and not a cassie spin-off character. What I'm saying is whether he is a character in the integral story line. For example in the Cookie movie some people that sent in suggestions were mentioned. Winekone and Brookers, etc. have been mentioned in the videos as well. Buka has not. Does that mean these random people are "unseen" characters too, just because Bree has mentioned them? No, Winekone nor Buka (as of right now) have not done anything to be a "part" of the story, and therefore not a character. If things had gone according to plan, we all would have thought Buka to just be some random fan who made a site like all the rest of us and there wouldn't even be a discussion as to whether he's a character to the plot or not. Remember, every page ever doesn't need a special place on the main page. I wouldn't be opposed to Buka being somewhere (a crew section, perhaps, as he is a "crew" member of sorts), but we can't confuse running the tribute site with being a character in the story! I can tell you right now a "bukanator" will never drop by in the videos ever, so why put him in a pantheon with Paul, Andrea, Bree's mom..., who one day could? HyeMew 09:57, 8 October 2006 (PDT)

We don't know that Buka would never have had a larger role in the ongoing storyline. I feel that to be an unwarranted assumption. If the "storyline" is perceived as being Bree and Daniel *and the response building up around them on the internet,* then any entity confirmed to have been invented by Miles/Mesh/Greg is just as valid a character as Daniel and Bree and Lucy are. If it is invalid to list Boris Bukanator as a character, although he comes from the Creators, why do we accept the tutle's name as "Owen," when that didn't come from the Creators? In other words, "DUCK SEASON!" Nora 03:26, 8 October 2006 (PDT)

"We don't know that Buka would never have had a larger role in the ongoing storyline... an unwarranted assumption" Well I think similarly it's an unwarrented assumption that, until he does, that he WILL have a larger part in the story! Also, what do you mean about why do we accept the turtle's name as canon? It did come from the creators. As of Grillz the title mentioned "featuring Ow'n". "WABBIT SEASON!" HyeMew 13:03, 8 October 2006 (PDT)
It depends what you mean by storyline. Buka's not integral to the storyline if you mean the storyline of Daniel and Bree as written by Mesh. But he is integral to the storyline of how the Lonelygirl15 production played out in the real world. Buka's fan site is integral to the production -- his fan site is still the hub of the LG15 community. I would argue that Winekone and Brookers and SteveXCraig are not characters because they're real people. Bukanator is, quite literally, a "character." Maybe we should make a separate category for him, other than "Unseen Characters," but I don't see anything that merits him being bumped off the main page. Unrelatedly, I think Paul and Andrea should be the same page for now -- right now they're a single entity.--JayHenry 16:18, 8 October 2006 (PDT)
Combining Paul and Andrea would be a waste, because what if they do diverge, even in a slight way? That's just unecessary. I agree Buka can be on the main page, just not in the "unseen characters" section. Unseen characters section should refer to those who have a chance of showing up and are in "Bree's" world. I think Bukanator, as he "acts" as a staff member, despite being just a character should be listed in the staff section. That way he is on the main page as desired but not listed as a character in the videos' story line.

I think that is an acceptable compromise. What is NOT acceptable is me just having to remove a "Boris Bukatar" as an unseen story character when he is ALREADY listed in the staff section. No matter what Bukanator and Boris Bukatar are completely one-in-the-same and there is NO reason to list him twice like that, nor to give Boris a page seperate from his on-line name Bukanator. HyeMew 07:59, 9 October 2006 (PDT)

Hye, my secret boyfriend, you're about a day behind the times. Bukanator has very, *very* recently begun to come out of hibernation and act as an independent character. JayHenry can probably fill you in, or Milowent. Buka has (or once had) a pet dog and liked to swim. He (is?) is moving and talking and communicating with people now. Might be a spoof, might not be a spoof, but until we know differently, he/it is as much a provisional character as anyone else. Remember that in the greater Breeniverse, we are 'all characters, as we have received in revelatory hallucination from our Holy Guardian Angel. This very wiki talk page discussion is quasi in-character. Nora 09:22, 9 October 2006 (PDT)
Huh where can I find more about this? Is this a joke?? Buka had a dog?! Who cares! Down with Buka!! Besides, you can't detach Bukanator from Boris Bukatar, they are one in the same still. This is like saying danielbeast had a pet cockateil and went to public school while Daniel has a pet tortoise and went to a private school. There cannot be two different identities, that just isn't fair. Whatever the case is I think these new Buka updates are pure rubbish, whatever the story behind them are. HyeMew 10:08, 9 October 2006 (PDT)
yeah, Bukanator at the cove has registered with the e-mail address -- since the Cove requires e-mail verification, it's definitely admins of the project who are behind it. He's been sending PMs to a lot of people. But, this discussion seems to be closed, right? We've agreed to leave ONE Bukanator entry on the main page? Take this bizarre love affair elsewhere, you two!--JayHenry 12:19, 9 October 2006 (PDT)
Be vewwy vewwy qwiet, JayHenry... someone is hunting wabbits.... or possibly ducks. Or both! Buka buka! OKAY, how about this for a compromise. The departed, not-all-that-lamented-by-the-oldschool-fans, alleged-by-Candace-Murphy NDA-breaker Grant Stenfield is actually referred to as "Grant Stenfield." We give him a nice and proper divorce from el Bukanator, aside from a mention that it is suspected that Grant originally manned that puppet. THEN we create a new Ambiguous Characters section for characters whose direct status within the Holy Breeniverse are as yet, uhm, shall we say, "quantum." "Amorphous." "Schroedingerified." The mysterious stoli-swilling, amnesiac zombie Boris Bukanator goes there. Sound good? Baseball season? Nora 13:21, 9 October 2006 (PDT)

lonelygirl15 vs. danielbeast videos indexing

Does anyone else but me think there should be not just an index for the videos as a whole but a separate index for the lonelygirl15 videos and the danielbeast videos? That is to say that while Daniel Responds is episode "0007", it might also be referred to as video "D001", and episode "0011" Boy Problems... could also be "B010"? Although it would take some work, I admit, it might be nice for certain purposes to not only have the navigation pane below each video as it currently is, but also a similar one with which you could skip to "Next Daniel Blog", you know?--Brucker 09:57, 10 October 2006 (PDT)

I don't see the use. They're already sorted into categories for Bree's blogs and Daniel's blogs. But Daniel's blogs are meaningless outside the sequence of Bree's. For me, this would only add useless clutter.--JayHenry 11:06, 10 October 2006 (PDT)

Actress playing Lucy

Personally, I don't think Lucy looks like Liza Weil at all, but maybe it's just me. Anyway, I think we should hold off on listing a name on the front page so long as we don't have solid evidence. I'm taking the name off. --Brucker

I completely agree. This information is highly speculative and almost absolutely wrong. Some speculation in the Lucy entry is fine, but random guesses on the main page is not.--JayHenry 10:50, 18 October 2006 (PDT)

Suggestion to admins?

On a semi-related note to the previous matter, it seems to me that the Main page is the one most susceptible to vandalism and see-sawing fights over content. Is it possible to make this page editable only by registered users so that we could at least cut down on that? Sure, it wouldn't solve the issue, but it would help. --Brucker 10:54, 18 October 2006 (PDT)

I do not believe in censorship. Its up to the users to keep the wiki accurate and if someone does not want to register that should be their perogative in a free society.--Modelmotion

I don't know the ins and outs of moderating users' comments, but assuming that a person who was not registered could still edit this page, I don't see any problem at all. If they didn't want to register, but they had a good suggestion for the main page, they could put it here, and one of the registered users could update it. -- 12:47, 19 October 2006 (PDT)

I completely agree with Brucker. While the rest of the 'pedia should be left open to anonymous editors, there's good reason to protect this main page -- it's what most people see when they come here, and there aren't enough active editors to police the main page 24/7. Wikipedia protects its main page for the same reasons. It's not censorship to require somebody to take 30 seconds to sign up for an account before they edit this main portal. But it will deter vandals who like to show up, change the main page to say, "My Parents Suck Daniel's Dick" and leave.--JayHenry 09:49, 19 October 2006 (PDT)

Furthermore, if someone was really, really dedicated to vandalising the front page, they still could, they'd just have to register (and maybe wait 24 hours? Is that part of the process?).-- 12:47, 19 October 2006 (PDT)

I would say that the Gemma videos should be added to "The Videos" on the main page. I realize that it would take a little work but now that we have her listed as official I think it would make sense. - modelmotion

She's been added. I think the indented ordering for her videos works on the Main Page since there really is no way of inserting her into the numbering scheme. -- Twjaniak 11:50, 30 October 2006 (PST)
Hey, twjaniak, since you're here reading this, and you're apparently an admin, what about the original topic of this section? --Brucker 12:12, 30 October 2006 (PST)
I've thought about locking it to registered users only. However, it's been registered users who have been some of the biggest offenders of flip-flopping the Main Page. I will try locking it. If we receive complaints I'll drop the lock. Perhaps this will motivate more people to create an account and dive into doing serious work. -- Twjaniak 13:57, 30 October 2006 (PST)
Yeah, it's not very pretty, but it works. Is there some way to make that indent smaller? And some better way to indicate Gemma than her name in parantheses?--JayHenry 12:07, 30 October 2006 (PST)
Have a look at what I have done for the unnumbered Gemma videos on the Main Page -- Twjaniak 14:08, 30 October 2006 (PST)
I think that looks better.--JayHenry 15:16, 30 October 2006 (PST)


Gemma's last name is currently unknown. Any additions of the surname, Papakonstantinou, should be removed. Twjaniak 21:58, 29 October 2006 (PST)

Cite/Cite.php Extension

Should I ask Admin to add support for the Cite.php mediwiki extension? Imported pages with references would work much better if we had this installed. -- Twjaniak 10:42, 31 October 2006 (PST)

I'd also like to add the ParserFunction extension, as this will allow us to make conditional templates. -- Twjaniak 11:05, 31 October 2006 (PST)

I initially tried to set up the templates with some conditionals and couldn't figure out WTF they weren't working! Parser extension would be nice, but templates without conditionals work just as well, for my money, we're just not that big of a 'pedia. As for cite, it's a little complicated too and really only necessary for longer articles which we don't have many of. We couldn't just copy wiki articles over because they usually use several wikipedia-specific templates that we'd have to copy over manually as well. I just wish somebody would invest the time in cleaning up what we have. Look at any of the articles on religion to see what I mean. On the other hand, it won't mess anything up to add the extensions, so if you want to invest the time, go for it.--JayHenry 11:17, 31 October 2006 (PST)