The growing problem of inscrutable titles and text

I don't think IE 8 supported longer alt titles unpatched. 9 does though.

Edit: Looking more, IE 8 has alt text disabled as default, but you can go into the settings, tweak it, and turn it on.

edited 24th Jul '11 12:59:15 PM by shimaspawn

Well, maybe we could make a "Tips for Wiki Browsing" page that details how to make Alt Text show up on any browser where available?

That would work. Anyone who doesn't read it would only have themselves to fault... well, so long as that page was put somewhere noticeable.

Most people, even with tech help can't hack into their browser's code and rewrite it without messing up their computers. I'm not sure I like forcing people to rewrite their browsers since that's what this requires.

If that's what you meant by going into the settings, you could've been a bit clearer.

I suppose I could have. Yes. Not the settings menu. The settings in the base code of the browser. People complaining about it is the reason it just works in IE 9, and some of the later patches for IE 8.

edited 24th Jul '11 2:59:21 PM by shimaspawn

Do both? Have the subtitles and the tooltips, and advise people to upgrade their browser if at all possible? It's not as if that's the only reason to upgrade, either. =/

Laconic lines seem to be functioning very well on YKTTW so we get this started I see it working nicely.

edited 24th Jul '11 5:05:13 PM by Raso

Umm, hottips work perfectly for me on IE6 and IE7, never mind 8 and 9. I have no idea what kind of obsolete browsers you guys are talking about.

They don't always work right out of the box though and there's a character limit. There have been patches to them since they came out, but not everyone with the browsers has patched.

Then that's their fault for being morons. They are probably crawling with viruses too. Screw 'em.

Edit: I can see running an outdated browser for reasons of pride, laziness, company policy (my reason for being on IE7 right now), what have you. But running an unpatched older browser? Darwin would like a word with these folks.

edited 25th Jul '11 7:12:06 AM by Fighteer

Would it be easier to get straight Laconic lines if there was an alternate location that was just for a listing of witty one line descriptions of the trope/work in question?

Somekind of Just for Fun page...

Often, I'll be skimming a list of tropes looking for something specific — to see if it's already there, or to find a specific trope in a list. When I do that, I'd want the one I'm looking for to leap out at me, right? Even if I don't know its name.

Work pages are supposed to be easy for people to parse, even if they're not familiar with T Vtropes and without having to open up a dozen tabs. T Vtropes isn't supposed to be insular — it's not supposed to rely on All There in the Manual. It's supposed to be easy to read.

A user who doesn't want to have to read every single page that gets mentioned isn't a "moron". Article titles are (and have always been) intended to be immediately understandable without reading the description; this has always been the primary goal of article naming. Everything else is secondary.

That sounds good in principle, but in practice, this has been proven so far to be liable to creating Overly Long Trope Names for tropes that are complex in nature.

Which is what good redirects are for.

You just shot your argument in the foot. All There in the Manual has very little to do with manuals most of the time and is actually somewhat opaque; you have to read the page for it to make sense.

I expect an immediate TRS rename request for it before I take you seriously.

Nice try, but the trope means exactly what it says on the tin - you're just using a far too narrow definition of "manual".

You mean the definition that exists?

Does that page quote match?

No. That's Read the Freaking Manual, I think. And even if it isn't, its nonindicative. I'm gonna swap it for the Sanderson quote. There's a Scott Pilgrim Entry Pimp running around, adding things like this. Nothing wrong with that, we just need to make sure they fit.

@INUH: The TV Tropes definition, meaning a material that is used to give us more information that the original work doesn't provide.

Basically.

Wouldn't All There in the Manual be more relevant if, y'know, you actually have to seek out the relevant information? It's not like a work page and a trope page are as separate as, say, an anime adaptation and a visual novel.

Unless you consider the works pages to require being self-containing despite, y'know, apparently being a secondary goal after cataloguing the tropes. If they're supposed to be self-containing like that, just go find a detailed synopsis somewhere.

Yeah. And that isn't what "manual" actually means.

We renamed "Nakama" because we were using the TV Tropes definition instead of the real one, didn't we?

I'd rather read that then "All There In The Extra Stuff That Explains What The TV Show Should've Given Us", so it's not bad, just not perfect. I don't know if there's a TRS thread. Regardless, not the current definition, so irrelevant anyway. Sorry. Although I do agree that the tropes need to be a bit more specific sometimes. Having to read it means it's not as specific, so it could be a problem.

This doesn't mean that every trope needs to be long or anything, but some could use work.

edited 4th Aug '11 2:42:10 PM by Hydronix

You could probably find a word or two that would sum up the extra stuff. Or reword the title to be absolutely clear. >_>

That would be going overboard, though.