Block Archive/ Pages From "Related To" Pages

I know this is kind of a minor thing, but I think we've blocked other namespaces (such as TroperTales/ and FetishFuel/) from showing up on the "related to" pages - so I think it's be cool to also add Archive/ to it, since those pages can never be edited to remove obsolete wicks.

I'd like to add a further request to block Sandbox/ as well.

Both of those were spun off. The block of Tropers/ is the better example.

edited 15th Jul '12 3:57:57 PM by DarkConfidant

Blocking Sandbox/ is a bad idea. If it's an active sandbox, you want fixes like namespaces and renamed tropes to be applied.

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

Sandbox pages are not a "part of the wiki" as far as wick relationships are concerned. We shouldn't be treating them as such. We don't list wicks from YKTTW, even though those are just as likely as Sandbox pages to get turned into live articles.

I don't think Archive/ should be blocked, though. Those are relevant, even if they are no longer in use.

I can see the OCD level appeal of turning off the wick checker for any article that can't be edited, but that misses the point of why that tool exists.

edited 16th Jul '12 11:53:23 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I suspect that the reason YKTTW is completely separate is more of a technical matter. If it were easy enough to do, I would actually recommend having YKTTW appear in the related-to pages.

eta: either that, or we need two versions of related-to—the useful one that shows sandboxes (and if possible, YKTTW) and the useless, curiosity-seeker's version that omits them.

edited 16th Jul '12 12:00:13 PM by Xtifr

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

Useful from whose point of view? The related page serves two primary purposes: it allows wick cleanup when an article is renamed, disambiguated, or cut, and it allows cross-checking of reciprocal wicks for people working Wiki Magic. Neither of those purposes is served by linking to Sandbox, YKTTW, Tropers, Headscratchers, or other areas that are not part of the wiki proper.

edited 16th Jul '12 12:05:36 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

With that said, I've noticed that in YKTTW, that very few people bother to namespace works, and there really isn't any indication that namespaces should be used in the first place. While I understand that a separate thread may be warranted (in Wiki Talk?), does anyone want to brainstorm ideas for increasing awareness of namespaces?

Um, fixing active sandboxes is indeed important when renaming tropes or namespacing works, so that your effort doesn't get reversed when the sandbox goes live. Ditto for YKTTW. Inactive, already-applied-or-discarded sandboxes should probably get cut, but that's a separate matter. As for cross-wicking, knowing where the active sandboxes are is still useful for exactly the same reason.

edited 16th Jul '12 12:10:09 PM by Xtifr

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

Are there really that many Sandbox pages actively in use? I can see the issues with YKTTW but aside from a complete revamp of the technology I can't see how that can be easily resolved.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I don't know. I do a whole lot of namespacing and trope renaming work, and I don't actually see all that many sandboxes in general. I know that I always toss my sandboxes on the cutlist after I'm finished with them, so any sandboxes created by me are active—and I would want any renaming/namespacing applied to them—but I don't actually have any at this precise moment. I do wish others would do the same, but that's still a separate matter.

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

I do agree with the system to keep sandbox pages from being counted in the wick counts. Furthermore, I think that any sandbox that isn't active for about a month or two (ie not mere namespacing or example addition/omission) should be cutlisted.

I now go by Graf von Tirol.

So how is a link to a former name from Headscratchers any different to one from the "wiki proper"?

Because Headscratchers is a conversational format, not an examples format. I've pushed for it being made into a forum or Discussion style system in the past, to no avail.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

If inactive sandboxes get cut (and I agree that would be a nice thing), then what possible advantage is there to removing sandboxes from the related-to page that would outweigh the obvious, major disadvantage I pointed out?

Why make things harder on everyone trying to keep the wiki orderly? It seems to me that practical considerations should be at least as important as some pointless obsessive compulsion to avoid seeing works-in-progress before they're ready.

And I'm pretty sure you can already send inactive, obsolete sandboxes to the cutlist if you're sure they are.

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

I know you can, since I've done it several times before. Just make sure that the sandbox actually is inactive first by doing a forum search for the wikiworded article title.

Inactive sandboxes don't get cut, generally.

Rhymes with "Protracted."

Not answering the question. How does that make a link to a former name from Headscratchers (or Tropers, or any number of other "not wiki proper" namespaces) any less in need of changing than on the "wiki proper"? Yeah, it might require changing what other people say, but I don't see why potholes (for example) shouldn't be changed, while it isn't in a discussion format.

(Aside: Part of the reason Headscratchers isn't in a forum format may have to do with the fate of the former Just Bugs Me forum. Might a Headscratchers forum work now?)

edited 20th Jul '12 7:32:37 AM by MorganWick

If you wouldn't go into a forum thread or a Discussion page and change links, then there's no need to do it on a Headscratchers. There is no attempt to make such pages follow an index, categorical, or reference format.

edited 20th Jul '12 8:36:53 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

What about the WMG/ pages? Do those pages follow the same rules as the Headscratchers/ pages?

I would say so. Those use a discussion format, too.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Added to Wishlist, locking.