@Ingonyama, It's funny you should say that, cause at first that's what i thought this page was attempting to do. (explain what specific topics/issues to avoid). Also if "there is huge amounts of bashing and calls of Fan Dumb in the examples we have already" simply clean up the examples by removing said "bashing". And not to be a jerk or anything, we might have different ideas of what bashing is. Cause honestly i haven't seen it. Maybe i should go through page again.
The option you're asking for is currently at -9. There's pretty much no chance we're going with that option. And why should we? It has nothing to do with TV Tropes; nothing to do with tropes in media. It's bordering on Troper Tales territory, except without the positive elements that had.
As I said before, if you want something like this, you're welcome to set up your own howtostartaflamewar.com website.
4x Are we still standing by? Can we know what exactly we're waiting for? Do we know how exactly this page may or may not be impacted? Is this something being developed publicly through the Tech Wishlist (or anywhere else on the forums) that we can be clued in about via a weblink so as to keep ourselves informed and up to speed on this matter? Is there any estimate as to how much longer we would need to stand by? Do we have to be kept completely in the dark?
If the matter doesn't carry any importance to us, does that mean we could continue forth with the repair effort for this page?
If this is such a trivial matter in your opinion, then what inconvenience is there in letting the laypeople know what exactly you want them to wait for?
Maybe he doesn't want us to get our hopes up, in case the technical solution turns out to have technical flaws. (If I had a nickle...)
Of course, we sort of have our hopes up already, but in a vague, non-specific way. Vague, non-specific hopes aren't as painful to have crushed, in my experience. :)
(The alternative, and more likely, explanation is that he's too busy to bother sitting down and trying to write up an description just now. Translating from code-internals to common English can take time.)
All the cases you bring up are impacted, Jojolavache. The tech fix involves implementing a method for the natter-bait articles to co-exist with the "on-mission" articles. Essentially, to display the page in such a way that natter is hidden until the reader opts-in to read it.
The complaint against natter has always been that it buries the article in such a way that people not interested in digressions and quibbling over trivia are driven away. We've been trying to fix the natter-ers with limited success. Now we'll try to fix the real problem.
The tech fix will be that certain pages will be set so that they only display one level of bullet. Any sub-bullets will be folded up under that top level bullet. People will be shown a specific bullet-icon revealing that the top bullet has sub-bullets. They can click that icon to show the nested bullets.
The default will be folded. People will be able to set a preference in their profile to enable always-open.
Testing on the tech is still underway.
I'd be happy to help with an example culling and/or other editing.
One thing I'm wondering, given the overlap between this trope (in its decayed form) and "Broken Base" — should we make the criteria for Broken Base more stringent? Because some of the Broken Base pages need editing for clarity and order (I was going to attempt to do Music in the next day or two, assuming no one minds), but there are also a lot of questionable calls. "Oh, well, a long runner band released a new album and now someone says they suck!" is not quite the same as a group of fans arguing over whether or not said new album is a betrayal of the band's entire ~purpose in life and/or picking up a periphery demographic that older fans despise. If we cut Internet Backdraft, I think the same examples are going to show up at Broken Base.
The improvement will certainly cut down on the natter. But I don't think we cited natter as this page's primary problem. We instead questioned whether the examples had any merit in themselves, natter or no natter.
I do not see why Fandom Heresy and Fan Dumb exclude examples but Internet Backdraft does not.
I agree; the feature sounds like a wonderful addition to the site, but the problem with this trope is not natter, and hiding nested bullets doesn't address the issue of bashing and trolling, the two categories into which virtually every example fits. The examples aren't about fiction. Many aren't even about fans of fiction.
(I don't understand why the voters seem to be opposed to in-universe examples—we have five so far—but getting rid of all the bashing and how-to-troll lessons is the important thing here.)
Hmm, maybe, except that back when we were discussing the in-universe examples, in-universe-only was leading. It was only when the discussion fell off the active page that no-examples took over the lead.
Still, as I say, no biggie. In-universe examples of any trope, even the most flame-baitish, no-examples-please trope, are always allowed on a work page.
The main issue with the examples is the hyperbole. "Trolling" is a vague term, but a list of ways to stir up fights would definitively qualify. In terms of bashing, I get a "these x-doms will go in rage over any nitpicky argument" vibe from many examples and that's where the bashing probably lies.
Page Action: Internet Backdraft
29th Aug '12 1:26:11 PM