Overhauling page creation

Would it work to just have one box with all options asking for page type, starting with Trope, a space (to emphasise it) and then the rest of the list? Technically speaking, the box is just defining the first node anyway, the way I understand it.

The issue with that, as I understand, is that having all items listed would create confusion due to information overload.

The general definition of "work" on the wiki is a piece of media; trying to define anything that isn't a trope as a "work" is going to cause unnecessary confusion.

I agree with this.

Also, how are redirects actually going to work, considering that redirects are not a namespace and cannot be a namespace without defeating their purpose?

Redirects for me are more of a formatting feature than a page type.

Also, how are Darth Wiki and Sugar Wiki going to fare under this scheme?

I thought a Work page is a page about a "work", whereas Eddie wants some of them to be "works"? This does not make sense to me.

For example a Work page for What to Do If You Are Suspended would presumably list the tropes occurring in our What to Do If You Are Suspended page. While What to Do If You Are Suspended can be considered a work, it is not a page about a work.

edited 23rd Apr '13 9:50:19 PM by Eric119

Considering the recent developments in terms of custom titles, auto-disambigs and the like, I'd like to throw in a few more suggestions for the overhaul.

One, as was discussed in the Custom Titles thread, custom titles should probably apply on a per namespace^note I assume that we'll use them for the media differences/title basis, thusly covering the sections as well, but not on a per title basis.

Two, I propose that when the overhaul is in place, Namespace should become the namespace list that the page creation tool uses in the namespace selection. This way:

• The approved list and the policy page list don't need to be continually checked against each other.
• It would be straightforward to modify the list (since it will probably be a locked page, you just head to the ERFLP topic).

Three, in case that we decide to construct an approval system for pages (as has been suggested for non-YKTTW, non-TRS trope pages and Administrivia/ pages), that could simply be constructed by making people create the to-be-approved pages in the Sandbox/ namespace and having someone with pagemoving power launch them through the pagemove tool after a thread discussion. That would need a) the pagemove tool to be exempted from any namespace/section restriction (which is presumably the default state) and b) a pointer in the pagecreation tool to forum threads where such requests are handled.

• It would not need much new coding - forum threads and the pagemove tool already exist.
• I personally prefer the "approval through thread discussion" as a) it works mostly well in other contexts, b) it allows for third-party input and c) if a page goes through a Sandbox/ vetting, it can be improved in the meantime.

These are my ideas here. Note that I am assuming that YKTTW will not become obligatory for new Main/ pages

edited 27th Sep '13 7:29:25 AM by SeptimusHeap

As far as I understand, the new page creation system will have a preset list of namespaces to choose from. How will restricting page creation to specific namespaces account for new ones that would be created from example section splits. If users can create a new page in any namespace anyway, what is the point of keeping a list preset namespaces?

From what I understand, the system will be able to handle those as proper subpages of the article, rather than the current system where subpages are just articles within a separate namespace with the same title

Well, as a matter of fact, Eddie has proposed to spit off "Sections" like YMMV pages from the media namespaces. And to move folders into these "Sections".

I read page 8 again. I understand now.

And I like this proposal.

edited 19th Oct '13 1:50:24 PM by mikurufan

This might have been mentioned earlier, but I think the message shown for nonexistent pages should differ by namespace, saying what should go in that namespace. "Be careful, though, the only things that go in the Main namespace are tropes" only makes sense in one namespace, after all.

I had an idea for the types of pages that don't really count as works, and aren't tropes, either.

The pages we're generally discussing are Just for Fun, and Administrivia. I'd like to add Pantheon, Tropers, and Sandbox to the pile, and suggest that the category be called "Community". That's what these pages govern: the community of TV Tropes.

• Tropes: the main focus of the site, patterns in storytelling.
• Works: the stories told, in a multitude of media.
• Community: how the people volunteering here relate to one another. Rules, games, and practicing the wiki markup goes here.

There is also Creator and Useful Notes.

Creators are people who use tropes, right? Useful Notes are a collection of reference pages for tropers, right?

That would mean they're a Community namespace. Joss Whedon is One Of Us, after all.

I'd disagree with adding the Sandbox namespace to a Community one as it's about unfinished stuff for elsewhere. Creators nor Useful Notes seem to fit there really as neither are about us and One Of Us doesn't come close to justifying inclusion.

edited 26th Feb '14 4:52:53 AM by treelo

Okay, sorry.

Naw, it's okay, I'm not making the rules but I do like the Community namespace idea. Just gotta make sure stuff that'd pertain to us as tropers would be in there, content creators (typically, as far as we know) don't edit and useful notes are our little reference library for more factual information.

Plenty of creators read and/or edit the wiki. They just don't out themselves with any regularity because of the likely fan response.

Based on numbers? Hard facts? Out with it! Probably doesn't change that a fraction of creators are editing here.

Giving this a bump to see if there's any point to keeping this open, considering the changes to page creation and the proposals for such in 2.0.

Nah, I'll lock this. We can reuse the concepts in this thread but more discussion is not for here.