Verifiability (or lack thereof)

Again they are not being permanently removed. How many times do I have to say it? Temporary take down for repair is SOP through out the wiki and is often preferred in larege number of cases. I have seen pages get better from the practice not worse.

If you can avoid permanently deleting something you take it to discussion, which implies there is example worth keeping in the long run but needs at best a little work at worst a lot of work. If discussion can't fix it you have other resources throughout the wiki and forum to use. In the extremely unlikely scenario you can't find any solution at all with all of that you can ask a mod. There is simply no real excuse to just leave an example unidentified no matter how you slice it.

Once it is fixed it goes back. By the time you are done with it you have done far more good then any possibly perceived harm. It really is that simple. The temporary take down of the entry does little if any harm to an article. Mostly good examples spend a fairly short amount of time in a discussion page or in any other area of help before going back. The worse and example is the more likely it needs more work then just a title right up to some of them getting axed from a very bad example.

Show me an article what was adversly affected by temproary take down of an item? I gurantee they don't exist. Because when it is all said and done something gets put back and the entry is almost always improved by the effort. The article as a whole is then improved by the better entry.

Between putting in the better entries, edit notes, discussion and fixes, and any other attentions that comes with it you have done more collective good period then just letting it be.

Appeal to authority is a poor debate tactic in general. Yes Eddie has ultimate control but Eddie also hears people out in general. I imagine he will be back and comment sooner or later.

I would dare say there is a chance the end decision will be fix it if you can and avoid deleting the entry if not just leave it as is. The obvious caveate being an honestly bad example should be salavaged if possible cut if not possible.

I am not saying destroy the entry I am saying repair it and it goes back. We do this with enties all the time.

---

Edit banned certainly gets some characters from mundane to the rather crazy.

Who watches the watchmen?

Too slow.

Eddie, if not enough detail is there, Wiki Magic cannot happen. At that point, we've got a de facto notability standard, because the only unverified work examples that will get expanded on are the ones people recognize. The moderators (or whoever does cleanup) will have to delete the more obscure examples whenever a cleanup project goes down, if they can't find anything.

There's a reason we have You Know That Show. I'm all for encouraging people to use it first if they're unsure. After all, it is a cardinal rule to avoid making work for others, and I'd say adding an example with no work name (which requires adding the name to provide proper wicks, if nothing else) qualifies.

Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)

This has nothing to do with notability. Any work (that isn't banned under the content policy) is welcome on the wiki. We want tropers to specify the work they mean when they write an example. Yes, it is true that Wiki Magic can come in behind and clean it up, but that's not guaranteed.

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

If the trope definition is being modified or something, and the example isn't clear enough, then yeah. What I'm objecting to is removing clear examples in advance of a problem.

I'm also not suggesting we should encourage that sort of thing. I'm not even asking for the guidelines to be changed (unlike my feelings about the specific-works thing in Creator Page Guidelines, which I do think should be changed). I just don't want to see clear, first-rate examples that are already there get removed without a better reason than "doesn't specify the exact work".

That said, Eddie does raise the issue of possibly being too vague, and I can kind of see that. For one thing, past a certain point, you end up saying something like "In this book I once read", which gets us into the forbidden first-person and encourages natter and conversation on the main page. We definitely don't want that.

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

You know that show is one of those tools I was referring to.

I should have clarified Eddie will likely come back and comment again possibly give a final word on it. Hopefully something like a pm for the newer examplse of Workless examples to the editor who made it can clear things up as well. The pm would be easier as long as it is a new enough example.

Between Totemic and Fighteer is more or less my point.

Fix em where we can. If they are a good example and we can't fix it for whatever reason leave it till it can be fixed. If it fails general example standards to begin with it, it is likely destined for the chopping block.

Who watches the watchmen?

Note that I'm not speaking theoretically here (unlike, I suspect, most people in this thread). I did the transplant when Bizarre Alien Biology became Human Outside, Alien Inside; I did the cleanup, and I'm the one that looked at that first comic book example and saw that it was clearly an excellent example of the trope and decided to leave it. I've heard no arguments that suggest my decision was incorrect. This is not a case of ambiguity—the example is clear and obvious and illustrates the trope better than many other examples on the page, and I think it would harm the wiki to move that example to the discussion page. Even if that harm would only be temporary. I see no reason to move it at all.

(It does specify the publisher, if that makes the sticklers feel better. That's honestly more specific, in this case, than saying "In a Perry Rhodan novel..." would be.)

If I'd never seen an example, I might well be leaning towards the "it's bad, we shouldn't allow that" side, but I've seen two or three, and they've all been excellent examples, and it is extremely rare to see something like that at all, so I don't think we're in any danger of encouraging bad habits by leaving these excellent examples where they are to help illustrate the trope.

edited 3rd Jan '13 6:35:42 PM by Xtifr

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

If you know the source why didn't you just label it? Do the readers know where it is from or if there is a difference? Great that you know but you are supposed to be writing examples under the assumption that the readers might not know.

I also highly doubt the page would have suffered traumatically if someone had temporarily shifted it to figure it out. The page is not going to collapse or suffer a flood of bad examples because someone temporarily shifted an example. Neither would good examples cease to be put on the page.

If it is a good example that most I could imagine it being gone is a day or two most. More then likely it will be back within less then a day if it gives us something to go off of and is not overly vague. It takes notably longer then that to kill or even harm an article.

If we have no works page yet you can still label an example with a work. You could then create a works page. If you need help setting up a works entry there are plenty of ways to find help for it.

In your case you already knew the work. There was no reason to leave it unlabeled if you knew the source. You wouldn't have to do much at all if the entry was so well done all you had to do was drop a work label and call it day because you knew exactly where it came from. Fighteer already covered this earlier in that if it is good it gets taken care of quickly. We are lucky to get those examples but again those are very unlikely to be what we come across in most cases.

After the clean up for Alien Invasion there was an example added that had no work and needed more context that got added. Thankfully the person who made the entry responded to pm and fixed it on his own. Between the two of us we figured out what the work was and he fixed it. Personally I would prefer the person who made the edit fix it when it can be arranged. When you come across an older example with no edit history listing and it needs any work it is better to move it, get it fixed and figured out and then put back.

Who watches the watchmen?

The act of deleting a legitimate example, no matter how temporary, is in itself harming the page. During the time the example is taken down, which may very well be permanently, especially if it's hard to find the source (there's probably a reason there's no source to begin with), then the page has lost content in the form of one example. That's harming the page.

Show me an article that was adversely affected by an item without a clear source.

I think the best solution would be to let the example remain, and bring it up on the discussion page or You Know That Show. If you really want to find the source of it, it's not going to help one bit to remove it from the page. The chance of finding it improves significantly if people can find it on the trope page, which most likely has far more visitors than either the discussion or You Know That Show.

Check out my fanfiction!

The loss of content from a single entry does not harm a page. Especially if it is a temporary shift to identify it and it then goes back shortly after. If that were true we would never be able to remove anything from a page but amazingly we do that all the time with no detriment to an article at all, in fact it has a habit of frequently improving articles. There is little to no evidence that what I suggesting causes any harm at all.

Loss in bulk might cause harm such as what we potentially faced with Instant Death Bullet but that loss was an extreme example of misuse of the trope and fell under a much needed clean up. Even then the article is better for it in the end, then it was just letting it sit and fester.

Editors have a track record of copying the nearest example on an edit page. Leaving a bad example has been shown quite frequently to sooner or later lead to more bad examples with bad being in varying degrees. Temporarily moving the example in question to discussion to figure out what work it is from and if it really is a good example based on that context makes quite a bit of sense. If it turns out the entry needs more work it is exactly where it needs to be. If it doesn't it simply goes back on the page.

Your example says permanent removal my point was moving it to the discussion temporarily because it was clearly good enough to try and keep in the first place and we just need a little bit more info, is in now way the same thing. Don't shift the goal post. Temporary shifting does no real harm at all and ends with a improved example by comparison. Pretty much any claim that it doesn't is an exaggeration. If an example is so bad to be permanently removed in the first place the chances are very high that even with a work name it would get removed anyways that kinda makes the whole counter argument fall flat that moving or removal is bad.

Also I already pointed out how it can cause harm. First confusion for readers, this is the number one reason for clean ups and big edits in the first place. It already fails basic standards by not clarifying where it came from unless your familiar with the work. You are supposed to write an example as if you are telling someone about it who does not know what you are talking about. Leaving things off like where the reference comes from fails that nicely. Writing or leaving examples that assume you know that whoever would read it knows what is from and what is going is being myopic another no no for editing in general.

Also I pointed out that what may look like good example without the work context may seem fine. That is until given the proper work context, then suddenly might not be a good work example and need either alteration or in the worst possible scenario removal or moving. The only way to know is to identify it. Better to shift it to discussion in case it is the bad end and maybe it can be fixed or shifted if it fits somewhere else. It would be sitting right where it needs to be to get fixed. If doesn't need fixing after identifying guess what. It just goes right back on the page. This is literally no different from standard clean up and example repair work at all.

Again the chances of it being permanently gone are incredibly slim if it is a legitimately good example. Same counter point again nothing changed. Your assumption of permanent removal is extremely slim and is only likely to occur to a honestly bad example. The aforementioned good examples are very likely to have enough detail to figure it out as was kindly demonstrated above. The few good examples for this sort of entry tend to be less common.

Nothing about shifting it to discussion until it becomes clear where it came from and putting it back if it is good example does any harm to an article at all. In fact there is a gain. The not so good and even bad examples are likely to get repaired and put back. In those cases there is a greater gain. The chances of it getting permanently axed are low and would likely mean it was bad example to begin with. Removing a bad example that can't be salvaged is also a gain. We do this with examples as it is. There is nothing magical or special about a workless example to exempt it from such a treatment. All it means is it takes just a little work for identifying it or identifying and cleaning it up. Then we do what we would normally do. Put it back in it's proper place on the page.

The claims of permanent and serious harm from one entry being moved is an exaggeration at best.

Who watches the watchmen?

Okay, this is going in circles. Are we sure we have a problem in need of a solution and not a solution in need of a problem? How many examples that don't cite the source material do you find daily? I dare say they would constitute no more than 1% at best. The only times I haven't seen a clear work name cited is when it comes to some legends and traditions because, many times, they don't even have definitive names. So, why are we racking our heads over this?

Also, the deletion of Sokora Refugees mentioned in the OP seems like a mistake. Just because something is difficult to find doesn't mean it can't be troped.

edited 4th Jan '13 12:09:24 AM by lu127

"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer

Lu.

I say just take it on a case by case basis then and let whatever happens happen. As for other thing dunno ask whoever zapped it. If we can restore it I can't think of a reason not to.

Who watches the watchmen?

Lu: From just reading trope pages, they're way less than 1%, though I've seen one or two, which I don't remember doing anything about. I track the recent discussion list, and the issue has come up a couple times in the months I've done that for. Though editors taking guidance from entries around them which can be contrary to other things (I can say where I think this has happened) is an issue, unsourced examples are rare enough that this is unlikely to happen.

That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.

Yeah, I don't think this discussion is really going to go anywhere besides a lot of opinions being thrown around. The issue is virtually non-existent given the limited number of examples and word from Eddie is that unless it is a bad example too it is not a "zap on site" deal.

This really makes me think "do we really need a policy on every single little thing here?". I'd say "no".

And echoing waht other said, I haven't seen too many examples with such problems.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

I think i have seen two total and one was nipped in the bud as soon as it showed up.

So about that mistake. Was it really a mistake?

Who watches the watchmen?

@Hunden IV: If you're going to claim I'm moving the goalposts and exaggerating (which is false), make sure that's not what you're doing yourself.

But yes, it does go in circles too much, and even if I like discussions like these on occasion, it's not really constructive for TV Tropes as a whole at this point.

I think it's a mistake as long as the example is good on its own. Bad examples are one thing, but good ones?

Check out my fanfiction!