Needs Help: Just For Fun.Examples Of Myers Briggs Personalities In Stories

This set of Just for Fun pages has proven itself to be a magnet for edit wars, and consists of nothing but ZeroContextExampless. The page itself has nearly 400,000 in-bounds and the examples pages themselves have between 2000 and 7000+. The examples themselves are more or less subjective in their particular categories and it's all up to the personal opinion of the editor, inviting silent edit wars over where certain characters belong. It doesn't seem to be adding anything productive to the wiki in its current state.

The page has been discussed in ATT and the solutions proposed thus far have been cutting the pages entirely, or just cutting the existing examples and requiring all examples henceforth to provide sufficient context, holding them to the standards of the rest of the wiki.

edited 19th Dec '14 12:38:33 PM by Darksilverhawk

Technically, the two pages that came up in ATT had 2000+ and 6000+ inbounds.

As discussed in moderator Skype, these pages are a constant magnet for arguments. They also get a number of new accounts editing on them.

Misunderstood your ATT post- post as been edited to reflect actual numbers.

Personally, I am in favor of leaving the pages, but cutting the existing examples and requiring context. Making people actually defend their placements would cut down on the number of petty arguments and edit wars, as people are less likely to start an edit war if they have to put in effort to do so, and good context might deter would-be editors from disputing it in the first place.

There might be a good use for the page- it's just misused at the moment. It could be an interesting sort of just for fun analysis.

Just to cement the opinion I expressed in ATT, I'm not in favor of cutting the pages entirely, but I'm not opposed to it either; it would solve the problem and the pages don't seem to be adding much value to the wiki.

My preferred solution is the option of making a one-time wipe of all examples, and henceforth enforcing wiki standards for example context for any future additions (including re-adding old examples that were already there).

I acknowledge that the pages are Just for Fun, but there is a clear problem with the current status quo, and either of the above solutions would address it.

edited 19th Dec '14 12:46:59 PM by SolipSchism

Much like the one for Pantheons, I've got a discussion about coming to a decision on personality types in the Forum Games forum here. Sadly, this appears to not see that much use. I guess it kinda didn't help that unlike the pantheon pages, there is no hidden note directing someone to the appropriate thread.

edited 19th Dec '14 1:08:01 PM by EarlOfSandvich

Well, a commented-out note could be added, but I'm not sure Forum Games is the right place to have a discussion about a problem on the wiki, though I'll pop over there and read through it.

EDIT: For what it's worth, that discussion looks more along the lines of "Let's discuss problem characters and try to come to a consensus on where they fit."

What we're after here is more "Let's discuss a problematic collection of pages and come to a consensus about how to head off the common problems."

edited 19th Dec '14 1:13:48 PM by SolipSchism

Well, it is a suitable place to discuss new entries if we decide to regulate additions to these pages.

I suggest wiping everything and archiving what's currently there for convenience's sake and then have a better way to add them back on, with justifications.

I believe the issue is pretty much similar to that of Four-Temperament Ensemble, only this is much more severe.

That one looks better at first glance due to having more text in the main-level bullets, but in point of fact it has exactly the same problem.

Clock is set.

I feel that we should add examples but need actual proof to back it up like http://www.mypersonality.info/personality-types/fictional-characters/

Having finally taken a look at the pages, I tend to agree that we need a purge and start fresh, with clearly established criteria in the examples required.

Consensus seems to be that we should cut what's there and require context for all examples going forward. Correct?

Yes

Sounds good to me.

So what happens now? Who Will Bell the Cat?

Well, I since I brought it here, I volunteer to do all the legwork. That said, what exactly do we want the new guidelines to be? Same context rules as the rest of the wiki? Are we sending people to a thread first?

edited 22nd Jan '15 11:22:09 AM by Darksilverhawk

Are there any examples with context at all?

I don't think so, no. But I haven't combed through them all. People tend to put more context in their edit warring edit reasons than on the page itself, lol.

That's what I think would be best. Needs context that explains the example.

Should it be treated as YMMV? i.e., no removing other tropers' examples unless they are misuse or factually inaccurate, and no real reason why a character can't be listed in multiple places as long as the context supports it?

edited 22nd Jan '15 11:31:21 AM by SolipSchism

There is one rule we need to add

No blogs, the proof needs to be from legitimate websites like http://www.infpcentral.com/famous-fictional-infps/

As for charts like or if the character acts like the personality, maybe not I'm not sure, I hope you can decide. But for the second thing, no because it can lead annoying flame wars between the fighters and will be confusing on who goes to where.

So all in all, you need actual proof in order to put the character in the personality page.

Oh, you're talking about requiring citations, like Unfortunate Implications. Well, I guess that would curb Edit Wars.

The lack of validation is not really the issue. The lack of context in examples is the issue. I am not convinced we need citations.

I'm inclined to agree. I do wonder what folks think about the YMMV tack on it though. Obviously some peoples' mileage varies, otherwise there wouldn't be so many Edit Wars over the things.

If it was acceptable for a character to be in multiple places as long as they had adequate context (in the same way as one Troper's Crowning Moment Of Heartwarming can be another Troper's cheesy Narm), and examples could only be removed for factual inaccuracy or misuse, I feel like that would solve the problem.

edited 22nd Jan '15 2:54:23 PM by SolipSchism

Now what's confusing is like what Solip Schism said - if your character has Alternate Character Interpretation or Character Development, where exactly will you put that character in that page?