Rename "You know, that thing where..."

I'm not sure about Article Builder, partially because it sounds a little more intimidating than Page Builder, and partially because we don't tend to call pages "articles" on this wiki for whatever reason. (We so sometimes, like Self-Demonstrating Article, but it's not common.)

I'm fully in favor of renaming YKTTW.

As a corollary to a potential name change for YKTTW, the You Know That Show link should also probably be renamed to Media Finder for consistency. I am not sure if that is being discussed, but it seems like a logical thing to do.

Personally, I think "Draft" might work better than "Build" in a name (Page Drafter sounds more like the place for writing new pages, Page Builder might sound like something more technical).

Page Drafter sounds wrong, though. Draft A Page might work.

I still lean towards Page Builder.

Alright, I'm convinced. Page Builder works fine. I also like the idea of renaming YKTS to Media Finder.

I prefer Trope Builder to Page Builder, personally. Not all pages go through YKTTW. Is it no longer true that Works' Pages Are a Free Launch? I also think that Trope Builder is more intuitive for wiki newcomers; Page Builder sounds more like a utility for adding new pages to the wiki than the process of filtering a proposed trope through the wiki hive mind before launching it.

I prefer Page Builder. "Article" isn't a word we use as commonly as "page" for these kinds of things, so it's less intuitive, and "page" is a simpler word. "Draft" differs a little less from "build", but I'd still favour the latter.

Trope Builder I'm definitely against, though. It implies we build tropes, not describe tropes that are found in media. While you can launch a work page from scratch, you're still allowed to use YKTTW to get help to collect tropes and improve the description. Using "trope" in the name gives the impression that's the only function.

It is a utility for adding new pages to the wiki.

edited 11th Feb '16 2:14:27 PM by AnotherDuck

We could use both Page Builder and Article Builder, with one as the official title and the other as a redirect. I see a hypothetical vote on the matter being fairly evenly split.

I'd prefer "Trope Builder" to any of the other options discussed, as the vast, vast majority of pages don't go through it

And yet we intend for them to in the future, with the 2.0 redesign. Might as well get started changing the culture in expectation of that.

edited 11th Feb '16 2:16:07 PM by Fighteer

Enough pages do, and are allowed to do so, so Page/Article Builder(I like the idea of both, although I think Page should be the default) is significantly more accurate.

We get bad launches quite often, even the page I made some time back just wasn't all that good, so I can fully support this. And yes, I am admitting I'm not that good at working on pages. >.<

Trope Workshop? (Got the idea on the All the Tropes page on Wikia.)

I think a focus on tropes rather than works is pretty vital for this tool. Describing a trope is much, much harder than writing a work description. The two writing tasks are significantly different from each other. It doesn't make sense to over-stuff the structured trope description tool with the functions need for a structured work description tool.

The fact that internal storage of the two things is not so different should not alter the fact that the two article types are very different, from the user's perspective. If we need a Work Describer tool later, it shouldn't be too hard to whip one up. ^note Especially since the devs have finally got the Model, View and Controller code properly isolated from each other. Yay!

I like stressing that we are describing the tropes we find rather than creating them, so I'd go with Trope Describer or Trope Observer or Trope Observation.

edited 11th Feb '16 2:48:12 PM by eyebones

@35 What would that look like for, say, a work page?

edited 11th Feb '16 2:50:57 PM by lalalei2001

As long as we have an option to help create actual work pages, I'm fine with having two separate tools as well.

I seem to remember someone posting a work on YKTTW and being told to just make the page if they had enough good examples.

Not too sure, but it could allow for things like making sure the examples are of tropes, rather than other works. It might also help with disambiguation between works with the same title in different media, or those with the same title in the same medium. It could, in fact, enforce that a medium is specified to begin with. In general, there are considerations for a works page that don't apply to tropes, and vice versa. Isolating the two processes makes sense.

That's a really good point. I like that idea~

Seems like the bulletin did work here.

I'm rather attached to You Know That Thing Where if I'm honest,but I understand why it needs changing,it needs to be informative though

Article Creation is plain enough,right?

"Plain" as in "boring"? Maybe, but that would be a case against the name.

Personally I'm more in favor of 'draft' being used in the new name over 'build', as I feel it is clearer on the function of the section. 'Build' to me suggests a focus on the code/structure (being a compsci geek probably has something to do with this association :P), while 'draft' properly reflects that it's about the actual written content.

Plain as in boring yes (no alliteration )

I suggested Trope Transmogrifier but that's hardly going to work in hindsight because Transmogrifier probably means else entirely entirely (Calvin made it up!)

https://www.google.co.uk/#q=transmogrifier

edited 11th Feb '16 3:33:11 PM by Ultimatum

You mean boring isn't what we're going for here?

Call it It's a Trope! and use this as the page image.◊ Anyone who doesn't get it shouldn't be writing stuff here. They don't have the humor thing.

Btw, that's also a case for not renaming it all. We really don't need articles written by people who need to have meaning fed to them with a spoon.

edited 11th Feb '16 4:05:39 PM by eyebones