Is there some way of having the %% tag ignored?

I'd rather see the zero context examples in the page, even if I have to do a bit more research to find out the context for myself. So is there a way of ignoring the comment-out tag?

Edited by Bonalaw on Feb 29th 2020 at 1:30:43 AM

Driven to Suicide by a Rules Lawyer.

No.

But...Why would you rather see ZCEs, than have them hidden so they can be identified and fixed?

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Because not everyone sees ZCEs as a problem (though I definitely try to make my examples have context), and it would give the wiki a simpler, more casual feel (we were infested with what we'd call ZCEs in late 2000s/early 2010s, but many would still read us and wouldn't give a damn)? I am typically fine with sites that sort normal approved stuff from weaker stuff and still let you easily see it, like Danbooru having a tab for deleted (not actually deleted) pics that don't have mod approval or quality standard, and sometimes those deleted pics aren't that bad or hated (I actually found a few of them good), or Know Your Meme keeping "Deadpool" entries?

I think some kind of way to sort and show stuff that doesn't meet a quota which people may not care about it not being met wouldn't really harm others if it was segregated enough. It'd be your choice, don't see them if you don't want to, expand them for everyone to see them if you decide to do so.

Edited by Piterpicher on Feb 29th 2020 at 12:24:20 PM

Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)

You could suggest this as a feature and see if you get enough supporters. It would probably be a checkbox same as for showing spoilers.

Personally, I don't know why anyone would to see them as they are really no different than not having the example on the page at all and are just boring to see. Are examples like "Alice from [work] does this trope" or just "Alice from [work]" really that interesting to see?But to each their own.

And we wouldn't loosen up our stance on them if we give people the option to see them anyway? That kinda defeats the purpose having them hidden for editors to fix later. I don't think you can really compare to hiding spoilers to other content

Edited by MacronNotes on Feb 29th 2020 at 7:10:24 AM

Macron's notes

I thought a little more about this. Since ZCEs are not the only thing that gets commented out, trying to let people just ignore the percent tags would not end up too well.

Instead, I think that there should be a new tag developed for ZCEs which hides them, but only for specific settings. Maybe the tag would be `` or something (it's hard to come up with unused for other markup common characters, and I really don't want to replicate Wikipedia's ridiculous comment markup). Basically, if an example has `` before it, it is hidden, but unlike the percents, you can turn it off. Maybe it could be changed by two options saying "Casual" and "Pro", with Casual seeing these and Pro having them hidden.

There could be additional concerns like whether the three examples per work page standard would become three Casual or three Pro. I'm not expecting context standards for Pro examples to drop, but this should be a reasonable compromise for people who are nostalgic, can't write too well, or just don't care about context. All editors can also make Casual examples Pro if they can write reasonable context. Really, this could be a good solution for everyone, modern and classic editors and readers alike, it just needs refining.

Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)

Yeah; open the editor. If you think you can expand the context, please fix the example and remove the comment tags.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Well, yeah. That is that the easiest way for regular editors (though I feel like OP knew about it already and actually wanted them on the page if they asked about about the percent tags), though readers can't read page source or edit. My idea of separation is intended to hopefully satisfy all people, including readers and less experienced/nostalgic editors who could potentially write "Casual" examples for "Casual" readers. There have been people who got frustrated with the wiki because they found the ZCE rules annoying or suspensions, this would probably fix these issues for those people.

Edited by Piterpicher on Feb 29th 2020 at 3:29:03 PM

Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)

Well, to "see ZCEs (...) so they can be identified and fixed" would be an obvious answer.

"what the complete, unabridged, 4k ultra HD fuck with bonus features" - Mark Von Lewis

Well, yeah. That would also be obvious. So OP's question has been answered. Maybe use Ask The Tropers for these simple questions next time.

Edited by Piterpicher on Feb 29th 2020 at 3:50:01 PM

Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)

I VERY STRONGLY disagree with having this for the sake of those who don't mind ZCEs. "Nostalgia" or "casualness" are not reasons to encourage or even tolerate bad examples.

But allowing editors to see always comments (so that they can more easily spot bad examples and fix them if they can) could be worth it.

You would always be able to turn the ability to see those Casual/`` examples, though. So you, as a modern and advanced editor, wouldn't have to see them unless you're editing while still letting others who do, or you could expand them for everyone. I'd compare this to your typical Assist Mode in modern games, people also complain about them, but it's there for the less experienced or caring, while still letting the normal gamers (or editors here) play (or read) the way it was originally intended and you can always turn it off. As for always comments for registered users only, yeah, maybe that could work as well though it would apply to other comments like the Image Pickin' tags or mod warnings.

Edited by Piterpicher on Feb 29th 2020 at 3:58:27 PM

Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)

This is not going to happen.

A zero context example is a bad example. It is incorrect writing on the wiki, just like improper indentation, putting YMMV in a main article, or using first person.

Allowing people to selectively view them while browsing the wiki cannot do anything but create the impression that they are legitimate, like spoiler tags. It sends absolutely the wrong message.

No, not happening, under any circumstances, ever, ever.

Ever.

Edited by Fighteer on Feb 29th 2020 at 10:05:57 AM

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

Exactly how I feel. It's not like assist mode in a game: while editing the wiki CAN be fun (and I hope it is for you if you're doing it), the primary purpose is to tell readers about works and tropes. Anything that encourages a more relaxed attitude which harms the informational value of examples is bad for that mission. If you're a "less experienced or caring" editor, don't edit until you can actually write a good example.

I just remembered that we already have a rule about this on How to Write an Example:

• Do Not Use Comment Tags to Pre-hide Examples: While existing examples that violate a rule, such as Zero-Context Examples or uncited examples for works that haven't released, may be hidden with comment tags to encourage users to fix them, never add a new example that is already commented out. It's considered lazy, sneaky, and underhanded, and repeated offenses lead to quick suspensions.

Edited by Zuxtron on Feb 29th 2020 at 10:21:28 AM

I knew that they are considered bad writing, this was more of an idea for those who don't care about that and actually making them legitimate but only for those people (I reiterate, this would have also been for readers who are fine with them, not just editors) who turn the option on and keeping them as bad for others, with the latter still having the ability to expand them (though when it comes to making options for indentation fails or first-person, even I can't advocate for those, but I don't think people whine about those that much and generally just delete them, rather than hide them). It was mostly for compromise of two editor/reader types with the normal wiki being the one that still has them hidden and a containment option for others. Heck, the main wiki could have been the default one. But this idea appears unsuccesful, so I suppose I'll quit it, at least definitely for now.

In terms of the rule about pre-commenting examples, I am aware of it and understand it (I haven't added pre-commented examples). I just feel like my idea wasn't that related to it, at least not completely, it was more about sorting for who they'd be seen by.

What about the ability to simply turn off comment tags for editors which would also include Image Picking notes or mod warnings, with them being underlined? This could help because people don't read those all the time, maybe then they'd notice for sure, or have more of an incentive to work on the ZCEs?

Edited by Piterpicher on Feb 29th 2020 at 4:56:43 PM

Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)

We already have this ability; open the editor. If you think you can expand the context, please fix the example and remove the comment tags.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

I know that you can see comments on the edit screen. Please, stop telling me what I already know. I mean an option for possibly showing commented-out stuff like ZCEs, mod notes, or IP tags for editors on the wiki, but with an underline to make them much more noticeable/motivating. I repeat, this is for editors only, on the wiki screen while browsing, for possibly making it much more noticeable/motivating without having to open the edit screen (and I didn't suggest this fully, Zuxtron inspired this). After all, I occasionally correct typos when I see them just by finding them when I'm reading the wiki, and Wikipedia has a wide range of tags intended for editors only, so it would be helpful here as well, I think.

Edited by Piterpicher on Feb 29th 2020 at 5:11:31 PM

Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)

Here's the thing. A lot of people aren't so good at recognizing when an example needs more context- that's why the ZCE issue is such a big one in the first place. Leaving them all over the wiki won't encourage people to find and fix them, it'll encourage people to make more of them, while the only way to ensure that they can be identified as ZCEs, at this very moment, is to hide them and let editors deal with them when they can/want to.

---

As for the separation idea, I'm strongly opposed to this as a cleanup editor who spends an absurd amount of time trying to purge ZCEs from a wiki with 90% of its content still needing to be cleaned.

We do not need to incentivize people to make more of a mess, and devalue cleanup editors more than they already do by "separating" wiki groups and allowing people who don't give a shit about writing well to co-exist on the wiki with the people who drive ourselves insane trying to make even one page look decent.

I mean, if we're going to loosen up on ZCEs in "casual" mode, what else would we allow? Bad indentation? Trope slashing? Poor alphabetization? The use of first-person?

I'm just saying this to make a point- either all bad style should be banished, or none of it should; allowing one to slip by because some people just "like" not adding context to things means we'd have to allow all of our writing standards to slip, because hey, some people just don't like writing in 3rd person- so why not let them write their own way, right? I mean, the Pro users won't have to see it, so what is it harming, besides everything we've been trying to accomplish recently with making the wiki better?

...So no, having things separated wouldn't satisfy me. It'd just make me more stressed out about the state of things, and make me feel even less cared about as a cleanup editor.

Edited by WarJay77 on Feb 29th 2020 at 2:18:10 PM

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I guess the "underline comments and put them on wiki for editors" idea wouldn't work because people don't know how to fix ZCEs or what they are? Still, that is a good note and explanation for why you don't want the separation between Casual and Pro, War Jay 77. If the issue is with people not realising what a ZCE is or how to improve it, then people should leave more detailed comments. Essentially, add context to why something is zero-context. Look at this TLP draft, it has marked its two ZCEs with "Uses one of what?" and "Has what occasionally?" I think I've seen such context questions next to ZCEs on a few other drafts, like "How is she British?" or something like that, my memory is fuzzy. This could potentially slow down example hiding and not all TLP drafts with ZCEs have received this treatment, but maybe it could work in terms of explaining why/how something needs/could receive context?

Edited by Piterpicher on Feb 29th 2020 at 8:37:48 PM

Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)

Something like that is a good idea but not if the page itself is drowning in context issues; just because of how long it'd take to comment something out and then add a note explaining why the example is bad.

Usually if there's one specific type of ZCE I keep seeing, I'll add the note at the top of the page and point out that specific context-issue as something not to do when writing examples, and then ask people to add a little more information. But since I typically edit pages with major problems, stopping to add an extra note to every ZCE will just take even longer and exhaust me even faster.

But, if someone can manage it, it's probably good practice. It's just unfeasible to make it a habit.

Your "tag examples for editors" idea might work, but it'd still require us to find the page and clean it first, so a more permanent solution would be to just get more and more people educated about things like context and give them incentives to help us clean the wiki, hopefully getting us to the point where more ZCEs are being cleaned than added to the wiki.

Edited by WarJay77 on Feb 29th 2020 at 2:41:07 PM

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I agree that trying to tag every single ZCE on a page may be inpractical if there's a ton of 'em. I think the logical cap where you could stop trying to tag every one of them with notes how each one lacks context and just put a more general note on top that still describes the general issue should be 30 or 40 (you can still do that past that point, but then you'll have to work extra hard). Still, if people wanted do that, it would be quite a step forward. We should definitely encourage this, maybe on the Administrivia.Zero Context Example page.

As for trying to give editors incentive to clean up stuff and learn more about context, it is also a good idea. That said, comments on the edit screen obviously don't link to the ZCE page (they say "Administrivia/ZeroContextExamples are not allowed on wiki pages", but that link isn't clickable and you have paste it in the URL spot manually, not a problem for someone fluent in intermediate wiki syntax but may not be understandable for others), therefore I don't feel like those have been helping as much they could. There's at least Tips Worksheet that is displayed above the edit window, that's always something, right? Hard to say where else to promote this. As for giving incentive, to some extent I believe in incentive through gamification, though you've once shot down a leaderboard suggestion of mine somewhere else, so eh.

Edited by Piterpicher on Feb 29th 2020 at 9:04:51 PM

Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)

Piterpitcher, again, you've been told no. Stop arguing. Locking this.

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