Follow TV Tropes

Following

History Administrivia / RepairDontRespond

Go To



You should never add comments in an article explaining that an entry is wrong or incomplete. See Administrivia/JustifyingEdit, {{Parabombing}}, Administrivia/ThreadMode, and Administrivia/ConversationInTheMainPage for more information. If the example is wrong, fix it (or delete it). If the example is incomplete, expand it. If you have a question or concern about the example, bring it up in the Discussion page or AskTheTropers.

to:

You should never add comments in an article explaining that an entry is wrong or incomplete. See Administrivia/JustifyingEdit, {{Parabombing}}, Administrivia/ThreadMode, and Administrivia/ConversationInTheMainPage for more information. If the example is wrong, fix it (or delete it). If the example is incomplete, expand it. If you have a question or concern about the example, bring it up in the Discussion page or AskTheTropers.


"This Is A Wiki"\\


The same thing applies if we don't have an article for a particular work or creator. '''ThisIsAWiki''': if you think an article for something is needed, go make it. See Administrivia/HowToCreateAWorksPage for instructions and ProgramEntryTemplate for a sample page to get you started.

to:

The same thing applies if we don't have an article for a particular work or creator. '''ThisIsAWiki''': '''Administrivia/ThisIsAWiki''': if you think an article for something is needed, go make it. See Administrivia/HowToCreateAWorksPage for instructions and ProgramEntryTemplate for a sample page to get you started.


The same thing applies if we don't have an article for a particular work or creator. '''This Is A Wiki''': if you think an article for something is needed, go make it. See Administrivia/HowToCreateAWorksPage for instructions and ProgramEntryTemplate for a sample page to get you started.

to:

The same thing applies if we don't have an article for a particular work or creator. '''This Is A Wiki''': '''ThisIsAWiki''': if you think an article for something is needed, go make it. See Administrivia/HowToCreateAWorksPage for instructions and ProgramEntryTemplate for a sample page to get you started.


* RealLife examples are discouraged if they are shoehorned into a trope, are describing real people in subjective terms, or are controversial. If you see an article listed as Administrivia/NoRealLifeExamplesPlease, then obey those instructions.

to:

* RealLife examples are discouraged if they are shoehorned into a trope, are describing real people in subjective terms, or are controversial. If you see an article listed as Administrivia/NoRealLifeExamplesPlease, then please obey those instructions.


You should never add comments in an article explaining that an entry is wrong or incomplete. See Administrivia/JustifyingEdit, {{Parabombing}}, ThreadMode, and Administrivia/ConversationInTheMainPage for more information. If the example is wrong, fix it (or delete it). If the example is incomplete, expand it. If you have a question or concern about the example, bring it up in the Discussion page or AskTheTropers.

to:

You should never add comments in an article explaining that an entry is wrong or incomplete. See Administrivia/JustifyingEdit, {{Parabombing}}, ThreadMode, Administrivia/ThreadMode, and Administrivia/ConversationInTheMainPage for more information. If the example is wrong, fix it (or delete it). If the example is incomplete, expand it. If you have a question or concern about the example, bring it up in the Discussion page or AskTheTropers.


Sometimes users will post a complaint about an example being incorrect, or an article being infested with natter or not sorted properly, or information having been missed in an article's description. The response is usually, '''So Fix It'''. You have permission to make additions or corrections; in fact, we depend on those sorts of contributions to improve the wiki's accuracy and thoroughness. '''Be Bold''' and make the changes you think are needed.

to:

Sometimes users will post a complaint about an example being incorrect, or an article being infested with natter or not sorted properly, or information having been missed in an article's description. The response is usually, '''So Fix It'''. You have permission to make additions or corrections; in fact, we depend on those sorts of contributions to improve the wiki's accuracy and thoroughness. As Wiki/TheOtherWiki says, '''Be Bold''' and make the changes you think are needed.


* RealLife examples are discouraged if they are shoehorned into a trope, are describing real people in subjective terms, or are controversial. If you see an article listed as Administrivia/NoRealLifeExamplesPlease, obey it.

to:

* RealLife examples are discouraged if they are shoehorned into a trope, are describing real people in subjective terms, or are controversial. If you see an article listed as Administrivia/NoRealLifeExamplesPlease, then obey it.those instructions.


These sorts of edits often show as improper Administrivia/ExampleIndentationInTropeLists. Never make an addition to an example that is indented beneath it. It will get removed and flagged as {{Natter}}. Also, while editing, avoid leaving Administrivia/{{Zero Context Example}}s and [[Administrivia/AboutRhetoricalQuestions rhetorical questions]], because these tend to be targets for natter.

to:

These sorts of edits often show as improper Administrivia/ExampleIndentationInTropeLists. Never make an addition to an example that is indented beneath it. It will get removed and flagged as {{Natter}}.Administrivia/{{Natter}}. Also, while editing, avoid leaving Administrivia/{{Zero Context Example}}s and [[Administrivia/AboutRhetoricalQuestions rhetorical questions]], because these tend to be targets for natter.


Be careful to avoid excessive bias. We aren't interested in hashing out the sides of an argument, and we don't permit the removal of legitimately held opinions, [[Administrivia/WhatGoesWhereOnTheWiki as long as they are in the right place]]. See Administrivia/RightingGreatWrongs.

to:

Be While you're at it, be careful to avoid excessive bias. We aren't interested in hashing out the sides of an argument, and we don't permit the removal of legitimately held opinions, [[Administrivia/WhatGoesWhereOnTheWiki as long as they are in the right place]]. See Administrivia/RightingGreatWrongs.


An in-wiki admonition that speaks against explaining why an entry is wrong or incomplete instead of just fixing it.

A common offender is the Administrivia/JustifyingEdit ("Well to be fair, the show was right to use that {{trope}} because..."), but there's plenty of variety, from [[{{Parabombing}} parentheticals]] to [[ButWaitTheresMore "Not to mention that..." tangents]] through [[ThreadMode "However" or "Actually" clauses which make the page seem like it's arguing with itself]] all the way to [[Administrivia/ConversationInTheMainPage paragraphs on end of aimless chatter]].

[[Administrivia/ExampleIndentationInTropeLists The second/third bullet point is oft-misused]] to reply to an example; sentences that obviously got tacked onto a paragraph as a response are also commonplace and may be even more disruptive. The tone may be polite, passive-aggressive or sarcastic, but the result is the same: Concise examples turn into [[WallOfText walls of text]], the wiki loses its consistent voice and [[Administrivia/SignalToNoiseTrainWreck the interesting parts get drowned out in all the noise]].

Why do these pop up? Perhaps the troper who wrote the entry was being overly polite and didn't want to hurt the feelings of whatever troper wrote the original article by deleting their example and writing in the corrected version instead. Or they wanted to show up the previous troper, keeping the incorrect version alongside the "correct" version. Or maybe they were under the mistaken impression that main article space doubles as a forum, a blog or a soapbox, and that we ''encourage'' that sort of thing.

If it's to correct a misconception or to add more information, it can be integrated into the existing entry. If a response can be reasonably removed, it should.

This is also why Administrivia/{{Zero Context Example}}s and [[Administrivia/AboutRhetoricalQuestions rhetorical questions]] should be avoided at all costs. The latter, sooner or later someone ''will'' [[RhetoricalQuestionBlunder reply to]]; the former, someone will add the information you should have included in the first place, but likely as not they'll do so in a bullet point immediately after yours reading "To clarify..."

Relatedly, if you are going to remove something, make sure that what's left behind still makes sense. Administrivia/ConversationInTheMainPage and Administrivia/{{Sinkhole}}s are bad, but a bullet point directly referencing something that's no longer there isn't much better.

No one is going to complain about the vast majority of the changes you want to make to a page. Don't feel any compunctions about adding or deleting entries if you think that your impressions are accurate or defendable. That said, don't let your bias get the better of you and completely wipe out whatever you disagree with. If there's more than one way to look at things, [[Administrivia/RightingGreatWrongs they should all get their say]].

The redirect to this page, "You Could Always Edit it Yourself", is generally used in somewhat different circumstances, when someone complains that an example is wrong, or that a page is infested with Administrivia/{{Natter}}, or that examples aren't sorted, or any similar problem exists but they show no indication that they're willing to fix it or clean it up themselves. The message is the same, though if something is wrong, fix it.

to:

An in-wiki admonition '''"Repair, Don't Respond"\\
"This Is A Wiki"\\
"You Could Always Edit It Yourself"\\
"Be Bold"\\
"So Fix It"'''

These predefined messages all speak to a central concept that's critical to any wiki: Users are responsible for the content. If you see something wrong, you are allowed to correct it. If you feel something is missing, you are allowed to add it. If you see
that speaks against there isn't an article for something, you are allowed to create it (with a few exceptions). Nobody will complain as long as you aren't making a mess of things.

!!Repair, Don't Respond

You should never add comments in an article
explaining why that an entry is wrong or incomplete instead of just fixing it.

A common offender is the Administrivia/JustifyingEdit ("Well to be fair, the show was right to use that {{trope}} because..."), but there's plenty of variety, from [[{{Parabombing}} parentheticals]] to [[ButWaitTheresMore "Not to mention that..." tangents]] through [[ThreadMode "However" or "Actually" clauses which make the page seem like it's arguing with itself]] all the way to [[Administrivia/ConversationInTheMainPage paragraphs on end of aimless chatter]].

[[Administrivia/ExampleIndentationInTropeLists The second/third bullet point is oft-misused]] to reply to an example; sentences that obviously got tacked onto a paragraph as a response are also commonplace
incomplete. See Administrivia/JustifyingEdit, {{Parabombing}}, ThreadMode, and may be even Administrivia/ConversationInTheMainPage for more disruptive. The tone may be polite, passive-aggressive or sarcastic, but information. If the result is the same: Concise examples turn into [[WallOfText walls of text]], the wiki loses its consistent voice and [[Administrivia/SignalToNoiseTrainWreck the interesting parts get drowned out in all the noise]].

Why do these pop up? Perhaps the troper who wrote the entry was being overly polite and didn't want to hurt the feelings of whatever troper wrote the original article by deleting their
example and writing is wrong, fix it (or delete it). If the example is incomplete, expand it. If you have a question or concern about the example, bring it up in the corrected version instead. Or they wanted to Discussion page or AskTheTropers.

These sorts of edits often
show up the previous troper, keeping the incorrect version alongside the "correct" version. Or maybe they were under the mistaken impression as improper Administrivia/ExampleIndentationInTropeLists. Never make an addition to an example that main article space doubles as a forum, a blog or a soapbox, is indented beneath it. It will get removed and that we ''encourage'' that sort of thing.

If it's to correct a misconception or to add more information, it can be integrated into the existing entry. If a response can be reasonably removed, it should.

This is also why
flagged as {{Natter}}. Also, while editing, avoid leaving Administrivia/{{Zero Context Example}}s and [[Administrivia/AboutRhetoricalQuestions rhetorical questions]] should questions]], because these tend to be avoided at all costs. The latter, sooner or later someone ''will'' [[RhetoricalQuestionBlunder reply to]]; targets for natter.

Be careful to avoid excessive bias. We aren't interested in hashing out
the former, someone will add the information you should have included in the first place, but likely as not they'll do so in a bullet point immediately after yours reading "To clarify..."

Relatedly, if you are going to remove something, make sure that what's left behind still makes sense. Administrivia/ConversationInTheMainPage
sides of an argument, and Administrivia/{{Sinkhole}}s are bad, but a bullet point directly referencing something that's no longer there isn't much better.

No one is going to complain about the vast majority of the changes you want to make to a page. Don't feel any compunctions about adding or deleting entries if you think that your impressions are accurate or defendable. That said,
we don't let your bias get permit the better removal of you and completely wipe out whatever you disagree with. If there's more than one way to look at things, [[Administrivia/RightingGreatWrongs legitimately held opinions, [[Administrivia/WhatGoesWhereOnTheWiki as long as they should all get their say]].

The redirect to this page, "You
are in the right place]]. See Administrivia/RightingGreatWrongs.

!!You
Could Always Edit it Yourself", is generally used in somewhat different circumstances, when someone complains that It Yourself

Sometimes users will post a complaint about
an example is wrong, being incorrect, or that a page is an article being infested with Administrivia/{{Natter}}, natter or that examples aren't sorted, not sorted properly, or any similar problem exists but they show no indication that they're willing to fix it or clean it up themselves. information having been missed in an article's description. The message response is usually, '''So Fix It'''. You have permission to make additions or corrections; in fact, we depend on those sorts of contributions to improve the same, though wiki's accuracy and thoroughness. '''Be Bold''' and make the changes you think are needed.

The same thing applies
if we don't have an article for a particular work or creator. '''This Is A Wiki''': if you think an article for something is wrong, fix needed, go make it. See Administrivia/HowToCreateAWorksPage for instructions and ProgramEntryTemplate for a sample page to get you started.

For tropes, we need a bit more rigor. Check TropeFinder first to see if we have the concept already. If nobody can find it, then move over to TropeLaunchPad and pitch it to the community.

!!Exceptions

* If an article is locked, visit [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=gsjp7dldjh2dwdelcha2hu17 this forum topic]] to request changes.
* As mentioned earlier, new trope concepts must get pitched to TropeLaunchPad before being made into articles.
* RealLife examples are discouraged if they are shoehorned into a trope, are describing real people in subjective terms, or are controversial. If you see an article listed as Administrivia/NoRealLifeExamplesPlease, obey
it.
* Our [[Administrivia/TheContentPolicyAndThe5PCircuit Content Policy]] prohibits articles and examples about works that are purely pornographic or are sexually exploitative of minors. When in doubt, leave it out, or ask [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13349331300A11026600 here]].


A common offender is the JustifyingEdit ("Well to be fair, the show was right to use that {{trope}} because..."), but there's plenty of variety, from [[{{Parabombing}} parentheticals]] to [[ButWaitTheresMore "Not to mention that..." tangents]] through [[ThreadMode "However" or "Actually" clauses which make the page seem like it's arguing with itself]] all the way to [[Administrivia/ConversationInTheMainPage paragraphs on end of aimless chatter]].

to:

A common offender is the JustifyingEdit Administrivia/JustifyingEdit ("Well to be fair, the show was right to use that {{trope}} because..."), but there's plenty of variety, from [[{{Parabombing}} parentheticals]] to [[ButWaitTheresMore "Not to mention that..." tangents]] through [[ThreadMode "However" or "Actually" clauses which make the page seem like it's arguing with itself]] all the way to [[Administrivia/ConversationInTheMainPage paragraphs on end of aimless chatter]].


[[Administrivia/ExampleIndentationInTropeLists The second/third bullet point is oft-misused]] to reply to an example; sentences that obviously got tacked onto a paragraph as a response are also commonplace and may be even more disruptive. The tone may be polite, passive-aggressive or sarcastic, but the result is the same: Concise examples turn into [[WallOfText walls of text]], the wiki loses its consistent voice and [[SignalToNoiseTrainWreck the interesting parts get drowned out in all the noise]].

to:

[[Administrivia/ExampleIndentationInTropeLists The second/third bullet point is oft-misused]] to reply to an example; sentences that obviously got tacked onto a paragraph as a response are also commonplace and may be even more disruptive. The tone may be polite, passive-aggressive or sarcastic, but the result is the same: Concise examples turn into [[WallOfText walls of text]], the wiki loses its consistent voice and [[SignalToNoiseTrainWreck [[Administrivia/SignalToNoiseTrainWreck the interesting parts get drowned out in all the noise]].


This is also why ZeroContextExamples and [[AboutRhetoricalQuestions rhetorical questions]] should be avoided at all costs. The latter, sooner or later someone ''will'' [[RhetoricalQuestionBlunder reply to]]; the former, someone will add the information you should have included in the first place, but likely as not they'll do so in a bullet point immediately after yours reading "To clarify..."

to:

This is also why ZeroContextExamples Administrivia/{{Zero Context Example}}s and [[AboutRhetoricalQuestions [[Administrivia/AboutRhetoricalQuestions rhetorical questions]] should be avoided at all costs. The latter, sooner or later someone ''will'' [[RhetoricalQuestionBlunder reply to]]; the former, someone will add the information you should have included in the first place, but likely as not they'll do so in a bullet point immediately after yours reading "To clarify..."


A common offender is the JustifyingEdit ("Well to be fair, the show was right to use that {{trope}} because..."), but there's plenty of variety, from [[{{Parabombing}} parentheticals]] to [[ButWaitTheresMore "Not to mention that..." tangents]] through [[ThreadMode "However" clauses which make the page seem like it's arguing with itself]] all the way to [[Administrivia/ConversationInTheMainPage paragraphs on end of aimless chatter]].

to:

A common offender is the JustifyingEdit ("Well to be fair, the show was right to use that {{trope}} because..."), but there's plenty of variety, from [[{{Parabombing}} parentheticals]] to [[ButWaitTheresMore "Not to mention that..." tangents]] through [[ThreadMode "However" or "Actually" clauses which make the page seem like it's arguing with itself]] all the way to [[Administrivia/ConversationInTheMainPage paragraphs on end of aimless chatter]].

Showing 15 edit(s) of 28

Top

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:

/

Media sources:

/

Report