TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Trope Repair Shop and Image Pickin Problem

Go To

FastEddie Since: Apr, 2004
#126: Dec 26th 2010 at 11:13:43 AM

Let's see if the new message on the conversation creation page can at least get us all starting with the same information.

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
KJMackley Since: Jan, 2001
#127: Dec 26th 2010 at 12:18:14 PM

Here are two things that come about from the "Forum Clique" debate:

  • People assume that because it was discussed in a forum that somehow that is the end-all of the discussion and don't feel they need to explain themselves when modifying the trope. Even with the forum banners at the top I tend to look more at the page history or the discussion tab to see why something was modified, because you don't have to read through pages of posts. If an edit reason was "go to this discussion" I just might just to see the reasons.
  • The "Rules" of the wiki are quoted and then half of the discussion is just debating on what those rules actually imply, instead of whether or not the particular example falls under it. Pretty much the entire life of People Sit On Chairs is people debating on what the policy means. Similarly, people seem to interpret their own rules and then treat making a forum topic as an excuse to impliment those rules, regardless of even forum consent.

As an example, someone added an image to Bash Brothers that was Mario driving a fourwheel with Luigi throwing shells off the back. I came across the page and the image was just gone, with no reasons why posted in the edit comments or discussion tab. I put it back because there wasn't any information as to why. A few days later I stumbled across an Image Pickin' forum on it where they explained it was a repeat image from Sibling Team (which has since been changed, fixing the duplication problem). But they deleted a good image without finding a suitable replacement, which is sort of the "impliment your own rules" I mentioned.

But if people are more aware of the two bullet points and strive to avoid that behavior I think things would improve.

edited 26th Dec '10 12:18:37 PM by KJMackley

SomeGuy Some Guy from totally uncool town Since: Jan, 2001
Some Guy
#128: Dec 26th 2010 at 12:49:25 PM

Fast Eddie, what do you mean by "new message on the conversation creation page"? What is this feature going to do, and how will it help?

On the idea of changing the guidelines- I still favor the simple rule I proposed earlier. "If someone complains about anything, see to it that their complaint is in some way addressed in a satisfactory manner". Guidelines are the problem, because they're just vague enough that people can argue over them. What we need to do is say "fuck guidelines- the right way is the way that involves fixing problems".

I really need to emphasize this- the editing style of the posters here is framed largely by imitation. The vast majority of casual editors are easy-going and willing to admit they've made an error as long as someone takes the trouble to explain to them what the error is. If they're satisfied with this, then they'll keep this framework in mind as they make new edits. If we're going to get anywhere, we need somebody to go through the stale list and start dealing with these ancient notifications. I have a feeling forumites clean up their act about "gaming the system" real fast if they realize that these discussions will have finite conclusions with or without their input.

See you in the discussion pages.
SomeGuy Some Guy from totally uncool town Since: Jan, 2001
Some Guy
#130: Dec 26th 2010 at 1:32:08 PM

Oh, well now your previous post makes a great deal more sense. I keep forgetting the forum terminology.

I'd like to suggest a post-script note to Everything You Wanted To Know About Changing Titles in light of the conversation we've had here-

  • Note that these are only suggestions for starting a worthwhile conversations. These aren't rules that are set in stone- ultimately, the decision to rename a trope is based not on adherence to categories, but on the question of whether or not the title is working. This is not a debate club. Our goal is the resolution of complaints, not scoring more points than the other guys.

...Some sort of resolution about what to do about the overly long stale list would also be nice, but for now we can see whether this has any effect on culture.

See you in the discussion pages.
EternalSeptember Since: Sep, 2010
#131: Dec 26th 2010 at 2:20:26 PM

Call me dense, but I still can't comprehend what's Fast Eddie's problem with the Ykttw about how to prove misuse, considerinng that proving misuse is already one of the expectations of renames according to the guideline anyways?

How are we supposed to discuss renaming without it?

That Troper: I propose that we should rename Big Damn Heroes, because it could be mistake for giant-sized, swearing heroes!

The Other Troper: Are you sure that anyone actually misunderstands this?

That Troper: Yes, I am.

Report Siht: Well, I'm not.

The Other Troper: Neither am I.

That Troper: Whatever, believe me, it is widely misused.

Report Siht: No, it's not.

That Troper: Yes, it is

Report Siht: No, it's not.

That Troper: Yes, it is

edited 26th Dec '10 2:22:36 PM by EternalSeptember

FastEddie Since: Apr, 2004
#132: Dec 26th 2010 at 2:32:34 PM

Straw argument. It goes more like. A: "I saw it misused in about 20 of the first thirty I checked." B: "Yeah, needs work."

edited 26th Dec '10 2:34:25 PM by FastEddie

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
MoCellMan from Connecticut, USA Since: Jun, 2010
#133: Dec 26th 2010 at 2:41:49 PM

I don't really know where to put this, but this thread seems as good as any other place. In the ongoing TRS discussion of Funny Aneurism Moment, the page action crowner sort of became an alt titles crowner, due to some trouble with another old but still existing crowner.

So, during that discussion, it occurred to me that I visit just about every link that has a crowner up, but if it's a page action crowner, I may not look at that discussion again, after I've voted, for quite some time - especially if I see there is acrimonious discussion going on and I've already voted. However, I do want to know if/when the discussion changes to alt titles and an alt titles crowner goes up.

If we had crowner icons with, say, different colors, it would become more obvious to the casual TRS visitor what kind of crowner was going on there. If they saw it change to an alt titles crowner, they may be more likely to come in and vote. Maybe even the TRS button on the page under discussion could show what kind of crowner it was, which could encourage readers of that page to come in and vote as well (like it could say, we're debating what to do with this page for a page action crowner, or we're weighing potential new page names for an alt titles crowner, or whatever).

edited 26th Dec '10 4:21:37 PM by MoCellMan

Searching for plausible mechanisms.
EternalSeptember Since: Sep, 2010
#134: Dec 26th 2010 at 3:02:46 PM

[up][up]

And that YKTTW explains exactly how to do that check, and present the results to the TRS.

Presenting the specific examples in the thread is also important, so we can counter-check each other, and see that our own understanding of the trope is correct.

I'm just coming from a thread that already got a rename crowner on the basis of misuse, because Sean Murray I reported rampant misuse in a single sentence, but when I looked into it now, and formally reported a check, it was revealed that we have a drastically different understanding of how the trope should be used, and maybe there is no misuse at all-

edited 26th Dec '10 3:04:21 PM by EternalSeptember

SomeGuy Some Guy from totally uncool town Since: Jan, 2001
Some Guy
#135: Dec 26th 2010 at 3:35:25 PM

Do we have any kind of strategy to work against these ceaseless straw arguments than just being preventative? What's the plan when one of these is actively going on? Should someone say or do something, or do we just let it languish until it's at the top of the stale list?

See you in the discussion pages.
troacctid (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#136: Dec 26th 2010 at 4:06:23 PM

Further support here in favor of the proposed Predefined Message.

EternalSeptember Since: Sep, 2010
#137: Dec 26th 2010 at 6:18:13 PM

The "Rules" of the wiki are quoted and then half of the discussion is just debating on what those rules actually imply, instead of whether or not the particular example falls under it. Pretty much the entire life of People Sit On Chairs is people debating on what the policy means.

I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing. Before PSOC was there, people still accused each other's trope suggestions of being PSOC, it just took a lot longer to get to that point of defining what does it mean to have a "too meaningless" concept, and after that, we could start debating whether or not the page in question is guilty of it. Nowadays, someone just has to link to PSOC, and they can start the debate by arguing wherer or not it includes the page in question. People Sit On Chairs is not a policy, it's just an observation why certain trope suggestions are bound to fail.

And that's what having Predefined Messages means: Not having to reinvent the wheel in every discussion. If we know for certain, that the same issues will pop up all the time, and the majority has the same resolutions for them, we could as well skip the redundant part, and start debating where it still matters:

This doesn't mean that we have thought-stopping rules, just that we know which debates are the ones that always lead to the same ending. For example, if we would have no guidelines about details of how to prove misuse, the strawman debate I previously posted, would sooner ror later really end up with something like Fast Eddie's reply, a more solid suspicion of misuse. And after that, someone would call bullshit, and demand more specific proofs of misuse. (because that's what people do). Someone else would figure out that it's most practical to post the checked examples in a list format.

Because this is how it works, anyways. By the time someone says "I think this title might be misunderstood", and someone says "no, it isn't", the armies are up in arms, and it's predetermined that ten pages later, it will all boil down to an example ceck with 30 examples. So we could as well just cut out that part with a link, a check-test-list in the next post, and jump to the part where we discuss how to fix the page.

edited 26th Dec '10 6:23:47 PM by EternalSeptember

MoCellMan from Connecticut, USA Since: Jun, 2010
#138: Dec 26th 2010 at 7:35:25 PM

Myself, I'm not in favor of the Predefined Message. Even if the argument feels the same in every discussion, the nuance is different, and a Predefined Message is more likely to come to feel like a Rule.

Searching for plausible mechanisms.
FastEddie Since: Apr, 2004
#139: Dec 26th 2010 at 10:53:10 PM

I'm still trying to figure out how to digest "there was a discussion going on, so I voted and split" coupled with "could you make that even easier?"

Wild idea: How about we make it so there can only be N renaming threads open at any given time. If the queue is full, some have to be closed before any more can be opened. Coupling this with the mechanism of it ain't been closed until a mod closes it, we may install an incentive to produce decisions.

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
EternalSeptember Since: Sep, 2010
#140: Dec 27th 2010 at 5:10:46 AM

[up] Sounds good to me, but unless you changed your mind about predefined messages and guidelines since the previous page, I can't see it working with your own approach.

If threads would need to be finished as fast as possible, it would be one more reason to make the repair process as automatic as we can, so, as I said in my previous post, we wouldn't have to start every thread from square one, and reinvent the wheel.

Otherwise, every one of those threads would be stalled by me and Triple Elation having ideological debates about what makes a title bad, and what is good for the wiki. More useful discussions would be held back in the queve, just so we could slowly go along the same approach, over and over again, but, as Mo Cell Man said, always with slightly different nuances.

That would be like a country's democratic leadership, that would start every lawmaking debate by arguing whether or not democracy is a good thing, if the current leadership is legitimate, and if elections are a good way to determine the public opinion. If we already know that the answer is yes, it wouldn't actually make the system more fair, or more friendly, just more slow.

MoCellMan from Connecticut, USA Since: Jun, 2010
#141: Dec 27th 2010 at 5:35:12 AM

My suggestion was directed towards getting more votes in TRS discussions, something I thought was desired. I figured if people could tell that there was something new going on, they may come back into the discussion. And discussions where the crowner has been up for a while, and the talk itself has gotten to be either stale reiteration or mean-spirited, people are going to stop opening that thread, and then not come back to the discussion to vote on the alt names crowner. I think something like that happened with Rid Me Of This Priest. Fewer people would come in to vote yes or no on any newly proposed names. It could be handy to have something that says "there are new names to vote on" or something.

Usually when people vote, all their choices are present at the time they vote, voting stays open for a set limited time, and when that time has passed, whatever was on top wins. Here, voting stays open for a long time, new choices can be added to the ballot at any time, and you have no way of knowing when the polls will close. I thought it would be handy to at least have a way to know that the previous thing you voted on in this thread has been called, and now we're trying to decide what to do based on that previous vote, so come back and take a look.

Myself, I am up in the air about whether there should be more general wiki voting. I think there would be more voting without reading the discussion first, which would probably lead lower quality results. Maybe you should have to page through the entire discussion first before you can vote!

The colors was just an idea...I just think there should be some means of seeing progress.

We could have a limit to the number of rename threads that can be open at once...but sometimes it's okay to have a thread sit open for a long time, if it's clear a trope needs a rename, but no one has proposed a well-liked replacement (as also happened with Rid Me Of This Priest). Quite a while after the alt titles crowner was posted, a name that got positive response was added and the vote could finally be called. If not for that kind of thing, I would think it would be a good idea to have a time limit on all crowners, and all rename threads in general, but sometimes it's been good to have one linger.

Searching for plausible mechanisms.
FastEddie Since: Apr, 2004
#142: Dec 27th 2010 at 5:39:38 AM

So those don't get any action. When everything in the queue is locked up, we don't get progress on renaming. Which is fine, because the progress we will be needing is on deadlocking resolution. No need to work the philosophy in every thread, the back log can just wait until it is worked out, most likely in a Wiki Talk thread.

Now, what codifies "worked out"? Agreement on process. We'll check to see if it is broken. Cool, nobody has a problem with that. The guidelines are present to determine that. Nothing new needed there.

If it is broken, we'll look at alternative titles. We know how to do that, too. The "tableware" divisions have, you'll notice, become a lot more like the joke they are than the logjams they were for awhile.

I do think the limited-queue thing will focus attention and that people will encourage chronic log-jammers to get over their crap so some progress can be made.

The more interesting TRS threads are about things like splits and clarifications, anyway. Might be nice to let the renaming mania die down a bit.

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
EternalSeptember Since: Sep, 2010
#143: Dec 27th 2010 at 5:59:58 AM

We'll check to see if it is broken. Cool, nobody has a problem with that. The guidelines are present to determine that.
Except that the guidelines don't clarify things like "Where can I find a list of wicks?", or "How do I check the rate of misuse, without reading through a thousand pages?"

Again, these are technical details that newbies repeatedly ask, and I have to write down the answers over and over and over again. I still don't understand what is your problem with only having to write it down once.

edited 27th Dec '10 6:00:30 AM by EternalSeptember

FastEddie Since: Apr, 2004
#144: Dec 27th 2010 at 6:14:48 AM

No problem writing it down once, or referring people to the guidelines.

Which say "press 'related to..'". That seems pretty clear.

I suppose we can put together some sort of explanation of how to use the google site search to get a page or so of context-placed uses of the term around the wiki.

edited 27th Dec '10 6:16:48 AM by FastEddie

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
suedenim Teutonic Tomboy T-Girl from Jet Dream HQ Since: Oct, 2009
Teutonic Tomboy T-Girl
#145: Dec 27th 2010 at 6:23:37 AM

I think Fast Eddie's idea makes some sense. I've always thought the TRS community has an odd fixation on renaming tropes above all other sorts of repair. To me, "bad descriptions" are a far more serious and pervasive problem for the site than "bad trope names."

Jet-a-Reeno!
EternalSeptember Since: Sep, 2010
#146: Dec 27th 2010 at 6:25:33 AM

[up][up] As I already said, we also had problems, from people who didn't present their results, rrom people who didn't know how to randomize their results, who counted "undetermined" examples as incorrect, etc.

I'm not trying to write guidelines for the hell of it, but because these are things that newbies should learn about.

Just take another look at the Ykttw Is there anything specific in it, that bugs you? Because I can attest that about everything written in it could be a useful tool for me and other tropers, so if there is anything we could change to make it acceptable, that would be very... good.

[up] In general, I agree about that, and surprisingly, this time even with Fast Eddie's general philosophy, I'm just a bit annoyed that my ykttw got tangled up in this barely related issue.

edited 27th Dec '10 6:28:45 AM by EternalSeptember

MoCellMan from Connecticut, USA Since: Jun, 2010
#147: Dec 27th 2010 at 8:22:06 AM

I suspect part of what makes rename threads popular is that they feel like big changes, so they are more fun to propose ("I got this thread renamed" vs. "I got some words in the description changed" - one just sounds more like an accomplishment) and they feel like big changes so they provoke more reaction. You also get to propose new names, which is both fairly easy (compared to reworking large amounts of text) and if your name gets picked you can feel like it is yours (vs. feeling like an editor for someone else's stuff). They are also easier to participate in in a casual manner. And because they feel like important changes, more people will voice an opinion because they will care more than if what's at issue is whether some sentences partway down the page gets changed. And (part of) the change is relatively easy to effect as well - rather than having to do all the work of, say, a split, rooting through every example and debating where it should go, it's a simple cut and paste (though this is not true of the wicks).

It's an odd fact that what may be the biggest change to a page is also the easiest change to participate in, at least in terms of deciding whether it happens or no.

I do think the overall user-friendliness of the wiki has been helped by many of the trope renames (the complete ones, not any where the wicks were just left there to sit), though I think there are other kinds of changes that would benefit the wiki more. I choose to actually do some of the renaming because it's something I can do while tending my microscope.

Searching for plausible mechanisms.
TripleElation Diagonalizing The Matrix from Haifa, Isarel Since: Jan, 2001
Diagonalizing The Matrix
#148: Dec 27th 2010 at 9:38:44 AM

I think the focus on renaming in the TRS is mainly because if you think a description is unclear or broken, you can just go ahead an fix it. If you feel like it's too big a change, you end up starting a rework/redefine thread in the TRS (those are also popular). Renaming a trope is more big of a deal and you can't just go ahead and do it (if this were permissible all hell would break loose), so this is the stuff we end up having discussions in the TRS about.

September- maybe if rename threads had some sort of expiry date on them like Some Guy is suggesting, our ideological filibustering would become harmless. If people (including us) had a limited time to bring up the best for/against arguments they can think of before a decision is reached, the discussion will be more likely short and to the point.

Also, maybe your YKTTW could work better as a how-to thing. e.g. "You claim that the title is unclear. Do you have any evidence to back it up? (see How To Investigate Misuse)." Then it's not a "predefined message missile" anymore.

edited 27th Dec '10 11:35:11 AM by TripleElation

Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate to
MoCellMan from Connecticut, USA Since: Jun, 2010
#149: Dec 27th 2010 at 9:49:49 AM

I've thought that maybe some kind of schedule - like, if a rename thread is proposed, one week to advance arguments before a page action crowner is put up, one week to vote on that, and then if it's a "yes to make a change" vote, one week to propose changes, which are all put into a new crowner (which then doesn't change while it's gathering votes) and that stays up for one more week before it's called. I wouldn't mind some kind of, for renames a, "can't propose to rename this again" for some number of months.

This would have advantages and disadvantages, and I don't know a way to suggest that would keep the good things about they way the process works now while allowing for something like this (never mind the code work that would be put on those that maintain the underpinnings of the wiki).

edited 27th Dec '10 9:51:23 AM by MoCellMan

Searching for plausible mechanisms.
SomeGuy Some Guy from totally uncool town Since: Jan, 2001
Some Guy
#150: Dec 27th 2010 at 11:28:02 AM

Triple Elation pretty much nailed it. Fixer-uppers on descriptions and organization are almost always brought up on discussion pages. This is because the complaints are seldom "this description is 'terrible''", but rather "this doesn't make any sense. Could someone please explain it?" It's the key advantage of non-factionalized culture. We assume that something is wrong with the page for someone to complain about it, and go from there instead of saying The Complainer Is Always Wrong. Splits or subtle trope distinctions are handled the same way, usually by shifting the conversation to YKTTW to create a new trope that's a little more specific.

As far as the queue thing- I guess I might as well be blunt about it. You can't expect Trope Repair Shop regulars to be responsible for this. It's not that I think they're unwilling to, but rather that it's beyond their abilities. I presented three options for stale threads earlier- either implement the solution, lock the thread, or attach a crowner to quantify a contentious discussion. Regular tropers can only do one of these things. The rest lies with the mods. Implement a queue without making sure the mods are filling quotas on locking threads is only going to make the back-up even worse than it already is.

We honestly don't even need new software for this. The mods could go through the stale list right and just deal with this stuff. Most of these have really obvious next steps already spelled out. Looking at the top of the list right now-

  • Another Side, Another Story: Reasonable points are posited both for and against a rename. Post a crowner and check again in three days to decide whether to lock or go to the next crowner level.
  • Five More Minutes: All agreed the name was terrible. An excellent new title was identified. Rename the trope and lock the thread.
  • Beauty, Brains, and Brawn (image): Old image was removed. Through the course of discussion, a good visual representation of the trope was found. Add to the page and lock the thread.

This isn't rocket science. With the ability to lock threads and hook crowners I could probably get this under control.

See you in the discussion pages.

Total posts: 168
Top