Follow TV Tropes
It's not about permission or gatekeeping, just the amount of work involved. It does not require much work to drop a link saying "Hey, we're discussing this here" on the discussion, or to type %% instead of deleting an entry that may contain valid information. It makes those problems easier to fix.
%% is for Administrivia.Zero Context Example and for mod notices, like information about pictures chosen in IP threads or approved quotes, or for notes that a page has issues. It's not for examples that are misuse that someone might move somewhere else.
I did leave an edit reason linking to this thread. It's a lesser thing than leaving a note on a discussion page?
You and other 'active' editors don't own the page, no matter how much content you wrote and how much time you dedicated to it. You have no right to expect special treatment.
I think it's about time the site did something about these discussion pages living entirely separate from the forum. It's like having two forums at the same time.
It seems like this would fall under of the umbrella of a page having issues. And I don't think bumping a page when you're planning to make any reasonably major change to its organization counts as special treatment. Ideally, it should be the same for every active page.
Agreed. I think Fighteer mentioned this has been on the site's wishlist for some time.
Edited by Unsung on Jun 21st 2019 at 11:22:36 AM
Nobody owns an article. Anyone may make changes to it without asking permission first. If those changes are incorrect, because they are not valid examples, violate indentation or context rules, or whatever, then the troper in question should be notified and corrections made. Nobody gets to make an article comply with some personal vision of style or content. That is not how we work.
A user looking at an article and seeing issues with it is neither required nor encouraged to carefully check the history or discussion to see if someone has claimed it. They are encouraged to leave edit reasons for any changes, and this is especially the case if the changes are part of a policy or cleanup discussion, since not everyone may know about it.
If a person who is accustomed to curating an article has an issue with these changes, they may bring them up with the other party and work out whatever the problem is, preferably without engaging in accusations of bad faith or claiming that "they should have been consulted first". If this discussion is not fruitful, Ask The Tropers or the forums may get involved.
The important part of this is that there is no "mine" on TV Tropes.
Yes, we want to do some kind of synthesis of article discussions with the forums, but until that happens, the article discussion is never the correct place to debate policy, and unless an edit reason directs users to the discussion, there cannot be an assumption that any given user will check it first.
Edited by Fighteer on Jun 21st 2019 at 1:41:02 PM
That's really not what I was suggesting, but understood. Is there an official ruling about whether problematic but non-ZCE examples can be commented out while the page is being worked on?
Leaving examples commented is never ideal. An example either is or is not valid. Commenting ZCEs is something we do to encourage tropers with greater knowledge of the work to expand them, but as a general practice, incomplete examples should not be left hidden as a way of shoving the work off to someone else, especially if you are the one adding them in the first place.
In other words, if you are writing an article, do not write incomplete examples. Do complete work or don't do it at all. If you are cleaning up an article and cannot completely fix an example, that is the only case when leaving it commented is appropriate.
You are welcome to use a Sandbox page or an offline notepad or whatever to draft things up if that helps.
Edited by Fighteer on Jun 21st 2019 at 3:06:58 PM
No, that's clear. These are entries not written by me that are under repair. Thank you.
I'll just add that at any given time all pages should a) look complete (i.d. have decent description and at least three tropes with context; except for sandboxes which are "work in progress") and b) all pages are potentially being worked on — anyone is welcome to add tropes, tweak descriptions or improve example context.
Edited by XFllo on Jun 22nd 2019 at 2:31:14 PM
Please stop complaining about my edits. They were correct. No one was forced to clean up after my edits. If anything, my edits ensured there is less misuse on the page.
From Fighteer's post:
How about you direct all this energy in cleaning that particular page?
Ronnie Armitage is Arkady Darell ban evading and has been bounced.
Huh. Who'd woulda thunk it?
I should say that while I do think Unsung has a point here (that is, seek proper consensus before making potentially controversial edits to an article), I also don't think Xfllo did anything wrong; as another editor who habitually goes and cleans up pages for works I've never even heard of, I can agree that people shouldn't be expected to discuss these sort of pages with the "normal" editors for the page, because more often than not, page problems (such as misused tropes) go unnoticed by those who usually do the edits— especially in the case of trope misuse. It's simple bias- if a page you like looks okay to you before this other editor comes along, of course you'd be resistant to having things changed. That doesn't mean the page didn't need to be fixed, it just means that it took another pair of eyes to fix it.
Concerning the misused edits specifically, the examples containing factual information does not automatically make their use in tropes valid, and if an example is written in a way that makes it appear invalid, more often than not, it is invalid— and if it actually is a valid example, the burden of proof in this case isn't on the person claiming the example doesn't fit, it's on the people who claim it does if one knows the work, because the example should've been written to make sense to everyone, regardless.
Honestly, if a page has problems, they need to be fixed, and that doesn't require discussing with the people who frequently edit the page. These edits may still require discussion, of course, but I find a good place for that is ATT to get as big a variety of tropers as possible to chime in, familiar with the work or not.
I find it more useful to ask on a forum thread if it already exists. Especially since there is no way to easily track threads on ATT.
Anyway, in addition to the work I mentioned earlier (which still needs massive cleaning), Fanfic.Ebotts Wake is...eugh.
I'm taking care of the first entry on TRS Wick Cleaning: Change Kuudere to Sugar-and-Ice Personality when it's not discussing the fanspeak term
What should I do with this? I don't see how sugar-and-ice has anything to do with ghosts, but cutting it out makes it a ZCE:
I'd cut it entirely on the grounds that it makes no sense.
Oops, wrong thread. Things get a bit confusing with so many cleanup threads.
Edited by Redmess on Jun 24th 2019 at 10:21:13 AM
Edited post: S'all good!
Yeah, I can't make heads or tails of it, either.
Edited by WarJay77 on Jun 24th 2019 at 4:23:03 AM
Hey, this may seem a little strange, but The Turner Diaries needs a lot of clean-up. Ignoring the work itself, the page is full of ZCEs, spoilers, indentation/natter issues, a huge spoiled-out wall-of-text, and I'm positive some of the tropes are being misused.
Bit late to the party, but in the future there is a thread specifically for self-demonstrating Character Pages.
Please forgive me if this is in the wrong place. I was wandering through the One-Punch Man character pages today, and I noticed that the image formatting for the character Gyoro Gyoro in One-Punch Man: Monster Association is completely borked. I cannot, however, figure out why — when I copy and paste the offending text block into this post, it seems to work just fine:
Might anyone be able to help me figure out what's going wrong here?
Characters.Predormitum Nox and Characters.Predormitum Lux: ZCE entries (one of them I just removed on the former for a TRS cleanup effort) as well as standard filler text for tropes and descriptions that lack either. I'd take care of them, but I'm still focused on the TRS cleanup, and editing on mobile isn't the greatest.
Edited by Berrenta on Jul 25th 2019 at 8:48:12 AM
Yeah, those are bad. Maybe I can tackle them, or at least one of them.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?