TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Did strikethrough get axed when nobody was looking?

Go To

Shjade Since: Jul, 2009
#226: Apr 3rd 2011 at 4:37:09 PM

Rough math on what I remember seeing of strikethrough usage in the wiki:

Misuse/snark: 3%

Intended for humor (regardless of whether I found it funny or not): 96%

Part of a direct quote: 1%

Being funny is all well and good (though many, many people try much too hard), but removing one option for making jokes is not going to kill posting on the whole. Those jokes didn't need to be there. Occasionally they'd add something constructive to the entry; most of the time they just took up space. Not misuse, mind you, just unhelpful and messy-looking.

@folks decrying strikethrough's removal as making it "impossible" to do some things on the wiki: you're right. Specifically, it makes it impossible to write text that has a line through it. That's all. If this stylistic choice was an integral part of your editing style I have a feeling you were trying to be funny more than you were trying to make useful edits, in which case see above re: trying too hard. In most cases parenthetical reference can be used just as effectively if the struck-out text was making some reference that wasn't a joke - the Hippogryph article that seems so popular to link in this thread, for instance - or by simply not including that struck text in the first place or removing it when it would be struck (in the Glenn Magus Harvey forum post example, for instance, there was no need to cross out the question with an explanation afterward when you could just as easily delete your original question and replace it with something like "Edit: Answered my own question." Maybe it would be nice for people to know what you'd asked, but it isn't important since the question is now irrelevant. It doesn't need to be left hanging there.)

Quotation is the obvious exception, but I have to think it's a fairly uncommon one.

The damage done by universally removing struck out text is likely a problem. On the one hand, that seems a bit of an overbearing way to have done things; with some prior notice it might have been easier to clean up pages reliant on some struck text in preparation for this change (not that people are likely to have done so instead of protesting the change in hopes that it wouldn't happen, judging by the general atmosphere in this discussion). On the other, that it was being used to construct examples and so forth enough that things actually get broken when it's removed does suggest, to me at least, that it may have been a little overused for being what it is: a non-standard presentation of text. (Non-standard in that you don't normally see it in public text; the struck text is what gets cut before it goes public, that's WHY it was struck). I have to wonder why it was that widely used, to be honest.

Short version: the content of the change seems fine; its implementation seems problematic in terms of restoration post-change.

edited 3rd Apr '11 4:37:41 PM by Shjade

billybobfred Cosine! from renamed to wingedcatgirl Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Crazy Cat Lady
#227: Apr 3rd 2011 at 6:15:57 PM

Well, I just CTRL+F "strike" whenever I edit a page.

I like rewriting things, though. I imagine some think of it as pointless busywork.

she her hers hOI!!! i'm tempe
GlennMagusHarvey Since: Jan, 2001
#228: Apr 3rd 2011 at 7:11:53 PM

Well, why can't people simply fix the instances of misuse, rather than have to deal with the flat-out removal of the markup?

Shjade Since: Jul, 2009
dontcallmewave Brony? Moi? surely you jest! from My home Since: Nov, 2013
Brony? Moi? surely you jest!
#230: Apr 3rd 2011 at 7:45:33 PM

Mostly because we didnt know that it was a problem. you can be sure that if we knew that it was a problem, we would have tried to fix it.

He who fights bronies should see to itthat he himself does not become a brony. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, Pinkie Pie gazes Also
GlennMagusHarvey Since: Jan, 2001
#231: Apr 3rd 2011 at 7:50:11 PM

^ second

edited 3rd Apr '11 7:52:28 PM by GlennMagusHarvey

Shjade Since: Jul, 2009
#232: Apr 3rd 2011 at 7:52:12 PM

If you didn't know it was a problem, how would you have gone about fixing it? Not knowing it was a problem probably means you wouldn't recognize problematic usages if you saw them, given they weren't exactly hidden, doesn't it?

Further, would you really want to dedicate time to policing all of TV Tropes for strikethrough violations regularly?

I imagine not many people relished the idea. I know I wouldn't, and I would love a professional editing job. It takes a particular personality to enjoy the idea of making the same corrections again and again and again. I imagine it also takes a particular personality to suggest someone else should do that repetitive correction for the benefit of the suggester, but that's another story.

GlennMagusHarvey Since: Jan, 2001
#233: Apr 3rd 2011 at 7:53:30 PM

Uh, strikethrough-watch wouldn't get a special police task force; it'd just be an improvement of existing natter-removing standards.

(Now granted, I've never been the type to clean up natter anyway; I have a much higher tolerance for what other people consider "natter", and I feel that more of it contains meaningful commentary than most other people seem to think. I'm outvoted, and I just take it passively. When I work on the wiki I work mostly on definitions, examples, and work pages.)

edited 3rd Apr '11 7:53:53 PM by GlennMagusHarvey

dontcallmewave Brony? Moi? surely you jest! from My home Since: Nov, 2013
Brony? Moi? surely you jest!
#234: Apr 3rd 2011 at 7:54:36 PM

If we would have had a warning that it was being misused, we could have deleted the bad examples and saved the good ones

He who fights bronies should see to itthat he himself does not become a brony. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, Pinkie Pie gazes Also
Shjade Since: Jul, 2009
#235: Apr 3rd 2011 at 7:57:41 PM

Strikethrough being misused is really a surprise to you? It was one of the first things I remember reading about when I got pointed to this site the first time a few years back - not that it was phrased as "ZOMG THIS IS AN ISSUE HALP," but that strikethrough statements for banter/visibly correcting other people/making jokes was frowned-upon-to-bad.

I fall into the category of "Didn't do anything about it" mainly because I'm uncomfortable with wiki-editing stuff; I just always feel like I'm going to mess things up or upset somebody or whatever, so I don't tend to poke much. That doesn't mean I was oblivious to it existing as an issue.

GlennMagusHarvey Since: Jan, 2001
#236: Apr 3rd 2011 at 7:58:27 PM

Let me rephrase DCMW's post:

"If you had let us know that strikethrough misuse is officially considered a problem, then we could have fixed it."

edited 3rd Apr '11 7:58:44 PM by GlennMagusHarvey

Shjade Since: Jul, 2009
#237: Apr 3rd 2011 at 7:59:09 PM

Point being, when it's developed to the point of "being a problem," you've had your chance and missed it already.

dontcallmewave Brony? Moi? surely you jest! from My home Since: Nov, 2013
Brony? Moi? surely you jest!
#238: Apr 3rd 2011 at 8:01:01 PM

So you noticed it was an issue? hooray for you. the rest of us would have liked some kind of warning before a much used thing got axed, so that we might have had a chance to save it. its only common decency.

He who fights bronies should see to itthat he himself does not become a brony. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, Pinkie Pie gazes Also
GlennMagusHarvey Since: Jan, 2001
#239: Apr 3rd 2011 at 8:06:52 PM

@Shjade:

  1. Since you say you were aware this was a problem, did you try to help fix it before it got completely busted?
  2. Since when were we, as members of the TV Tropes community and all part-time wiki editors, obliged to be aware of things like this? We all have lives, y'know, even if they're Ruined By TV Tropes (TM).

edited 3rd Apr '11 8:07:00 PM by GlennMagusHarvey

Shjade Since: Jul, 2009
#240: Apr 3rd 2011 at 8:08:41 PM

I'm sure this will send the conversation spinning in circles, but the "much used" there was the warning sign. If it gets to the point where an admin-type person needs to make an official announcement for people to take notice of a feature's usage getting out of hand, chances are they'll do more than make an announcement.

It's rather like leaving things up to the judges in a fight: you're better off not doing it if you want to be sure things will go your way.

You might note, though, that I observed the actual implementation of the change was less than ideal in my post at the top of this page. Maybe I think of it being so for different reasons than you do, but all the same.

Edit:[up] 1 - previously answered.

2 - around the time you suggested admins are obliged to give a warning to people to stop screwing around in ways they should already know they're not meant to screw around and that natter-police were obliged to pick up their game earlier if the feature was getting out of hand.

[down] The content of the change was removing strikethrough, obviously.

edited 3rd Apr '11 8:12:09 PM by Shjade

GlennMagusHarvey Since: Jan, 2001
#241: Apr 3rd 2011 at 8:10:03 PM

Well, in reply to the first post of this page: What do you mean by the "content"?

I see we agree that the implemention is flawed.

dontcallmewave Brony? Moi? surely you jest! from My home Since: Nov, 2013
Brony? Moi? surely you jest!
#242: Apr 3rd 2011 at 8:11:55 PM

Oh, so we cant have a chance to fix the wiki if there is something wrong with it? this seems a bit like a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater (though admittedly, there was a lot of bathwater)

He who fights bronies should see to itthat he himself does not become a brony. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, Pinkie Pie gazes Also
Shjade Since: Jul, 2009
#243: Apr 3rd 2011 at 8:15:02 PM

[up]

See? Going in circles. Like I said: you had your chance already in viewing and editing the site knowing the expectations of its content. Seeing that it was becoming "much used" was your clue to take action, a clue I'm assuming you overlooked because a mod didn't personally PM you to say what you were seeing there was a problem and would eventually be dealt with in a more severe way if it wasn't acted upon before that action was taken.

That's not personal to you; clearly we all, or at least most of us, similarly failed to clean it up sufficiently if it's come to this. If you expect a bright neon sign to tell you whenever you need to take action, though, you're going to miss a lot of opportunities.

dontcallmewave Brony? Moi? surely you jest! from My home Since: Nov, 2013
Brony? Moi? surely you jest!
#244: Apr 3rd 2011 at 8:19:08 PM

we are going in circles mostly because you are failing to to provide a sufficient explanation as to why we couldn't have any warning. There should have been something in the wiki headlines

edited 3rd Apr '11 8:20:42 PM by dontcallmewave

He who fights bronies should see to itthat he himself does not become a brony. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, Pinkie Pie gazes Also
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#245: Apr 3rd 2011 at 8:39:16 PM

If you want to say something just say it don't strike it through. That looks sloppy to begin with. The explanation needs to be explained not covered in mark up cruft.

Short of direct quotes I saw not a single legitimate use for strike through. It is gone and good riddance.

Eddie already explained why there was no warning a couple pages back.

edited 3rd Apr '11 8:42:07 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?
BaronGrackle Since: May, 2009
#246: Apr 3rd 2011 at 9:10:54 PM

"Eddie already explained why there was no warning a couple pages back."

Mr. Eddie has an Aesop on his profile page that he seems to have forgotten about, a long time ago. :)

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#247: Apr 3rd 2011 at 9:15:00 PM

I doubt it. If it is still about the one with examples there are last I checked plenty of examples still around.

Who watches the watchmen?
GlennMagusHarvey Since: Jan, 2001
#248: Apr 3rd 2011 at 9:17:45 PM

Shjade: See? Going in circles. Like I said: you had your chance already in viewing and editing the site knowing the expectations of its content. Seeing that it was becoming "much used" was your clue to take action, a clue I'm assuming you overlooked because a mod didn't personally PM you to say what you were seeing there was a problem and would eventually be dealt with in a more severe way if it wasn't acted upon before that action was taken.

  1. I observed a few uses of the strikethrough in the wiki, and did not feel that they were excessive.
  2. I only observed a few uses, ever. Most pages I saw had no strikethrough. At least, most definitions. I don't remember examples lists as much, but even the existence of uses of strikethrough barely even registered on my radar. Which should tell you just now notable this issue is—in other words, not at all.

As for the examples, I'd say about 2% or fewer examples had strikethrough, and in those examples, roughly over 85% of the text on average does not contain strikethroughs.

edited 3rd Apr '11 9:20:36 PM by GlennMagusHarvey

hatless Since: Dec, 2010
#249: Apr 3rd 2011 at 10:40:17 PM

For those who have never ever seen striketag whingeing omg, there's a gold standard example here. With a happy ending, for once!

troacctid (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#250: Apr 3rd 2011 at 11:35:16 PM

[up] You fixed it by changing it to Natter. How is that better? tongue


Total posts: 357
Top