Natter in the trope description.: Artistic License Nuclear Physics

Yes, there is a crapload of natter in the description for this trope. Seems several editors cant agree on many of the details regarding nuclear policy. Suggest somebody who actually knows about it (AKA, not me) should rewrite the description.

And its also in the description for You Fail Nuclear Physics Forever.

Is there a wiki policy to allow tons of clarifying edits in certain tropes or something?

"Is there a wiki policy to allow tons of clarifying edits in certain tropes or something?"

Um...what's the appropriate internet response? "Lol no"?

Anyway, some of that can be easily collapsed down by just incorporating the successive bullet points into the top while removing some of the "actually..." language which I've started on. Also, no, one does not need to put an example in a second bullet point in the main description, that is why the examples list exists, so I deleted a couple of them..

The big section in the middle is just hard to read while editing, so I'll go over a comprehensive review of that and then try to see if I can make it more manageable. Some bits seem to start talking about things unrelated to the starting bullet point, for Pete's sake!

Edit: I took that central bit, did use bullet points because it had a country by country basis but shortened, took out natter, fourht level bullet points and the like, and then tided up some of the rest. It is at least now considerably shorter and does not look like natter.

edited 30th Jun '11 5:29:14 AM by SomeSortOfTroper

I've also put this into a comment on the edit page:

If you think a point in the description is not strictly accurate, try writing out the correction in a sandbox page, fully incorporating it into the main paragraph, do not insert Natter. If this makes it too long and unwieldy, you have discovered why somebody else wrote the less accurate version.

Now I may have to go do the same for You Fail Nuclear Physics Forever, I haven't looked over that yet.

Why was that not renamed to Artistic License – Nuclear Physics, anyway?

Edit: Oh wait, it was. Nevermind.

edited 30th Jun '11 12:47:15 PM by nrjxll

tag changed.

Generally, when someone goes off on a factual tangent in the description, my response is to chop it off and stick it in a Useful Notes with a "how stuff works is here" line.