TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Input Needed: Reducing the Trope Repair Shop Backlog

Go To

ArcadesSabboth from Mother Earth Since: Oct, 2011
#501: Nov 28th 2011 at 9:49:42 AM

Yes please, a page explaining how much initiative to take without consensus would help a lot.

And tightening up the rules for launching a new page might help. Requiring a certain number of hats and/or examples, or a minimum number of days in YKTTW, perhaps.

edited 28th Nov '11 9:49:52 AM by ArcadesSabboth

Oppression anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere.
ArtemisStrong Wizard/Father of Tom from The Mended Drum Since: Jun, 2011
Wizard/Father of Tom
#502: Nov 28th 2011 at 1:26:38 PM

There already is a minimum 3-day waiting period (same as for gun sales in the U.S.) for YKTTW launches.

Problem with the hats is some tropes might be good, solid tropes that just simply don't speak to the people frequenting the forum, so not enough eyes are looking at it long enough to even doff their hat. I think anything that is about Badass X or Anime Vampire Hair Color Schemes is going to garner more interest than, say, Dutch Angle or French Scene.

Now, a solution that is negative but might work is having reverse-hats—it'd be akin to a filibuster in that a YKTTW couldn't launch until the reverse-hat was removed. Or reversed back into a hat? Or the hat was taken back off? Oh, you know what I mean.

And just to prevent someone reverse-hatting a YKTTW and promptly forgetting it, it could be made so any editor could reverse it. I think most people work on good faith around here, and would take a reverse hat into account and try to work a little more to hash out the concerns.

And maybe to prevent things from getting too stymied, a filibuster would only be triggered by three reverse hats, or some such.

Anyway, I apologize in advance if this is too much of a digression from the topic at hand.

edited 28th Nov '11 1:28:29 PM by ArtemisStrong

Get a slant at this glossary of Pulp Detective terms. It rates. Pipe that?
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#503: Nov 28th 2011 at 1:28:27 PM

I have said this before, but we also need a hard lock on adding any new pages to Main without a YKTTW launch or a moderator whitelisting the title.

edited 28th Nov '11 1:28:41 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Spark9 Since: Nov, 2010
shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#505: Nov 28th 2011 at 3:09:46 PM

[up][up] It's a good idea, but that's going to make making redirects much harder.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#506: Nov 28th 2011 at 4:27:49 PM

Hmm, maybe the block page can present the option of making a redirect by specifying the target article. Or we can revamp the redirect system by making it a form entry instead of just editing the page to include the code.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Discar Since: Jun, 2009
#507: Nov 28th 2011 at 4:44:07 PM

Writing up new code seems unnecessarily complicated. It would be easier to just handle it through either the edit request for a locked page thread, or just use the general mod holler box.

Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.
NoirGrimoir Rabid Fujoshi from San Diego, CA Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
Rabid Fujoshi
#508: Nov 28th 2011 at 5:50:48 PM

I wouldn't be okay with making it impossible to launch in YKTTW without five hats (I know there are some tropes that get few hats solely because few people pay attention to it), but I would be okay with increasing the time for YKTTW to a week or five days. I know most good pages that come out of the YKTTW come from those of us that recognize just slapping the page up after the three days are over whether it really is ready or not isn't the right course. I've have tropes on for as long as two or three weeks to make sure it's done right or gets enough examples to make a decent list.

SPATULA, Supporters of Page Altering To Urgently Lead to Amelioration (supports not going through TRS for tweaks and minor improvements.)
Nocturna Since: May, 2011
#509: Nov 28th 2011 at 8:25:47 PM

I also would not oppose lengthening the mandatory wait time for YKTTWs. I've only seen a very small handful of YKTTWs which were actually ready for launch at the three day point.

Deboss I see the Awesomeness. from Awesomeville Texas Since: Aug, 2009
I see the Awesomeness.
#510: Nov 28th 2011 at 8:49:33 PM

Multiteared locks? Hand out the keys to unlock the main pages (that are on the default lock) to TRS and YKTTW frequenters, since they tend to do most of it. Other reasons for lock can't be unlocked as easily.

Fight smart, not fair.
bwburke94 I am mad scientist! It's so cool! from 1.048596% (Y2: Electric Boogaloo) Relationship Status: She does the things you do, but she is an IBM
I am mad scientist! It's so cool!
#511: Dec 1st 2011 at 8:19:18 AM

Handling redirects as a separate article type from standard articles wouldn't work due to the frequency of renames (which is, of course, one of the main points of TRS in the first place.)

2025: the year it all ends?
suedenim Teutonic Tomboy T-Girl from Jet Dream HQ Since: Oct, 2009
Teutonic Tomboy T-Girl
#512: Dec 1st 2011 at 4:13:51 PM

[up]That's a problem in itself, IMO. I've long thought we'd be better off if just a small fraction of the time we spend renaming tropes (and/or arguing about it) was spent fixing trope descriptions instead.

Jet-a-Reeno!
Deboss I see the Awesomeness. from Awesomeville Texas Since: Aug, 2009
I see the Awesomeness.
#513: Dec 1st 2011 at 8:54:15 PM

Moving a page only requires time, effort, and knowledge of ctrl+v/c. Writing a new definition requires skill at writing. Since the first seems much more common than the latter, that's what gets done (When All You Have Is a Hammer… and such). I suppose we could run a recruitment drive in Writers Block or something.

Fight smart, not fair.
ArcadesSabboth from Mother Earth Since: Oct, 2011
#514: Dec 1st 2011 at 11:14:56 PM

Preferrably, if some method is found to prevent tropes being given ineffective names in the first place, then once the current bad names are all redone then much less renaming will happen from then on.

I know, theory vs. practice and all that. Just a thought.

Oppression anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere.
Camacan from Australiatown Since: Jan, 2001
#515: Dec 2nd 2011 at 12:06:31 AM

[up][up] Writing skill is useful when doing a rename. A trope name may be used in a sentence, and a straight replacement might make a mess of it. In fact, a good name will often open up opportunities to improve the structure of sentences. The really stinky bad old names bent sentences until they resembled August Ferdinand Möbius' morning pretzel.

[up] It's a good thought. Ideally folks who work YKTTW at least lurk in TRS. There they can pick up what works in practice — and what doesn't.

Deboss I see the Awesomeness. from Awesomeville Texas Since: Aug, 2009
I see the Awesomeness.
#516: Dec 2nd 2011 at 12:50:41 AM

But it takes significantly less skill than assembling a few paragraphs of info. My main problem with writing them is actual length. I tend to be exceedingly blunt and simple when writing trope descriptions to the point that I basically just stretch a laconic to a few sentences.

Fight smart, not fair.
ArtemisStrong Wizard/Father of Tom from The Mended Drum Since: Jun, 2011
Wizard/Father of Tom
#517: Dec 2nd 2011 at 9:43:00 AM

[up]See, that's not bad writing though. That's the ideal, at least for the first paragraph. Many of the tropes that have been stuck in TRS the longest are there because their description lacked any punch or brevity in the first paragraph, allowing the hivemind of TRS to bend and mangle the description to the point of nonrecognition.

I think an excellent guideline would be "The first sentence of any trope page should be the laconic's text."

If we want to sweeten it up along the way... well, it's a wiki, aint it?

Get a slant at this glossary of Pulp Detective terms. It rates. Pipe that?
shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#518: Dec 2nd 2011 at 2:42:03 PM

[up] That's a terrible idea. Most laconics are misleading and badly written. Better to actually explain the trope well in however many words it takes then to try to enforce such a standard.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
ArtemisStrong Wizard/Father of Tom from The Mended Drum Since: Jun, 2011
Wizard/Father of Tom
#519: Dec 3rd 2011 at 10:58:22 AM

[up]I said first sentence. And shouldn't laconics be correct, clear, and convey the meaning of the trope?

It is a great idea for descriptions to get to the point in the first paragraph and avoid ambiguous wording, a passive voice, or any other bad writing that makes the message murky or nebulous. Brevity is generally more communicative than wordiness.

Get a slant at this glossary of Pulp Detective terms. It rates. Pipe that?
Spark9 Since: Nov, 2010
#520: Dec 3rd 2011 at 1:09:28 PM

It strikes me that the renaming in TRS is not the problem, but the arguments about them are. Whenever a rename is being proposed, the thread will start by repeating all the common heard-it-all-before arguments for and against renaming in general.

LouieW Loser from Babycowland Since: Aug, 2009
Loser
#521: Dec 3rd 2011 at 1:40:29 PM

Artemis Strong,

I think shimaspawn was talking about laconic pages as they are now rather than what they would ideally look like if you suggestion was followed. I do not want to speak for that troper though as I might be wrong.

It is a great idea for descriptions to get to the point in the first paragraph and avoid ambiguous wording, a passive voice, or any other bad writing that makes the message murky or nebulous. Brevity is generally more communicative than wordiness.
I definitely agree with you there. I am not an expert on writing trope descriptions, but I feel like plenty of problems with usage can result from trope pages that do not get to the point. That is not to say that all descriptions should be five lines or less, just that it is generally a good idea to make it clear what a trope is about before fleshing it out with more details.

edited 3rd Dec '11 1:40:53 PM by LouieW

"irhgT nm0w tehre might b ea lotof th1nmgs i dont udarstannd, ubt oim ujst goinjg to keepfollowing this pazth i belieove iN !!!!!1 d
ArtemisStrong Wizard/Father of Tom from The Mended Drum Since: Jun, 2011
Wizard/Father of Tom
#522: Dec 3rd 2011 at 1:48:38 PM

[up]No, I get that I'm talking ideals, not reality for the most part. But we have the power to correct faulty laconics. And don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of lively, colorful descriptions that read less like encyclopedia entries and more like humorous essays. But if we can get a clear thesis out there up top... well, yeah, what you said.

Get a slant at this glossary of Pulp Detective terms. It rates. Pipe that?
shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#523: Dec 3rd 2011 at 1:53:53 PM

No, we don't have the power to correct faulty laconics at least not on a large enough scale to make them practical to use for any real purpose. We've tried. There have been several large scale efforts set up to fix them, but they never go anywhere. They're too far gone and too messed up for us to have any real impact on them and it doesn't help that people add joke ones all the time or write them without reading the trope.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Spark9 Since: Nov, 2010
#524: Dec 3rd 2011 at 3:54:23 PM

[up] I'm afraid I agree. If there were a crowner to remove the whole Laconic namespace, I would probably vote in favor.

Camacan from Australiatown Since: Jan, 2001
#525: Dec 3rd 2011 at 8:52:53 PM

My sense is the laconic namespace is useful, despite containing some poor entries. I do not think should make a hard rule to force the first sentence to be the same as the laconic. I don't even think it is universally advisable.

An article lead and have different word budgets and, to a greater or lesser extent, different objectives. Forcing the first sentence to always adopt the objective of a laconic seems needlessly heavy-handed. The article lead would suffer from the rigid requirement of starting with a one-liner capsule. Or more likely, without the isolation and discipline of being on a laconic page it would drift way from being a laconic.

Good articles often get to the point fairly promptly and incorporate a core description at or near the top. But I'm not at all sure that the best way to encourage good style is a hard rule.


Total posts: 550
Top