^^Which would be people who do agree working on it.
I think Inbound Watch was an idea that never quite got off the ground.
edited 8th Feb '12 1:00:38 PM by FastEddie
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty@Eddie 298,
Agreed.
For example, I had quite a bit to say about different options I felt were best about handling those awful nightmare things in the related thread, and I was ultimately shouted down. Now that the plan is to do something I completely disagree with, you better believe I'm not going to put in a significant amount of work on that "solution." I'll fix the tabs on works pages I watch or especially care about, but that's about it. I think the "solution" to the nightmare debacle is just going to result in another TRS thread about three to six months from now, with no real progress or change between then and now. Is that ragequitting and/or immature?
edited 8th Feb '12 1:00:07 PM by Martello
"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.Well, if they someone doesn't volunteeer for that, we really can't force them, can we? And the only one who would volunteer would be someone who cares.
EDIT: Ninja'd, of course.
You misunderstand. You yourself say you are going to work on what you care about on those pages. I think that's good.
edited 8th Feb '12 1:03:42 PM by lu127
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - FighteerKing Zeal: While I agree it's a problem (Though less than the one summarized by Madrugada) how do you want to go fixing that? Put a guy holding people at gun point to make them work on a solution they don't like? You can't really force people to do things they won't do.
However, disqualifying entries entries in a crowner that have no one volunteering to do the work they call for is easier.
EDIT Ninja'd
edited 8th Feb '12 1:01:17 PM by Ghilz
If nobody is willing to do the entry, then there's no reason for the option to be usable. I mean, it's a Captain Obvious at this point.
And agreed completely with Fast Eddie. There's absolutely no reason why they should be forced to work with a solution they don't want. If everybody makes it clear they won't do it, they usually leave or just lurk, since their minds could be changed.
Quest 64 threadOk, let me make sure I'm getting this straight: The situation that was being discussed was one where
1) a possible problem is identified.
2) Several suggestions are made about how to solve it, some drastic, others not so drastic, and one of them is "someone simply needs to clean it up and curate it."
3) "Someone simply needs to clean it up and curate it" gets the strongest support in the crowner but
4) The people who were most vocal in supporting that option won't step up and do it. They expect someone else to do it.
That's not saying "It's not what I wanted, I won't help". It's the exact opposite — saying, "It is the solution I wanted, and you didn't. You go do it for me now."
edited 8th Feb '12 1:07:22 PM by Madrugada
Well again, what's the alternative? Renaming/cutting examples/cutting pages? That will not work for every page—especially ones which are complicated or have a sliding scale criteria. Some pages will require regular cleanup and there's no way around it.
Because if we're requiring everyone to agree on every change that's enforced before they participate, then it's a wonder we get anything done here at all.
Which is also wrong.
edited 8th Feb '12 1:08:52 PM by KingZeal
![]()
![]()
That.
Can anyone fill me in on how you sign up for Inbound Watch? It might be worth it.
edited 8th Feb '12 1:07:48 PM by lu127
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer3) "Someone simply needs to clean it up and curate it" gets the strongest support in the crowner but
It's not always the "curate" options that get no one doing them though.
Here's an idea: Page action crowners need someone to sign their name to do the work (ideally, multiple people). An entry that isn't "do nothing" and that require works is automatically invalid if no one has signed off on it to do whatever work in entails.
Repeated rounds of voting until the "right" result is gained.
Issues being removed from the Wiki Headlines box when it started going the "wrong" way.
Items dragged back into the TRS time after time after time (analogous to Edit Warring on the main wiki, where the point is to make the opponents give up in frustration) even though there is no problem, other than just didn't get the result that was desired.
Moderators in TRS being firmly in the pro-action camp and not stopping dogpiles on people who advocate the status quo.
Seem like there are phases a TRS thread goes though:
- The complaint (the OP) is made.
- Consensus is sought that the complaint is a problem that needs work.
- Suggestions for solutions are made.
- Solutions are discussed.
- Crowners are used to establish which solution has the most support.
- The solution is applied.
- The TRS Thread is archived.
Can we see possible solutions for improving each phase, if any improvement is needed for that phase?
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty![]()
The issue is, a crowner is anonymous and does not require you to post anything. If you do not post in the thread, saying "I will take care of this so the issue won't arise again", how are we to know it won't? How can we tell if the majority of the people who voted, consider taking care of things/curating, or just say, "I like this, the thread doesn't, but I'll just vote to keep it and they'll have to do so anyway."
edited 8th Feb '12 1:15:54 PM by lu127
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - FighteerYes, this is exactly the problem I see a lot of the time. Thank you. It's not only a problem with curation, but with wick cleaning, too.
The worst one is when people want to keep something because "it's fun", but want other people to do the work (which is NOT fun) in order to have that fun.
EDIT: ^ Mostly through experience. In general, I have seen that the number of people who do the work compared to the number who vote is around 1-5%.
edited 8th Feb '12 1:18:39 PM by ccoa
Waiting on a TRS slot? Finishing off one of these cleaning efforts will usually open one up.![]()
Exactly. In the ANF and HONF thread, 120-odd people voted to keep them as a Disambiguation Page, but only a handful of people in the thread agreed to do anything about it. That includes L Mage, by the way.
edited 8th Feb '12 1:16:48 PM by Martello
"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.- Consensus is sought that the complaint is a problem that needs work.
- Suggestions for solutions are made.
- Solutions are discussed.
I'd like to see either the OP, or some sort of Summary attached to a thread, that appears at the top of each page of reply. To avoid what often becomes constant back and forth between tropers and loses sight of the initial problem. Could also be used to keep track of where we are on a thread for people who join in without really having to read hundreds of posts. Dunno how easily this could be implemented.
See my earlier suggestion that page action cronwers should require some people to sign off on them to do the work to be valid.
edited 8th Feb '12 1:17:50 PM by Ghilz
Okay, let me propose something I've seen before:
- Troper A notices that something is wrong with Trope 1. They make a TRS page outlining the problem.
- Tropers B-G has no knowledge about what Trope 1 is. It confuses them and they doubt that this trope is even worth saving. They vote to cut it. Troper A agrees.
- Troper H comes forth and verifies that the trope is legitimate and the description is accurate. However, people unfamiliar with it have posted examples all over the place. The examples need to be cleaned up and the page curated. Tropers I-Z agree.
- Tropers H-Z win the crowner, even though only H is really aware of how the trope works.
- No cleanup occurs. Tropers A-G say they have no obligation to help with the cleanup and I-Z have too little understanding of it to confidently edit. Troper H can't do it for whatever reason. Thus, nothing gets done.
How does this process make sense?
If only one out of 26 people can figure out how the trope work, then the trope is kinda broken. No matter what H says. And by your own situation "Tropers B-G has no knowledge about what Trope 1 is" so how do you want us to ask b-g to fix it? The situation you described? Only 1 person understands the trope: H. And MAYBE A. "Tropers B-G has no knowledge about what Trope 1 is." "I-Z have too little understanding of it to confidently edit"
So if H won't do it, despite being THE ONLY ONE who knows the trope, and SUGGESTING the fix. Who is left?
edited 8th Feb '12 1:22:18 PM by Ghilz
But that's the thing. If you claim that a trope is wrong, then that implies there's a problem to get rid of. If Troper H says, "this is how this trope works" and no one wants to curate it because of whatever hangups they have, it should be up to SOMEONE invested in the advancement of the wiki to step up and bite the bullet. Otherwise, we cut a legit trope or we leave it messed up. I don't see either of those two options inherently better than the other.
edited 8th Feb '12 1:25:46 PM by KingZeal

edited 8th Feb '12 12:59:22 PM by troacctid