Trope Repair Shop: Does it need improvement? (also concerns Image Pickin')

Well I say those reasons could be split off into subsections if a mod deems the thread worthy. Otherwise it's to help make it clear why a thread is being made.

Also, what about "Non-Indicative Name" being another TRS option? This could cover stuff like character-named tropes, and tropes that are named after lines that don't indicate the trope (especially when there is a relevant line in the work that should have been used*).

* Which is why "Cat's in the cradle" was renamed to When You Coming Home, Dad?.

^ No, because a Non-Indicative Name is not a problem. It's the Underuse and Misuse that these names usually lead to that is the problem.

Except there is a guideline against names for those reasons I brought up, and we have renamed even well used, and correctly used, and both, names for that reason ("The Mario" was renamed to Jack of All Stats despite lots of wicks and inbounds, and little misuse).

Maybe because a name with little misuse and widespread wicking is not likely a Non-Indicative Name?

Anyway, I think the point is to make easily to prove problems tagged rather than "Problem, but only demonstrable/problem because of another problem"

I'll put in a feature to filter the list by specific tag-title.

Does the tag need to replace the thread title? That's not how tags usually work. =/

I'd prefer it didn't replace the title.

Far as I'm concerned, tag should replace title only if there is no actual title supplied on the form.

Actually, it is easy to prove a name is non-indicative, because the definition points are not stated in some names. Again, we have renamed tropes for that reason.

Under the new rules, however, non-indicative name is not sufficient on its own; you have to prove that there is either extensive misuse or underuse of the trope name happening.

Okay, that's a good reason.

Quote myself: "People could title the threads with a 'why' instead of a 'what.' "

This is allowing people to see "what the thread starter thinks is a problem with this trope" (or "why the thread starter brought the trope to the TRS") instead of "what the thread starter thinks should happen with a trope." The new format encourages discussion on the whole trope/problem while the first is basically asking a Yes/No question: "Is this something we should [insert cut, rename, etc.] or not?"

It will also be less "threatening" to people from YKTTW to see "Ambiguous Name" than "Rename" or "Cut."

As for other "trope/page problems," they should go to Wiki Talk (for questions and general "this page needs a clean-up") or Special Efforts (for "this series of tropes needs a clean up" and things that just need a LOT of work) first, not TRS. If the WT or SE thread determines that a change needs to happen in the the trope name/description, then it should go to TRS under the appropriate category.

The opposite is also true: when TRS determines what should be done to a trope and no one immediately does it, it should be brought up in WT or SE.

...Wow. Don't know about anyone else, but I think that this description is almost Administrivia worthy

EDIT: That person should go to WT and ask "Is [trope] a non-indicative name?" If the answer is yes, the process of figuring out that "yes" would provide evidence for the TRS thread.

edited 21st Feb '12 11:02:14 AM by Belian

I hope this is not a side issue, but... does the TRS have any basis for claiming ownership over editing a trope? Truly curious, I am a long time wiker, a very recent forumite.

^Yes. Consensus building. It has the implicit licence to change definitions as it sees fit. No one else but the admins are allowed to do that, and regular tropers should only do a bit of tweaking, but not actually change a definition.

To clarify what he(?) is asking, is that if all large-scale changes to a trope (redefine, example sectionotomy, merge, split, cut, rename) require a TRS thread.

I know this is the way we do things, and I have seen people edit banned for doing these things without consensus, but I cannot find a place where this policy is put down in writing.

Having this in writing would be nice.

edited 21st Feb '12 1:21:17 PM by ccoa

All articles belong to the wiki. That is the only 'ownership' anything has here.

ninja'd.

Oh. Big changes are handled this way because we've learned that doing them without consensus leads to ugly places. The procedure grew out of the desire to collaborate, not a rule.

edited 21st Feb '12 1:23:10 PM by FastEddie

But it has become an unwritten rule to seek general consensus (since absolute consensus would require checking the opinion of every one of the 1000s of registered tropers!) before doing any large-scale changes. I can only see writing said rule down being of great benefit to TV Tropes newbies who at least try to check up on the rules/guidelines when they first come in.

Knock yourself out. I think that culture works better than rules ... Ooh!

Dude, I could totally get behind a list of "Customs." If you want to make a list of our active customs, I think it's be great.

Maybe summarize all the customs in the Trope Repair Shop page? It is terribly uninformative in its current state. Hopefully, this could help minimize unfortunate incidents (like the Staff Chick thread).

edited 21st Feb '12 2:23:08 PM by lu127

Considering that I just got a warning from Fast Eddie in the TRS, I think it could stand to be written down. I've been editing the wiki for years, and after hundreds (thousands?) of visits, I've never seen anything like a suggestion I shouldn't just fix things that look broken. I'm not a big "rules" person myself, but apparently, there is a rule, and if there is a rule, people should be told what it is. I'm not a complete newbie to the wiki; I coined the name of at least one Overdosed Trope and helped write the text.

Currently, if you edit an article, the only sign that you may be "breaking policy" or "rules lawyering" is a button toward the top that just takes you to the TRS thread.

And even if there's no banner, people still aren't supposed to make large, major changes without consensus.

I'm surprised this rule hasn't been written down yet.

This is the second time in a week I've had to revert a change by someone who assumes we work like Wikipedia - change first, debate later. Having a Customs page to point them to would be very helpful indeed.

I shall YKTTW that. Back with the link in a bit.

Well, the Trope Renaming Guidelines are very clear that a trope should never be renamed without consensus.

Renamed, yes, but redefined? Or have an Example Sectionotomy? Both of those happened in the past week by someone unfamiliar with that aspect our culture.

YKTTW draft. Help appreciated.

Change first, debate later is the only way a wiki can survive! It's the core principle of how wikis work in general. Without it, you'd get paralyzed by mountains of discussion over ultimately uncontroversial things.

That is to say, if you want to make a major improvement to an article, you should be encouraged to do so, immediately! If someone else objects, they can revert, and then you talk it out — once you know that there's an objection, some sort of controversy requiring the time to seek consensus.

Requiring that people seek consensus before making any major change at all (that is, before you even know whether it's controversial or not) paralyzes the wiki in several ways. It discourages people from fixing problems by forcing them to go through additional red tape. It overwhelms our already-overburdened decision-making processes. It results in situations where one person points out a problem, and because nobody really cares, the discussion just dies when he could have just uncontroversially fixed it on his own in one edit without running it past anyone.

Obviously, it's different if you're making an edit that you should know is controversial — if you want to delete half the examples, or do something that people are currently arguing about on TRS, ask and seek consensus first.

But we should encourage users to do as much as possible without going through TRS. Users should be encouraged to make large, major improvements to articles, and they shouldn't be told that they have to open up a new deadweight TRS thread each time.

(I think that part of the problem is that people here are too terrified of reverts. A revert war is a bad thing, yes. But one revert is not a bad thing. One of the core principles of a wiki is that the text is constantly being improved — when you see a way to improve something, you do it; if someone objects, they revert it, and then you hash it out and seek consensus — the knowledge that, if I screw up, someone else will revert me is what gives me the confidence to make changes. But "always assume any major changes are controversial" is paralyzing. That sort of thinking is why TRS is in such dire straits.)

People treat T Vtropes too much like a forum — with tropes (on work pages) and works (on trope pages) as posts, with a sacred boundary against editing other people's 'posts.' That sort of thinking is harmful. The entire page is one constantly-evolving article that everyone contributes to and strives to improve. People shouldn't be afraid to make dramatic improvements; they should just be encouraged to take conflicts, when they arise, to appropriate places to resolve them.

edited 21st Feb '12 4:11:32 PM by Aquillion