I'm not sure I'd put "justified" in there - references to Justified Trope are common, and almost always legit, in work example lists.
This idea seems promising, but it's likely it will cause a lot of false positives. I wouldn't worry about "justified", though - it's misused to hell and back.
Maybe PMing just "justified" and leave wicks alone? That way, anything we can't see on the Related page will be warned.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
How often are "this troper" and "arguably" really used legitimately? My impression was practically never.
Oppression anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere.
I don't think there is a legitimate use of "this troper"—it's not supposed to be used anywhere. If you need "generic name which you want linked for some reason", there's Report Siht.
On that note, is there any hope of renaming Report Siht anytime soon? It does, after all, stem from the time when "This Troper" was approved of, and while I can't say for sure that it encourages any modern use - or even might be doing so - it does make me a little uncomfortable.
Plus, I Read That As "report shit" about half the time, which is probably not what we want.
edited 26th Jul '12 9:47:22 PM by nrjxll
In uffish thought
The point of Report Siht's name is that it stems from This Troper and can be read as Report Shit. It's a Just for Fun page; I don't see why we shouldn't just leave it.
That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.
The word "arguably" has a whole slew of potential legitimate possible uses and would only serve to annoy people if a link was automatically sent. An example just off the top of my head is listing characters in an Unwanted Harem and saying that one character on the list is "arguably" part of it.
This Troper, however, should be auto-warned.
edited 27th Jul '12 2:50:14 AM by burnpsy
Um, that would not be a legitimate use. Again, Examples Are Not Arguable.
In uffish thought
What if the exmaple contains a quote (not indented with ->, just in " "s) in which a character uses the word? I think there would just be too many false positives, though a This Troper auto-Pm could be good.
This thread
is vaguely related, being about having a selection of premade P Ms.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
The particular example I listed would likely not be seen as a problem in cases when there really are two large groups arguing the point.
...and how I totally just replaced "arguably" and "likely" in that sentence and still had the exact same meaning shows just how easy it would be to dodge the auto-PM.
I think the false positives are going to be massively outweighed by the bad stuff. I honestly can't see anything outside of quotes where "arguably" could be legit.
Again, Examples Are Not Arguable. If there are people debating one's inclusion, take it to the mods.
And sure, people could use synonyms. But a lot of this kind of thing involves people who honestly don't know any better. They're the ones who it would help. (Although for the record, "arguably" and "likely" give that sentence two entirely different meanings, as it happens).
edited 27th Jul '12 3:01:42 AM by nrjxll
Lost in Space
"Arguably" is one of those Word Cruft verbal tics that people pick up by osmosis and then use habitually. It really doesn't have any valid uses unless you're quoting the actual work.
"Actually" is another one I tend to look for as a sign of natter.
I don't really support the idea of automatic natterfys. I'd rather have some kind of warning prompt come up when you try to save an edit — have the parser run a diff between your edit and the article and if any of the key words show up in your addition, give you some kind of confirmation prompt.
"Your proposed edit contains phrases that look suspiciously like [Natter | Word Cruft | first person writing]. Please reconsider your use of words like [List of suspect words] or rewrite the example so that it is not conversational."
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
That seems to be a reasonable approach, but what effects is it going to have on performance?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Lost in Space
I suspect near zero. While parsing each edit is relatively processor-intensive, the volume is very low relative to page views. We want to focus all the horsepower on that event.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
That's a wonderful idea Fighteer. P Ms will just end up being like spam. There's already a lot of false positives from the natter button already (I've received three total and none of them were legit). An edit confirmation would both educate the offender and stop the bad edit from going through in the first place.
"Recently" and "Recent" are others than could stand to be warned, since they're often misused.
Oppression anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere.
I think that what people want here is something akin to the edit filter on the other wiki.
Yes, I would support such a feature.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Oh hey, what about giving a warning anytime somebody adds this:
****
I've seen many triple-indents that were valid parts of complicated nested lists, but I can't recall ever seeing a valid use of quadrupal-indent. That's probably usually natter. Or if not, surely a quintuple-indent would be.
edited 6th Aug '12 12:08:47 PM by ArcadesSabboth
Oppression anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere.
This isn't a bad idea in theory. However, the only thing that could resonably be filtered is "This Troper"; any other nattery phrase stands a good chance of showing up in example dialogue, or possibly even the title of a work or trope. This would just end up having disastrous results.
edited 12th Sep '12 9:46:23 PM by Kuuenbu
Solo, I'm a soloist on a solo list. All live, never on a floppy disk.
^It's not supposed to be something like Wikipedia's spam blacklist, it's supposed to be an autowarning.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
That One Troper
The thing I'm worried about is that we won't be able to reference the phenomena in the trope pages at all without getting a "DURR HURR HURR LOOK NATTER LOL" message.
Evil is my favorite color.
^When would we ever want to reference the phenomena in trope pages?
If we did this, would it be possible to remove the faux redlink from This Troper?
No, because it's still bad.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I have a suggestion. I hope the expansion of "Natterfy" options has gone well and that there are more ways to message people about editing problems.
But it occurred to me that certain phrases ("this troper," "arguably,", "arguable," "justified") are almost always a sign of an editing problem, and very rarely used for accepted reasons.
How about program the wiki to automatically send a message to any person who adds one of the above in an edit? Those who used it legitimately will either get a reminder of when it isn't legitimate, or at worst will get a message telling them something they already know. Those who cause the problem automatically get a message without any editor having to manually tell them.
Something like "You recently used the phrase This Troper in one of your edits. This phrase should not be used on the wiki except [blah blah obscure corner case exception]. Please see This Troper for why this phrase is a problem."
edited 25th Jul '12 11:26:28 PM by ArcadesSabboth
Oppression anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere.