Fix Up Example Indentation Wherever It Is

Even if we opted for supertrope-subtrope sorting, those two tropes do not have such a relation.

A crossover note from the Wiki talk thread: I have added a section to Example Indentation in Trope Lists to cover the supertrope-subtrope thing.

Edit: There is some horrible indentation here. I don't have time to clean it up.

edited 11th Feb '13 10:00:21 AM by Fighteer

Ugh. Video game tropes gather such horrible indentation for some reason. I fixed up Too Awesome to Use, but Infinity +1 Sword is full of bad indentation.

edited 1st Mar '13 6:30:58 AM by lu127

OK, this HTML project is taken care of now. Time to trope.

... and cleaned Infinity +1 Sword.

I cleaned up Fan Disservice/Anime. I think that the other fan-disservice pages might also be p bad, it is a trope that seems to invite chatter.

edited 12th Mar '13 11:09:22 AM by willthiswork

Separated by a Common Language is a mess. I think most examples might be accurate and that the trope itself is not misused, though the page is such a sore sight that I couldn't read the whole thing, and perhaps the rest of the page is worse.

Usually somebody mentions a word that causes confusion, e.g. the difference between "fit" in Br Eng and Am Eng. Then somebody adds that in another country it also means something else. Then — with another sub-bullets — somebody remembers how it was used in a book or on a show or how a fan fic confused the two. It's not reader-friendly at all.

It badly needs example sorting. As I said, the wicks usually have a point, but some do sound very close to natter and some are Zero Context or weblinks only. There are now just two folders. English and other languages. No sorting according to media whatsoever.

I would fix something, but I'm not sure how I would even start.

edited 13th Mar '13 5:46:54 PM by XFllo

Separated by a Common Language is seemingly turning itself into a Useful Notes page - one with several problems, as you mentioned.

edited 13th Mar '13 7:34:55 PM by nemui10pm

So perhaps it would be better to take the issue to Trope Repair Shop?

Yeah, possibly. Otherwise we might spend a lot of time cleaning the examples and then end up cutting them all when it's decided that they don't fit.

^^^^ Speaking of, I tried to fix up Germans Love David Hasselhoff . Comic Books but I was having a similar problem where there were several different factors going on and I was not sure how best to sort them, especially when it started getting into which Disney characters are more popular than Mickey Mouse overseas. Particularly since only some of that has to do with comics.

I think I may go ahead and cut the example about Minnie Mouse in Japan, it does not mention comics and as near as I could tell from actually hitting up one of those Minne Mouse themed stores in Tokyo there is no comic book, just a toy franchise.

Anyway, I gave it a shot but a second set of eyes would be nice.

Also a lot of people seem to think that American superheros being the most popular in America is Germans Love David Hasselhoff and I have no idea why. That has nothing to do with example indentation, I am just sort of baffeled by it is all.

edited 14th Mar '13 9:15:10 AM by willthiswork

Double post. Sorry.

edited 14th Mar '13 12:47:25 PM by XFllo

About a month ago, I was trying to fix Germans Love David Hasselhoff's Live Action TV subpage.

My solution was the following. If there was one show mentioned several times or there were several examples for a specific country, I tried to lump them together. Mostly like this:

• Show XYZ:
  • Popular in Japan.
  • Insanely popular in France.

• Audience X:
  • They love show X.
  • They loved show Y back then.
  • They have loved show Z since...

Sometimes I felt necessary to modify it:

• Show X and its audience in country Y:
  • Exhibit A how they love it.
  • Exhibit B how they love it even more.

This I let be as is because I am no expert on the subject and I felt it was kind of organized:

• Japanese shows:
  • show a: Popular in...
  • show b: Adored in...
  • show c: It was huge in...
  • show d: Has a strong cult following in...

When the examples mentioned characters, I treated it either as another example or I merged it together with the preceding entry.

I would also add that you shouldn't be afraid to delete natter.

edited 14th Mar '13 4:45:22 PM by XFllo

^ I see. That is more or less what I did, I am just unsatisfied with it becasue it is so inconsistent :\

Better than it was though, so whatever I guess.

I feel that as well. I was finally satisfied with my job there, because while still not perfect, it's really better than it was and it was the best I could do (while preserving the material). Perhaps somebody can be more merciless and will cut it some more. I sure won't mind.

Comic books look fine, visually. Nice work! The Disney section looks kind of chunky, as you say. I'll read it and perhaps edit this post if I have an idea what to do with it. If it really is mostly about Disney's toy line and stuff, it could be moved to the real life or toy sub-page, if we have them.

edited 16th Mar '13 7:17:14 PM by XFllo

I actually have one question about Example Indentation. A lots of the examples I see have this indentation:

• Show: Something general about the show and the relevant examples.
  • Example a
  • Example b

Other times it's like this:

• Show:
  • Something general about the show and the relevant examples.
  • Example a
  • Example b

Sometimes this:

• Show:
  • Something general about the show and the relevant examples; Example a.
  • Example b

Which one is the right one? Or should we cut the general stuff? Sometimes I think the intro is useful or funny.

edited 2nd Apr '13 9:11:17 PM by XFllo

Only the first example is correct. The second example and third example are both wrong, but for different reasons.

The second one is wrong because all sub-bullets on the same level should be the same level of detail; in that one,you have two levels of detail: 1) the show in general, and 2, the specific examples.

The third one is wrong because one bullet point contains two levels of detail.

It may help to look at indentation this way:

• Animals
  • Mammals
    • Cats
    • Dogs
  • Reptiles
    • Iguanas
    • snakes
      • Poisonous snakes
      • Non-poisonous snakes.
• Birds

... and so on. If the only type of Animals you're going to talk about are Mammals, you don't need the "Animals" entry at all. You'd start with "Mammals" at the single bullet level. If the only type of animals you're going to talk about are Cats, you don't need "Animals" or "Mammals"; "Cats" would be your first level entry.

edited 2nd Apr '13 9:25:33 PM by Madrugada

Thank you very much. It's crystal clear to me now, and of course it makes perfect sense. There are no stupid questions, right? :-)

edited 2nd Apr '13 10:07:03 PM by XFllo

And now I realize that that's a little bit wrong. It should be

• Animals
  • Mammals
    • Cats
    • Dogs
  • Reptiles
    • Iguanas
    • snakes
      • Poisonous snakes
      • Non-poisonous snakes.
  • Birds
• Minerals

edited 2nd Apr '13 10:16:09 PM by Madrugada

Technically, reptiles are a pretty funky group anyway, since dinosaurs are (biologically) a subset, and birds are (biologically) a subset of dinosaurs, but birds are not considered a subset of reptiles. At which point, everyone who has studied formal logic has their head explode. :)

I overlooked the birds in your first post...

Do you see why I said "technically, the first example was wrong"?

Me? I think I do. In your first post answering me, the birds should have had one more bullet because they belong to animals.

Correct Example Indentation:

• Show: Something general about the show and intro to the relevant examples.
  • Example a: Something relevant about example a.
  • Example b: Something relevant about example b.

• Animals: Text about animals.
  • Mammals: Text about mammals.
    • Rodents: Text about rodents.
    • Marsupials: Text about marsupials.
    • Primates: Text about primates.
  • Birds: Text about birds.
  • Fish: Text about fish.
• Plants: Text about plants.
  • Trees: Text about trees
    • Deciduous: Text about deciduous trees.
    • Coniferous: Text about coniferous trees.
  • Bushes: Text about bushes.

edited 3rd Apr '13 10:18:19 AM by XFllo

I started in on Nominal Importance but could not finish. It is kind of a mess.

This is a relatively minor question, but what is preferred?

• Trope
  • Example a.
  • Example b.

• Trope:
  • Example a.
  • Example b.

The question is: Should the colon be used? I am using it because it's used at the template (Example Indentation in Trope Lists). I'm only asking because sometimes my edits get corrected and the colons get deleted.

I'm slightly obsessive about these things, mostly because punctuation rules differ in my mother tongue and English, and it's hard to get it right. But I realize that it's a relatively minor thing. Thank you.

edited 6th Jul '13 7:31:53 AM by XFllo

I personally use a colon, both for my own additions and when I am cleaning Example Indentation.