Gonna do a weekend enders' vote bump. If you want to vote down on any of the crowner items that have 9 votes right now, please comment in the thread and we can extend these pages' "clocks" in order to get through discussion before doing anything.

----

Currently one item is ready to call as "no consensus to cut," but might as well extend it with the rest of them unless anyone really wants to insist we take it off the crowner.

----

Adding Walfas as per this comment. I double checked the "related" page and it literally has zero crosswicks.

Shout out to Another Duck for trying to work on the page before it went on the crowner.

Fenspace - Should it be a Wiki because it's basically all hosted on its wiki like SCP Foundation?

Fanfiction Dot Net - Note that the Opener sort of implies it should be turned into an index, with "A Web Site That Is Not Tropable Can Sometimes Be Repurposed: It may have a place as a Useful Notes page, or serve as an index if it hosts a lot of works that we do trope. "

ff.net is 7 to 5 against cutting, anyway.

I voted. Hopefully we can get ff.net cut.

I'd like to broaden the topic a bit by looking at some articles in the Magazine namespace, which suffers from the same basic issues of troping what is essentially non-fictional, non-creative work.

• Playboy: Content issues aside, we don't have articles for most other interest magazines, so the value of this one is suspect. In particular, Playboy doesn't create fictional content (other than pictorials); it often publishes short-form writing, but it's not the author of those pieces. Now, a Creator article referencing their actual fictional content might be worthwhile, assuming said content makes it past the Content Policy.
• Cosmopolitan: Much stubbier than Playboy, it also has no attempt made at presenting tropes found in the work.
• Loaded: Same basic issue: there are no tropes about the magazine's creative content. Mostly it's about its cultural impact, which, while interesting has nothing to do with TV Tropes' purpose.

edited 15th Aug '17 1:10:47 PM by Fighteer

What's the deadline for a decision on those, again?

Considering Pixiv and Fanfiction Dot Net are close, they should probably be extended until they stabilize. They haven't yet.

But since nobody's commented about the others (save Wyrmrest Accord), I think it's safe to say those ones aren't coming back from those 8:1 and 9:1 ratios.

We can probably give Wyrmrest Accord until the 20th. And as a reminder, Walfas has until 21 August as its normal 7-day clock.

---

Calling for "consensus to cut":

• Wrong Planet: 10 yay, 1 nay; 11 votes
• Weegeepedia: 10 yay, 1 nay; 11 votes
• YA Books Central: 9 yay, 1 nay; 10 votes
• Xanas Lair: 9 yay, 1 nay; 10 votes
• Harkipedia: 9 yay, 1 nay; 10 votes
• The World Of Mr Satanism: 9 yay, 2 nay; 11 votes

---

Concerning the Magazine/ namespace... while I can get behind broadening this thread for pretty much all namespaces, we're looking at 34 crowners (at a rate of 12 pages per crowner) for the Website/ namespace alone. Maybe we should get through more websites before broadening the scope of this thread.

That said, non-fiction seems just as valid to trope as fiction. And concerning "non-creative," the article we have on Playboy says "[This magazine is the] Trope Namer for I Read It for the Articles. This was a legitimate justification as late as the 90s. Literary greats published in the magazine include Joseph Heller, Roald Dahl, Ian Fleming, Gabriel García Márquez, Margaret Atwood, John Updike, Haruki Murakami, Norman Mailer, and Ray Bradbury." And I'd argue that the pictures and the scenes depicted are creative, fictional content. Seems like abusing a loophole to say the work isn't "really" or "actually" creative.

The Cosmopolitan page is not a stub. It is "stubbier than [our page on] Playboy," but it is clearly not a stub in its own right. It's got 126 inbounds, so I think it could just use some clean-up if someone wants to go through the wicks and put them on the trope list. There are 13 wicks.

And Loaded has 12 wicks with 68 inbounds, so I think the same could be said of it. And its trope list does trope its content, as well as the magazine itself. Like, I don't see where the complaint is coming from other than the Early-Installment Weirdness and Spear Counterpart entries.

edited 15th Aug '17 5:24:13 PM by WaterBlap

So Roleplay.Wyrmrest Accord hasn't had any changes (link to history) since 5 August, so I think it's safe to say that it isn't going to be fixed. Pinging ~MaLady just to update.

I'm going to wait for the end of the day to call Wyrmrest Accord or Walfas unless anyone's really excited to do that (and dewick and cutlist).

----

Pending:

• Wyrmrest Accord: 9 for, 1 against; 10 votes
• Walfas: 8 for, 1 against, 9 votes
• Pixiv: 9 for, 5 against (1.8:1); 14 votes
• Fanfiction Dot Net: 9 for, 7 against (1.29:1); 16 votes

edited 21st Aug '17 6:30:08 AM by WaterBlap

Well, given that I cut Website.Wyrmrest Accord... We don't even know who made it, 'cause the History's been deleted...

So we can't even PM them? Therefore, basically unsalvagable, and I don't care about it 'cause I was just doing it as part of namespace cleanups.

Way overdue here. Sorry. Given that Pixiv and FFN haven't changed much in a few days, I'm saying that's stable.

Calling:

• "consensus to cut"
  • Wyrmrest Accord: 9 for, 1 against; 10 votes
• "no consensus to cut"
  • Walfas: 8 for, 1 against; 9 votes
  • Pixiv: 9 for, 6 against (1.50:1); 15 votes
  • Fanfiction Dot Net: 9 for, 7 against (1.29:1); 16 votes

----

Since we're keeping it, I guess I'll start some work on crosswicking Walfas.

Regarding Website.Fenspace (as per this post): I think it could be in Wiki.Fenspace, and I don't think it needs to go on this thread's crowner. It's got a good amount of wicks, the trope list doesn't seem too bad, and the description isn't stubby or terrible either.

I'd like to add Archive of Our Own to the crowner, as it was brought up on this post. What do y'all think? Should it get a cleaning first or is there enough discussion here to add it to the crowner?

edited 25th Aug '17 5:25:46 PM by WaterBlap

I figure that we should treat AO 3 the same way we treat ff.net; their purposes are basically identical.

I really think we should judge pages isolated from other pages, like on their own merits. Or do you mean that we should put it on the crowner like we did FFN?

I figure that since both ff.net and AO3 are sites that host fanfics, they should be treated the same, just like the way you'd (presumably) treat CNN and Fox News Channel. Ne?

By that logic, we need to cut YouTube and clean up its 10,506 wicks (7,483 from Website/ and 3,023 from Main/) simply because it hosts videos and we cut Ustream, which also hosts videos.

I suspect with YouTube a lot of those wicks might be accidental, since it's inherently a wiki-word.

Well, I can't fault the logic, so I guess I agree with the conclusion, too.

Getting a mite deletionist, in my mind. YouTube is a platform for many creative works (and has spawned tropes like YouTube War Expert and Instant Humiliation: Just Add YouTube!), having a page to explain what it does and how it works is perfectly proper.

Yeah, but that would be a Useful Notes article, if we were doing it from scratch.

Useful Notes is not a dumping ground for everything that does not neatly fit into other categories, despite its increased use as such. And since Website/ is an existing category, it should stay there.

I'm not entirely sure it makes sense to lump websites that are actually tropable works and websites that merely host works (and are worth talking about in that context) into one namespace.

Namespaces are mostly organized on a medium basis not on a scope basis.

Still, if we voted to cutlist/make into a Useful Notes page a page about a site whose sole merit (so to speak) is "hosts tropable works", and Youtube is such a page, it makes sense to cutlist/make it into a Useful Notes as well.

I've thought a bit more about this, and while I still do not agree with the logic, I do want to say that we never agreed to keep FFN. We never reached a consensus one way or the other. So the logic of "treat likes the same" (or whatever you'd like to call it) doesn't work with websites that host fanfics just because of how the crowner treated FFN.

Also, I think YouTube could probably use its own short-term project clean-up effort since, as someone already mentioned, it's naturally a wiki word.

Well, You Tube's under Wick Namespace Migration... So maybe put a hold on the Migration pending the decision here?

"No consensus to cut" is "consensus to keep". I see no reason that FFN and YouTube should be treated differently.

"No consensus" does not equate with "consensus," so that statement could use some explanation. We never agreed one way or another, so no action was taken. If the page doesn't get any better, then it could be brought up again, I should think.

EDIT: This is kind of getting off topic (on crowners, consensus, and such rather than Websites/ cleanup) so I'll make a thread in Wiki Talk.

EDIT 2: Link to other thread. It's a long OP and I found that I had way more to say about this than I expected.

edited 26th Aug '17 8:54:44 PM by WaterBlap