I'd go so far as to say that a folder title should not be a sentence, and it definitely shouldn't be multiple sentences. That's absurd. This isn't a Panic! at the Disco album.
I mean, a two- or three-word sentence is one thing, but come on.
That is rather imprecise. "I am hungry for Films — Live Action" is a sentence. "The crew gown fart house school glasses desk table pencil pen drink car bath sort glasses desk table pencil pen drink car bath sort verb pile green big asterisk button verb pile green big asterisk button keyboard nonsense paper" is not a sentence, but is much longer.
edited 13th Apr '15 10:49:36 AM by crazysamaritan
Link to TRS threads in project mode here.The second is, and I responded because I don't get your meaning.
Obviously a sentence must be acceptable practice for Self-Demonstrating folder titles, or the only tropes which could utilize it are tropes about sentence fragmentation. So "I am hungry for Films — Live Action" would seem acceptable, but not by your standard, and I dispute that the four additional words are at the expense of clarity.
So I'm asking you to clarify what your standard for "concise" is, since "a sentence" is generally considered concise.
edited 13th Apr '15 11:02:08 AM by crazysamaritan
Link to TRS threads in project mode here.If it's going to come down to pedantry over how many extra words is considered too much for folder names in a self-demonstrating page, then we're going to have to nix the concept entirely. Seriously, people...
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Which is why I disagree with "a folder title should not be a sentence". The word "sentence" does not clarify how long the folder can/should be, and forbiding "sentence-length" specifically is asking a volume measurement to be used for length.
edited 13th Apr '15 12:24:46 PM by crazysamaritan
Link to TRS threads in project mode here.
Which I think is reasonable. I'm not talking about length, I think the whole idea of sentences as a folder title is stupid. I also think first-person pronouns and other generally non-okay wiki writing things should also be removed.
You may not have been addressing the idea of putting SD content ahead of the actual folder title, but you did seem to be implying that that was an example of what should be reasonable. I don't believe that example is a good one.
Re: ![]()
I've already voiced my opinion that SD folder titles should be nixed wholesale. At least, I think I have. If not, I'm doing so now.
edited 13th Apr '15 12:49:48 PM by SolipSchism
What do you think of Now Do It Again, Backwards?
Please note that wittiness is not always the same as self-demonstrating, so I am not advocating all pages should use identical formatting.
edited 13th Apr '15 6:03:23 PM by crazysamaritan
Link to TRS threads in project mode here.Well, sure, allowing them in the S-D namespace is fine, but there should always be a Main namespace version of the page that readers can go to for clarity.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!""Nixed wholesale, ...with exceptions for clearly witty"
The problem with that is if we allow exceptions, they aren't "nixed wholesale", they're just "strongly discouraged". And anyone who adds them on a page now probably thinks that what they're adding is "clearly witty".
So nothing would change, really.
In all fairness, I don't recall ever saying "with exceptions for clearly witty". I may have missed someone else saying that, but I don't believe it was me.
![]()
and ![]()
![]()
I'd be down for that. I tend to withhold my opinions about nonstandard namespaces because they're already nonstandard, so I don't particularly care what rules they follow or break. But personally I feel like the Main namespace should have a "Zero tolerance for troublesome or problematic stuff" policy. If it's witty and indisputably clear, cool. If it starts causing issues, I'm for killing it. Mostly just to keep the policy simple. If the rule is "No SDFTs," no one can dispute it. If the policy is "No SDFTs except when it's indisputably clear," everyone will dispute how clear it is.
I would wholeheartedly vote in favor of killing SDFTs in the Main namespace (and work pages, and "main wiki" namespaces) and leaving them untouched in JFF, Darth Wiki, Sugar Wiki, and whatever else explicitly does not follow the main wiki's rules.
![]()
![]()
Re: Now Do It Again, Backwards: If we go by the "SDFT is okay as long as it's a reasonable length and has the normal folder title first" criteria, it's reasonable. But I still don't like it for reasons stated above.
edited 14th Apr '15 11:05:55 AM by SolipSchism
Drill Sergeant Nasty got reverted. Again. They ignored commented out warnings this time.
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.Suspended that user, re-reverted.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I would think that there is no reason to encourage self-demonstrating titles in main articles. A note to pretty please not do it would seem appropriate.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"For the record, I also disagree with a blanket rule. There are a number that are perfectly fine right now, and really don't need to be changed. I agree that they should be strongly discouraged, but if they are concise, witty, and don't mess with clarity too much, we should leave them as is.
Bigotry will NEVER be welcome on TV Tropes.Is there any way we can clear this out? Fighteer says there's been some sort of ruling on this, but as far as I know, you're the only one who established the rule on that page, and there's no blanket ban so far.
edited 20th Apr '15 10:50:48 AM by YungVenuz
verifyvenuz
Can we please just have a hand-raising session on this to settle it? Because I read the EBS Thread where Fighteer talked to you, and he didn't say there had been a "ruling", he said there was a consensus, which just means a majority were in favor of it. So let's just lay this to rest, please.
I'm in favor of keeping SDFTs off of Drill Sergeant Nasty, at the very least, in the form they had, which was overly long and drawn-out and unfunny.
We can do a crowner for this if we really need to make it mathematical, but I hardly think that's necessary.

Oh dear god Accentuate the Negative is worse then last time.
have a listen and have a link to my discord server