Unreleased Work Policy Feedback

I do think that the current rules are a good compromise between allowing anything for unreleased works (which risks getting things wrong), and not allowing anything at all.

I don't think it's fair to demand that HighCrate add the missing context and citations themselves. If you don't like that they hid an example, fix it yourself instead of asking them to do it. If you know the rules and the work, you should be able to do it pretty easily, instead of piling even more work onto the person who's putting effort into keeping the wiki free of speculation. Sure, HighCrate can be strict, but as far as I know, their edits are compliant with the rules we have in place, so that's not always a bad thing.

To me, if a trope doesn't have a citation, simply commenting it out is enough and very reasonable. Anybody who wants to watch the trailer can unhide it with context and a citation then. Or they can remove it if it doesn't fit the page. Commenting it out is the most that should be outright asked for at best.

Expecting everybody to magically do all the extra work because one person did it wrong is completely unfair. I'd say High Crate commenting them out was completely the right call and not overzealous whatsoever. That's perfectly fair and how ones without context should be done anyway, or in this case, also without citing it.

I don't think that what HighCrate has been doing for the most part is wrong, I just think the way the disagreements have been handled is wrong, as a lot of issues seem to pop up when HighCrate makes the choice that things should be done a certain way, and then becomes stubborn about it, or just goes forward with it before consensus.

I'm referring to that time when a bunch of commented out tropes were deleted from a page, despite no consensus about that being a good practice, or the controversy that started this whole thread regarding "experience" requirements.

I think HighCrate is on the right track for the most part with commenting out non-contextual and non-cited examples, I just feel that the issue is created by how stubbornly they go about enforcing rules that may not even be rules.

Tl;dr: Hiding badly written examples so others can go in and clean up? Good! Creating conflict because others disagree with the way you think things should be handled? Not so good.

Edited by WarJay77 on Aug 8th 2019 at 4:46:52 AM

As long as we comment them out, it should be all good. That's a reasonable policy in itself.

Alright, I get it. Asking HighCrate to fill in the examples himself for works he probably has no interest in it otherwise is wrong. Wiping pages and then leaving them for others to deal with when the work releases still rubs me the wrong way, though.

At least this discussion is finally reaching some kind of consensus.

It shouldn't "rub you the wrong way" when a page gets wiped. All it means is that there were issues with the examples, so if it bothers you, you could always fix them yourself by adding context and citations where needed.

You're missing this bit (emphasis mine):

I'm perfectly fine with commenting out examples when they don't meet the policy, it's just completely dropping the page the moment the work releases that I have a problem with.

I'm afraid I don't follow. What further action do you suggest I should be taking after a work releases?

Edited by HighCrate on Aug 8th 2019 at 6:22:24 AM

We're asking that you comment out any non-cited information instead of removing it entirely(obviously with edit reasons).

That way others who view the trailers can either add to it(or delete it if it's actually untrue).

I hope that clears up what we're asking.

Besides that, it seems like an extremely fair rule.

My thought for the wording is that all un-cited items should be commented out, and we should note that any that are commented out must be cited first before being put back up. In addition to that, we can also say that if a user finds that the trope doesn't fit, they can explain with an edit reason(and cite the trailer too to help out?) that it's untrue.

Pure deletions aren't helpful and it may be removing valid pieces. Just like with regular ZCE removal, it's best to let others add it back with context(and citings in this case). We all can work together in that way. Some want to cite. Others don't want to watch a trailer. Nothing wrong with that. This way, the cleanup is both unified and works well while making it useful for others to help add more context(and citings) later. :)

...Oh, I misread that. I was talking about pre-release rules. I don't know the context of what you're asking. Sorry about that, High Crate.

Edited by Irene on Aug 8th 2019 at 8:18:37 AM

Yes, I was specifically referring to Crossover-Enthusiast's apparent belief that there is further cleanup to be done after a work is released. I'm curious to hear specifics.

While I continue to feel that it's perfectly acceptable to delete hidden examples after a reasonable amount of time has elapsed to allow interested parties to correct them, it has become clear that that's not a view that is widely shared and it's ultimately not important enough to me to pursue the matter any further.

We went over all that weeks ago and I'm honestly unsure why it's coming up again now.

I just felt it was relevant to my point about how I disagree less with your typical cleanup style and more with how you occasionally try to enforce rules that haven't ever been agreed on before, which causes a lot of issues when combined with the already controversial unreleased work policy.

I started an entire thread on the subject and got specific moderator instructions that it was in keeping with the rules and an acceptable course of action before going forward with it. When folks protested, I stopped, despite it still being explicitly permissible according to the rules according to the moderation staff.

Not seeing the problem, nor why it's coming up again this late in the day. Can we stick to discussing policy please?

Edited by HighCrate on Aug 8th 2019 at 6:49:42 AM

The problem was that pretty much everyone else in the thread disagreed that it was a good thing to do. Explicitly permissible, but going against the opinions of everyone else on the thread because you thought it was a good idea until we protested you not getting consensus.

That's the core issue here, I think; even if what you're doing is fine, consensus is necessary before doing things like that, and I just feel this situation would be healthier if there was, generally, more consensus about how to treat these pages- especially since there is so much backlash to the way you do it.

And again, I pointed it out because it felt relevant to my point, not because I want to drag up old drama.

Edited by WarJay77 on Aug 8th 2019 at 9:46:22 AM

The consensus on the Proper Use of Comment tags thread was in favor of deletion of hidden examples after a reasonable timeframe when Fighteer explicitly said that it was the correct course of action. When the consensus and the moderator position changed, so did my actions.

As far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed.

Edited by HighCrate on Aug 8th 2019 at 7:02:57 AM

Regarding the specifics (aside from having to remove "in the trailer" from literally everything), I don't think we should stop watching a page right now immediately just because the work has been released, as speculation doesn't go away when the release date passes by, especially for works that are open-ended or leave a lot of questions unanswered when the credits roll. Recently released works should still be on our radar for a few weeks after release, in my opinion.

x2 That's not consensus, that's mod fiat.

I don't have time to reread the thread, but I'm pretty sure the actual consensus was opposed to deleting commented out ZCEs.

Also, you don't have the authority to just say the matter is done. You're not a mod.

Edited by Karxrida on Aug 8th 2019 at 7:06:50 AM

Yeah, my concern is the fact that you seem to only really care what the mods have to say about the issue, not whether or not the rest of the community agrees, or at least that's the implication I'm getting now.

Anyway, I do think you're usually correct about the way you handle pages. I'm only saying that you don't always seem to work by community consensus.

And I think Crossover_Enthusiast has a good point.

Edited by WarJay77 on Aug 8th 2019 at 10:07:51 AM

& I have no interest in debating this further with you.

No one "needs" to remove citations. If the trope is present in the work proper and someone wishes to replace the entry text with text that describes it that way, they are free to do so.

I can see how works pages for ongoing works (e.g. films in long-running franchises that are likely to have sequels) might be more prone to speculation post-release than others, although no more so than, say, a Series page for an ongoing television show. It certainly wouldn't hurt to monitor them for a few weeks post-release, or longer if someone's interested in doing so.

Edited by HighCrate on Aug 8th 2019 at 7:12:01 AM

I can't help but read that in Professor Layton's voice.

Okay, I wasn't trying to get personal, I just felt like it had to be mentioned as one of the few times I really took issue with anything that happened regarding these pages. The bottom line is that these new rules are controversial and confusing, and so we need everyone involved to discuss together and come to solutions. Things that, to me, seem less like a consensus-based act and more like an arbitrary decision can really hurt the cleanup work as a whole, and since the conversation was about HighCrate at that point I ended up singling out a moment they did that, IMO, went against consensus.

But I can agree to move on with me saying my piece and HighCrate saying theirs.

keep in mind that highcrate is just trying to do what they think is best for the wiki. we might not agree on what that is, but no one is acting out of malice.

Eh, the discussion too much has become about High Crate.

Let's just work on the policies instead. Like making a list and hashing out the details. :)

Edited by Irene on Aug 8th 2019 at 12:23:01 PM

Yeah, I know. I just... my whole point is that for things like this, decisions need to be made with consensus, it's not enough to just go with what is and isn't in the rules if there's discussion. With something this controversial, anything done without the agreement of the rest of the community will create backlash, and that's not what we need.

We all have good intentions here, and that's why we need to have proper discussion about how to deal with things rather than someone, anyone, acting based on what may seem like the best course of action.

Edit: In other words, yeah, let's actually discuss the policy and make sure we can all agree with what that policy is.

Edited by WarJay77 on Aug 8th 2019 at 1:24:32 PM

Okay, one may have noticed I never participated in the cleanup itself. I more or less saw there was issues at the time, hollered, and eventually wanted to help with the rules creation.

Now, that means that I didn't go much into them. So my proposal might be a bit... lacking.

• For Trailers, we should avoid speculation like the plague. Including our wording. It happens or it doesn't.
• Pictures and press releases are useful data, but we need context too on how it relates to the story. So just troping those alone is difficult. Linking to the press releases via the description might be feasible.
• For pre-releases, we need to look at the details of how it's released and then trope accordingly. Naturally, gameplay trailers count for use.
• If an example is added by a user and is Zero Context, we should comment it out with maybe something akin to a Citation Needed.
• Of course, all pre-release information needs citing. At least till it's properly out on the market.
  • We should go over what is treated as "on the market" too. That's fully up for debate.
• Goes without saying to work with consensus. What doesn't is that if we get a mod ruling, we need to let others know in the thread so we can work with the new rules. Point is of course to fully communicate to avoid tons of issues. Cooperating is key.

Did I miss anything of note?

...Besides being on the last post of the page, anyway. >.>