Outdated Administrivia Pages

Just to be sure, does this also apply to other types of subpages, like Funny Moments or Nightmare Fuel?

Them being subspaces of YMMV I'd think so.

I already removed the "for their general work" part after seeing the ATT query because it was added unilaterally by someone who isn't a mod, and probably without mod approval.

Edit: I locked Administrivia.Creator Page Guidelines because there's really no reason for non-mods to be able to edit the page, even if it doesn't involve trying to unilaterally change the rules.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Jun 23rd 2023 at 11:36:15 AM

If we can talk about the Glossary (TV Tropes Glossary) here, should we have an entry for Trope, Index, and Super / Sub-Trope/Index?

Trope and Index are already there.

Oh, thanks. So if I wanted to make a definition of super and sub-index, it should be put on How Indexing Works?

Edited by Malady on Jun 24th 2023 at 8:34:03 AM

Neglected to mention that Macron and I discussed the Three-Day Rule being a rule of thumb instead of a strict rule, and we decided that one recent thread (I forgot which) could have been called two days in because it was nearly unanimous with 22 yeas and only 2 nays, with the high consensus ratio meaning more nays wouldn't make a dent (I would have called it after I was told that, but the reason I didn't do that until the three-day mark is because I was too tired to handle it at the time), while crowners whose vote counts are in the low double-digit range (the minimum required for consensus) would need to wait a bit longer because nays would have a bigger impact than with a crowner with twice as many yeas.

Calling Not Thriving threads on day one is still something that would remain in place; that's a new practice I came up with near the beginning of last year, so it was what to do with pages with healthy wick counts that Macron was able to provide more insight for (which helped, because I didn't become active on TRS until several years after she did).

Edited by GastonRabbit on Jun 28th 2023 at 8:48:15 AM

As I understand it, examples shouldn't be comparing/linking to entirely unrelated works unless the trope makes them relevant (e.g. Expy) - and even if they're making references to sequels, prequels or other parts of the same Shared Universe, that needs to be self-explanatory for readers who may not know the other works.

With that in mind, if we can get consensus on some wording to cover this guidance, is it something we could add to How to Write an Example as a new bullet?

I clarified the Three-Day Rule page to show when leniency could be shown for threads that aren't Not Thriving threads. Here's what I changed in the relevant sentence (new text bolded for emphasis):

Revisiting the discussion about the problems with nesting notes within spoiler tagging - dieseldragons has just added a warning about it to Text-Formatting Rules.

Are we comfortable with the addition (personally, I am) and the phrasing, as it doesn't seem to have gone via this thread?

There was a discussion, and nobody seemed to object to adding something like that, but that edit reason suggests they just drove by and did it on their own without having been part of the discussion that was had.

... I don't know what to conclude from that o.O

Personally, I wouldn't revert it. But I might rephrase a little - and possibly a Unilateral notifier wouldn't be out of place?

This is more one for the future, but pending the suggested thread reason changes in TRS, I was wondering if we could link the selectable thread reasons for a TRS thread to the listed reasons on Administrivia.Trope Repair Shop for starting a TRS thread. Something like:

Note that the thread reasons I attached were the ones I'm assuming will be implemented, based on the Wishlist and prior discussion. I also removed the "Snowclone" category per said discussion.

How does it look? Any suggestions or improvements? And should anything more here be changed, beyond my suggestions?

TLP Guidelines still says that the ability to launch opens up when a draft has 5 total hats, when that’s been fixed, as it opens when a draft has 5 net hats. How should that be reworded?

Current:

• The Draft Must Have Five More Hats Than Bombs: The ability to launch the draft opens up when a draft gets five hats total, but this is a result of outdated design and not the accepted standard for launching. If you want your draft to launch without being shot down, you need five net hats — five more hats than bombs.

Proposed:

• The Draft Must Have Five More Hats Than Bombs: Again, this is kind of a moot point, as the ability to launch the draft doesn't even open until it has five net hats — five more hats than bombs. Still, it's the accepted standard for launching, and helps your draft launch without being shot down.

• The Draft Must Have Five More Hats Than Bombs: The ability to launch the draft doesn't open until it has five net hats — five more hats than bombs. This is the accepted minimum for launching.

Any feedback on my TRS proposal?

Aside from minor phrasing/grammatical changes, those look good.

Thanks!

I noticed Administrivia.Crosswicking talks about crosswicking work pages, but not new trope pages. Should the page be rewritten to mention both, or is it good as is?

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Jul 15th 2023 at 9:29:32 AM

Doesn't talk about crosswicking more than

...Not sure how I missed that. Apologies.

Disregard my comment.

I swapped in the rewrite for the part of TLP Guidelines about requiring five net hats instead of five total hats. I figured if any more changes are needed, they can just be made later, partially because I didn't see any problem with the text I swapped in (from Tabs's post) and partially because I figured it was a good idea to swap out the outdated text as soon as possible to make it easier to see for people who don't follow this thread.

Handling Spoilers proposed addition before final paragraph:

Reminder that we are not beholden to the rules of other sites, including spoiler policies. We are under no obligation to obey a creator or work that says, "Do Not Spoil This Ending." You can approach spoilers that way or even avoid troping them if you want, but you may not cut our wiki content or tell others what they may not trope according to the dictates of someone offsite.^note The Mousetrap is the exception. Longstanding tradition.

Edited by Tabs on Jul 20th 2023 at 7:44:19 AM

The Mousetrap is an example of a consensus decision that we won't spoil, Fallen London seemed to be an informal version of that.

Is it worth acknowledging that we may reach a similar case-by-case (documented) consensus on other works, or does the Mousetrap remain unique?

Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 19th 2023 at 5:21:57 PM

I think it's unlikely we'll come up with another one, and I hope Mousetrap remains the only. One exception baked into policy makes TVT kinda cute and quirky, but more than that starts to look unfair that we're deciding some works are more special than others.