Outdated Administrivia Pages

Proposal for the CSP addition to How to Create a Character Page:

---

Character-Specific Pages

By default, all Characters pages on the wiki are intended to hold multiple characters. A new page might only contain one character when it's launched, but it'll become a shared page when other characters from the work are added.

Character-Specific Pages (CSPs) are the exception.

Some characters have so many trope examples that their folder becomes too big to manage on a shared page. If this happens, we'll consider creating a Character-Specific Page.

• CSPs should never be created when a work's Characters pages are first created — only when a pre-existing Characters page grows too large.
• Characters aren't entitled to a CSP because they're the protagonist, the iconic Complete Monster or the beloved Ensemble Dark Horse. It's purely about page size and how many examples their folder contains. If hated characters like The Scrappy or Creator's Pet need a CSP, they get one, even if the more popular characters don't. A Character-Specific Page is a practical measure for the wiki, not a badge of honor for the character.
• CSPs must not be created unilaterally, as they need to go through a review and approval process.

For more details, see the Character-Specific Pages policy page.

---

How does that look?

I don't understand the question.

Creating links to a page is wicking. Creating a link to a page that links to the current one is crosswicking. The third paragraph goes over this.

Which specific part should be elaborated?

I've asked you befoe what you mean by "interest" and you've retracted to

Which is already a given.

---

I feel in the second paragraph of the list only the last sentence is relevant. Badge of honor treatement is an issue, but I doubt it need details.

Edited by Amonimus on Mar 8th 2024 at 2:41:34 PM

TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup

I have to admit, I've been failing to understand the issue myself. Is it about whether or not the text of an example should be ported in its entirety from trope page to work page or vice versa?

I'd think the page answers that as well,

Meaning copypaste is convinient but is not necessary.

So not sure which part needs to be clarified.

I think the specifics of crosswicking when subpages are considered worth questioning, which I've brought up myself a page ago.

Edited by Amonimus on Mar 8th 2024 at 6:06:58 PM

TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup

The specific issue I've run into is that I wanted to add a second example of something to a work page, and determined that it was overkill to put it on the trope page as well, which already had the first example of the trope listed. Another editor disagreed with me and told me the rule was that all examples be mirrored for the sake of crosswicking.

When I asked in ATT I got some people saying I should mirror all examples, and some saying not, and a lot of people being vague about it. There seems to exist no implicit consensus of what crosswicking actually means, which is a bit of a problem since that means everyone will use a different standard for implementing it.

I agree that the text of the page seems to be about simply making sure links go both ways, but clearly there is some ambiguity that is tripping people up.

My "nutshell" reading of crosswicking is something along the lines of, "Ensure each trope listed on a work page has a link back to it on the trope page (and vice versa), and make sure at least one example on the trope page roughly mirrors one on the work page."

This happened because Tim had made a mistake.

Meaning, it's a choice between

• Crosswicking means a page is at least being wicked to, from pages it links to.
• Crosswicking means all examples on the example list should be duplicated if possible.

I'm under the impression the policy implies the former. Though I prefer if a work has 10 examples of a trope, the trope should either have 10 examples from that work or summarize them.

TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup

Precisely. I, uh, don't have much else to add. But you see the dilemma.

This happened because Tim had made a mistake.

Idk if there actually is an ambiguity. People like the examples to mirror each other, but that's not a requirement for proper crosswicking. Idk if anyone would seriously claim it is.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

tbh until today I've thought it is. We also have a crosswicking notifier for this, which feels like it could be used even if the page already has a wick from other page.

TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup

The crosswicking notifier is for, well... making sure everything wicks back. The exact example text isn't relevant and doesn't seem to be what the notifier is talking about.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Expecting the crosswicks to perfectly mirror each other would be overly rigid. All it needs is to have the same basic amount of context. Though sometimes the example on the trope page might want to clarify certain aspects of the work more.

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

I also found it odd that many tropers were freely editing the Administrivia.Spoilers Off page for years now, even though it's a guideline page that's part of Administrivia. I had the benefit of the doubt that those edits were approved somewhere else by mods or a forum, but with the mod's reply above, they turn out not to be the case?

Worse, this now makes me question the validity of some guidelines added there.

As someone who has been following and using that Administrivia page but never made an edit on it, I think one possible "issue" was that some parts/paragraphs of that page became Walls-of-text when they were originally concise or straight-to-the-point.

Fan Myopia also seemed to be blended in one or two of the guidelines. A look at the edit history shows the second guideline ("Particularly spoiler-heavy work pages and trope pages") was repeatedly edited to expand the list of work examples that count as "spoiler-heavy". Someone who knows the work may attest that it is spoiler-heavy, but not every reader is familiar with it. Worse case is that those works likely got mentioned in the lists to have them promoted in a spotlight for having a lot of plot twists.

With Great Power, Comes Great Motivation

The format is kinda difficult. Instead of outright merging, it'd be easier to amend Namespace with examples of mediums, most of them already mention which namespaces are for.

TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup

I think amending Administrivia.Namespace could work.

Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.

Wondering about adding something like this to Self-Fulfilling Spoiler:

• For examples from episodic works such as a Mystery of the Week show, identifying a specific episode outside the spoiler tagging can cause this issue. It may sometimes be useful to identify the season or arc the spoiler applies to, though — especially for a Long Runner. Mentioning that season 15 has a Two Dun It in one episode doesn't directly spoil a particular story, and may help viewers who haven't reached that season navigate around the spoiler tagging.

(Straw man draft, needs some polishing)

The problem there is the prohibition on obscuring the work name, which some people also parse as obscuring a specific episode title.

I had a dog-themed avatar before it was cool.

Which, as I understand it, is not the intention. So possibly we clarify that as well.

I feel this should be added to TV Tropes Glossary:

• On-Page Examples: The example list specifically on trope pages. A trope can't have such list if it's declared No On-Page Examples, but other pages can still have examples of that trope.

TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup

For every low there is a high.

Program Entry Template and Trope Entry Template are the only Page Templates pages in Main/. They're not tropes and have "admin" pagetype. Should these be moved to Administrivia/ or it's up to TRS?

Edited by Amonimus on Mar 18th 2024 at 10:57:42 PM

TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup

Edited by animuacid on Mar 18th 2024 at 9:04:33 AM

I'd say move to Administrivia. Not convinced that needs to go via TRS unless we're changing the template itself.

Just writing up the public domain decisions from the second Translation Policy crowner. Any concerns about these, or should I add them to the Troping Works Created in Other Languages page now?

Works in the public domain

For foreign language works that have entered the Public Domain, we no longer follow the "latest official translation" rule, as newer versions may not be official.

• The preference is to use a widely known English title, if one exists, rather than an untranslated title.
• Untranslated titles may be used if that's entirely or almost entirely how the work is presented to an English-speaking audience (e.g. for many songs or operas).
• If there is no consensus as to which title should be used (e.g. translated or untranslated), the usual "first come, first served" guidance applies. In this scenario, once a title is recorded, it should not be changed unilaterally.

Edited by Mrph1 on Mar 24th 2024 at 12:49:09 PM