This is a thread to discuss those Administrivia pages in need of a little updating- you know the ones. The ones that still cite rules we've long since changed, or the ones that don't properly cite our current standards. Some of them are even scattered in Main/!
So, this is the place to take those pages and fix them up with the help of the community.
For a list of current projects, see Outdated Administrivia Pages.
Note: This thread is not for asking mods to make one-off edits to Locked Pages, Administrivia-related or otherwise, such as requesting additions to an Example Sectionectomy index. Please use this thread
for that.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Apr 21st 2023 at 9:12:02 AM
Where possible when necessary, yes
Edited by Amonimus on Nov 7th 2024 at 2:50:44 PM
TroperWall / WikiMagic CleanupI forgot to mention that about a week ago, I noticed that Administrivia.Wall Of Text (our policy page on the use of walls of text in wiki pages) didn't have too many wicks, so I went through the Administrivia/ pages that had wicks to Main.Wall Of Text (a trope page about the concept of walls of text in general; Administrivia.Wall Of Text was split from it a few years ago, I think by the Wiki Tropes TRS thread) to link to the Administrivia/ page instead. I left the other wicks to Main.Wall Of Text alone, since I figured most pages that aren't in the Administrivia/ namespace probably did mean to refer to the trope and not our policy on walls of text on the wiki.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Nov 22nd 2024 at 8:16:10 AM
I got a rock for Halloween.I feel that About Images and Copyright and/or Video Guidelines should particularly state that "large proportion" means "more than half (of the original source)" as I often cite that denial reason and point to one of those pages (usually the latter) when processing video examples but it never specifically mentions that, and I'm not sure if that rule is written as such elsewhere. Does anyone else think so?
When you're alone I'm reaching out to let you know that you're far from strangers, like the savior
Is that what the law says or is it just a rule of thumb you're going with?
That's how we've been handling images in IP for... forever.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallMods always told us approximately below 50% of an artwork (except if it's not publicized for free) or half of the panels of a daily webcomic is considered not require asking use permission. I don't know if that's sound or where it came from.
TroperWall / WikiMagic CleanupThe problem is that the exact parameters of fair use aren't spelled out in a law, but are elaborated on by courts in many many court rulings. So unless you are a copyright lawyer or otherwise have copious free time to read court rulings, you need to approximate the rules.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanIIRC the rule (from back in Eddie times) was that we had to use an "excerpt" from a work for IP suggestions, but there was no clear definition of what that meant, so we more or less decided to set the limit at 50% of the work's content to keep from treading too far into what could be considered abuse of fair use. Just an internal guideline and certainly nothing legally binding.
Edited by Willbyr on Dec 6th 2024 at 12:11:15 PM
Since mods keep updating Sandbox.Suspension, I feel it's about time to address what to do with it. Should it get own Wiki Talk?
TroperWall / WikiMagic CleanupI am probably paranoid, but I wonder if that page gives away too much information on the internal structure of the ban system. And whether we might see "I did nothing that the Suspension page says is suspensionworthy! Unban me!"-type ban appeals if we let that go live.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanHuh, that's a weird page. Opening is pretty aggressive, especially given that the rules aren't always presented very clearly on this site.
I see no issue with the page existing, I think the rules and procedures being more transparent helps people follow them better, and ensure they're enforced properly. If someone's been banned/suspended, it should be clear what they did wrong.
So, what's the difference between that article and What to Do If You Are Suspended?
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I cut that sandbox per what Septimus, Fighteer, and Willbyr said, particularly what Septimus said about how some of that information probably shouldn't be public. If there's anything to move to Administrivia.What To Do If You Are Suspended, mods can access the history of cut pages to copy and paste that information.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Dec 10th 2024 at 1:03:20 PM
I got a rock for Halloween.With the addition of the new Wick Check button, the How to Do a Wick Check page is now outdated.
I don't just Wiki Talk the talk. I Wiki Walk the walk.It's mostly the need to know
principle - only staff has access to that page and needs to know how it works. Publicizing stuff further can make it easier to do damage when something breaks.
The suspension policies that are relevant to non-mods are already listed on What to Do If You Are Suspended. What Septimus mentioned isn't the only reason why Sandbox.Suspension wasn't needed; redundancy was also an issue.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Dec 18th 2024 at 8:45:07 AM
I got a rock for Halloween.Is "Outdated" part of the thread title accurate to its purpose? I believe pretty much any change suggestions regarding policy pages go through here.
TroperWall / WikiMagic CleanupThe "outdated" part was originally a big deal, since I created it to deal with rule pages that had fallen behind the times. It's not a thread for new rule updates, just a thread to bring Administrivia/ pages in line with the rules we already have.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallShould Know the Staff say anything about how mods and engineers can create crowners?
Edited by Lymantria on Dec 18th 2024 at 1:40:04 PM
Join the Five-Man Band cleanup project!On How to Move a Page, Cut List is mentioned only at:
- If you're moving a Main redirect for a work to a redirect in the proper namespace for the work, Cut List the Main redirect once all its wicks have been handled.
- If you run across a blank page, it's a so-called "phantom" or "ghost" wick. Make an "empty" edit, set a random page type and Cut List it with the cutting reason "ghost wick".
- In the case of subpages, it is usually better to send them to the Cut List than to redirect them.
That aside, considering a recent ATT, I've come to a realization the instruction needs detail when a (work) page can leave a redirect (alternative titles) or needs to be in a Cut List otherwise.
TroperWall / WikiMagic CleanupOne of the problems with having lots of instructions is that they are harder to keep up-to-date. I've removed that paragraph.
Blank page here means nonexistent page, and links from nonexistent pages are exactly what "ghost wick" is about. I've rewritten it so that it can handle a different scenario too.
I don't think deciding the fate of work redirects needs to be the responsibility of people moving pages. So that instruction needs to be on the administrivia pages for redirects.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Still, if adding redlinked work titles to an index, should shortened versions be used there?
Join the Five-Man Band cleanup project!