Outdated Administrivia Pages

- I see what you mean. An issue made by not using actual tropes as examples.

We could do what we did on the ZCE page and make some mock examples.

Anyway, here's a potential addition to TLP Guidelines; dunno where we'd put it, though:

• Similar to not rogue or stealth launching a trope, it's also frowned upon to rogue-discard or stealth-discard a draft, especially if there's still ongoing discussion on the draft itself and/or the sponsor is actively working on it. Regardless of how many bombs a draft has, discarding it before it finishes discussion is simply rude. Another problem is people not adding a reason when they discard something, which can lead to confusion and a lack of transparency, so please try and explain your reasoning before you hit that button. Discarding issues are not as severe as launching issues, as the drafts can more easily be restored, but too many instances of ignoring this guideline can earn you a suspension.

New section?

Just for one bullet? Or should there be a whole "discarding etiquette" section?

I'd say just put it at the end of the "launching" list.

Can I? The page is locked, but that sounds like you agree with it being there.

I think it's a good addition.

I agree with changing the wording on the Example Indentation in Trope Lists page, due to the previously mentioned use of "This example is an example"-type Word Cruft. Mock examples would be fine.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Mar 12th 2020 at 5:02:04 AM

I found "TV Tropes"? More like "TV Quotes"! a while back, and was suggested to bring it here. At the very least, it should be moved to Administrivia.

I feel many of the "Of Love" shows, in particular I Love Money, lack proper details/contexts for various entries. While I'm sure there's concern for potholing, I like to believe I Love Money played around with lots of tropes on purpose, and some of the tropes listed are implied to have loads of examples which are not extrapolated on.

Edited by CrashMan on Mar 15th 2020 at 1:16:10 AM

This thread is for outdated wiki policy pages. There's probably a more relevant thread in one of the projects forums you can use for that.

Edited by Serac on Mar 15th 2020 at 3:18:20 AM

My utmost apologies, and thanks for the correction!

No problem, it happens.

• "TV Tropes"? More like "TV Quotes"!: I agree, this belongs in Administrivia/.

• Indentation Page: I'd be happy to whip up a new version in a sandbox; the only difference would be that the examples are written well.

I agree with moving "TV Tropes"? More like "TV Quotes"! to Administrivia.

OK, so the pages for The Google Incident and The Second Google Incident are written in past tense and make it clear that both Google incidents were all in the past, which is good.

However, they both say, "Don't panic". Why would anyone panic if it's all in the past, unless they're paranoid about there being a Third Google Incident, and even then, I don't think they'd panic as such (as far as I know, "panic" means "be so scared you can't use logic", whereas the most that could happen if it's in the past is a sense of "Ooh, I hope that doesn't happen again!")?

Okay, I'm attempting the rewrite of the indentation page here. Please pitch in if you're interested. I think there's some other things we can clean up about it beyond just the way the fake examples are written.

Edited by WarJay77 on Mar 23rd 2020 at 8:42:58 AM

It's possible that those pages are only kept for archival purposes and aren't meant to be changed. I know that pages in the Archive/ namespace can't have any changes made whatsoever, but I don't know if the same is true for other historical pages.

For what it's worth, Administrivia.April Fools Day 2013 is open to editing and has received multiple non-mod edits in the past few years, and I'm pretty sure Berrenta said that it was OK for me to remove an In Theory wick from that page when TRS decided to cut In Theory, hence my only edit to the April Fools' Day 2013 page.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Mar 24th 2020 at 4:02:28 AM

Sorry for the double post, but I dewicked Main.This Troper per the entry I added to Administrivia.Wick Namespace Migration regarding the move to Administrivia.First Person Writing. The only ones left are archived wicks (which can't be changed), wicks on locked Administrivia pages (which I can't change myself), and a wick on Main.Pothole Magnet, which I'm not sure should be changed since it's based on the lack of namespaces in such potholes.

Should it be cutlisted now, so the link can go back to being red?

Edit: Shouldn't the "Don't Speculate, Don't Prognosticate" entry on Administrivia.How To Write An Example be changed to have a wick for Administrivia.Speculative Troping, possibly with a wording change to "Avoid Speculative Troping"? Do note that that paragraph on How to Write an Example predates the creation of the Speculative Troping page, with the latter page only existing since (I think) 2018.

For what it's worth, changing the wording wouldn't be a first. "Examples Are Not General" used to be worded as "Keep It An Example".

Edited by GastonRabbit on Mar 24th 2020 at 9:24:53 AM

Administrivia.Media Categories FAQ has been ignored since 2016, and should probably be merged into Administrivia.Media Categories. The same goes with its French counterpart.

(In addition, if taken as still-valid policy, it would throw a wrench into the recent "Film - Animated" discussion...)

^ That makes sense.

Should this section on How to Create a Work Page be rewritten to include List of Shows That Need Summary? I mean, that is where you put work pages you would like someone else to create so

Would somebody please make an article for [Work]? Nope. We aren't here to do your job for you. If a work is popular enough, someone else may be along to create an article for it, but we can't force that process. You're the fan, the person who's familiar with the story and its tropes, so why aren't you writing the article? Don't be shy; we're patient with people as long as they ask for help.

Edited by MacronNotes on Mar 31st 2020 at 9:23:45 AM

Sounds fine with me.

I'd be fine with such a change.

Related IP discussion for Administrivia.How To Make A Custom Title which uses a previous version of the site for its screenshots, please participate.

Sorry for double posting, but the No On-Page Examples entry for Accidental Nightmare Fuel and the page description for Accidental Nightmare Fuel appear to contradict each other. The description for Accidental Nightmare Fuel says it's a Fan Speak page and examples should be listed under Nightmare Fuel instead, so shouldn't Accidental Nightmare Fuel be indexed under Definition-Only Pages instead?

If examples that are listed under Nightmare Fuel count as off-page examples for Accidental Nightmare Fuel, then at the very least, the No On-Page Examples entry should explicitly state that examples should be listed under Nightmare Fuel instead of saying examples are "Either covered by regular Nightmare Fuel, or too YMMV."

I admit that this might not even be the right thread for this, since the overhaul of Example Sectionectomy is more recent than the merge between Accidental Nightmare Fuel and High Octane Nightmare Fuel into Nightmare Fuel (the former happened no further back than 2018, and the latter happened in the early '10s).

Edited by GastonRabbit on Apr 8th 2020 at 5:23:02 AM