Outdated Administrivia Pages

I used a systematic rule of thumb to categorize the pages so that the decision was impartial. I asked that we arrive at consensus for changes after that. In general I don't mind fanspeak pages being turned to definition-only, so you've got one vote in favor of the change.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

I also think that Accidental Nightmare Fuel would be best as definition-only for now, unless we decide that accidental examples should be split off again and that the page should allow on-page examples.

Contains 20% less fat than the leading value brand!

If it matters, I brought it up because there was some confusion in the Nightmare Fuel cleanup thread. The discussion in question started on this page and the indexing discussion continued on this page.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Apr 8th 2020 at 8:16:30 AM

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

Hurray, another double post!

Er, sorry. Anyway, I found out about Examples Searching for a Trope and Quotes.Quotes Looking For An Article from an Ask The Tropers thread (which was originally about Archive.Ask The Tropers and JustForFun.Ask The Tropers). (Edit: Link to the query in question.)

I don't see the point in keeping the former when the query-based Trope Finder (and maybe also the "Is this an example?" Trope Talk thread) is better suited to the job, and I'm not sure what the latter page is even trying to accomplish, since the former at least has a clear purpose (albeit one already served by Trope Finder).

Edit: Oh, I just saw that these pages were made in the late '00s. That explains a lot.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Apr 10th 2020 at 8:09:09 AM

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

Both of those are listed under Just for Fun, for some reason.

Personally, I have some images in mind I'd like to put somewhere, I just keep them either to myself or on my wiki page.

Contains 20% less fat than the leading value brand!

Examples Searching for a Trope has its page type set to Administrivia, and Quotes.Quotes Looking For An Article is set to Subpage. Since neither page implies it's a joke, I don't know why they're listed on Just for Fun.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Apr 10th 2020 at 11:42:37 AM

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

What if Accidental Nightmare Fuel was In-Universe Examples Only? The list of related pages shows that it's on a few works' objective pages.

I was sent here from this ATT thread:

Missing Supertrope should be moved to the Administrivia namespace because the page is about a recurring problem on the wiki.

Edited by ADrago on Apr 14th 2020 at 11:36:53 AM

I have a couple of things to say:

1. Main.This Troper hasn't been cutlisted, and I never got an answer regarding whether it should be, or whether that would break hard-coded links.

2. Main.Shout Out To Shakespeare is a redirect to a Referenced by... page (ReferencedBy.William Shakespeare), but it's in Main/. (For those wondering, it predates Referenced by... and was moved there due to being deemed The Same, but More Specific to Shout-Out.) A similar case, Good Grief Another Peanuts Shout Out, was moved to ReferencedBy.Peanuts, but the Main/ redirect was cut entirely.

Is it safe to move the Shakespeare redirect to the ReferencedBy/ namespace as well (i.e., ReferencedBy.Shout Out To Shakespeare), to prevent it from continuing to be used as a trope, while not sacrificing inbounds? Dewicking would be required, but that would potentially be made easier by listing it on the Wick Namespace Migration page.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Apr 21st 2020 at 3:25:19 AM

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

Regarding the first, cutting Main.This Troper will in all likelihood break some hard-coded links.

I think we should make ROCEJ sinkholes be a practice listed on Sinkhole, since we now know that potholing lines such as "That's all we'll say about it" is now a bad practice. And should such lines also count as Word Cruft?

Limpin' with the bizkit.

I agree that the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgement potholes can be a problem. While I have no clue how to explain it on Word Cruft, here's an idea for how it could be fixed on Sinkhole:

• Ending an example with a sinkhole: Trying to end an example with "and that's all we're going to say about that" or something similar potholed to Rule of Cautious Editing Judgement. This may irritate normal readers who'd think we're withholding information. Please try to examples neutral and maybe put commented-out notes for editors if problems appear.

Anyway, I've seen on this thread (and specifically the page I'm linking to) that people quite clearly aren't satisfied with drafts that only have 5 hats, 3-7 examples, or 3-6 days, even though those are minimal standards for trope launching, as from what I can tell, there's nothing to suggest on Administrivia pages that 3 examples or 6 wicks are not enough. I can get the concerns to some extent though, tropes that are that short are unlikely to really show up nowadays and may be uninteresting to read. I think that if we want to raise the page standard, I'll have to change Wick (which currently sets a 6 wick barrier, 23 was used by mistake).

Proposed changes to Wick:

1. Move to Administrivia.Wick (probably an obvious move, which was agreed on in that thread, it really has no business in being the namespace for tropes)
2. Update wick counts for tiers slightly to account for the earliest archived number of articles in 2020 (470058, let's call it the 2020 number) and making Starved an exception to the "25% if newly made" rule by making it 50%, but it'll still mostly follow "25% for newly made pages, 50% for 1-3 years old, 100% for 4+ years old" standard:

• Starvation: 0-23, 0-11 if newly made or 1-3 years old
• Standing: 24-56, 12-14 if newly made, 12-28 if 1-3 years old
• Healthy: 57-282, 15-70 if newly made, 29-141 if 1-3 years old
• Renowned: 283-999, 71-999 if newly made, 142-999 if 1-3 years old
• Kilowicked and Overdosed stay the same.

The number 470058 should hopefully be the standard for this decade or at least to the end of 2024. I don't want the standards to get too high, but at the same time, this official standard would ensure that tropes would launch with 8-11 examples at least (depending on indexes and stuff), which I hope is satisfactory. Anyway, this is the first step to ensuring a higher barrier, because someone could cite the Wick page and mention that if a trope would launch with not enough content to get it to 12 wicks, it'd be unlaunched. ~War Jay 77, since you definitely would want tropes to launch in a better state, are these new counts and namespace change acceptable? Feedback from others is also appreciated.

Edited by Piterpicher on Apr 27th 2020 at 12:11:35 PM

Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)

Works for me.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

It turns out Wick won't be moved to Administrivia/ because of hard-coded links. Stuff like this happens, I suppose.

Any thoughts on these wick scales from anyone? The main gist is that it'd effectively mandate new launched tropes to get 12+ wicks shortly after launching, otherwise they'd get unlaunched (something I'll clarify on the Wick page itself). I'll probably do this on May 1st unless someone objects.

Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)

In that case, we can just move the content to Administrivia.Wick and make the Main/ one a redirect.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I was thinking about doing that (I typically don't ask mods for moving anyway because of ghost wicks and other glitches), but the previous wick scale in the page history and the discussion page's contents are a bit too interesting to give up, tbh. Well, I've got ignored/rejected in the locked pages thread.

Edited by Piterpicher on Apr 29th 2020 at 9:41:30 PM

Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)

Meant to bring this up nearly two months ago according to my edit history on Sandbox.Tropes Needing TRS, but anyway....

Should Dr Pedia And Mr Trope be moved to Administrivia, or maybe even Just for Fun? I previously mistakenly added it to the Tropes Needing TRS sandbox because the fact that it's in Main/ caused me to mistake it for a trope with a name that uses "trope" as a placeholder (which the sandbox lists because it's deprecated); I removed it upon learning that it's indexed under Wiki Tropes and is actually about the editing philosophies of Wikipedia ("Dr. Pedia") and TV Tropes ("Mr. Trope").

Edited by GastonRabbit on Apr 29th 2020 at 12:26:58 PM

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

It's definitely one of those things, not a Main article.

Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.

For Dr Pedia And Mr Trope heck, it's hard to say it applies these days. From what I can tell, we have like two active tropers who edit both sites constructively. I'd move it to Administrivia.Dr Pedia And Mr Trope if we have to.

Anyway, Administrivia.Wick's been moved will probably be updated with new standards tomorrow. Hopefully TLP-ers will be satisfied.

Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)

I say move Dr Pedia And Mr Trope to... I don't know. This needs more discussion.

Edited by Brainulator9 on Apr 30th 2020 at 9:45:49 AM

Contains 20% less fat than the leading value brand!

Hmmm, yeah, I'm not sure.

The only places I can think of are Administrivia and JFF.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Also, why is it under Pages Needing Wicks? What possible wicks could we give it?

Neglected to mention that it wasn't just the name that threw me off. The fact that it's listed as needing wicks also threw me off, since I also don't see how it could even get more wicks, unless the wicks are on Administrivia and/or Just for Fun pages.

I think Timestamps Are Your Friends was originally brought to TRS with Not Thriving as an edit reason, since it also had few wicks; the outcome of that thread was that it was moved to Administrivia and crosswicked with other Administrivia pages.

Edit: I saw that Main.What Links Here redirects to Administrivia.Wick. I moved it to Administrivia.What Links Here and cutlisted the Main/ redirect. I noted in the cut reason that it should be declined if there are hard-coded links for Main.What Links Here. I also added the namespace migration of Wick to Wick Namespace Migration. (I realized that there was an Accidental Pun in there when adding it to the list... though maybe that means it's no longer accidental.)

Edited by GastonRabbit on May 1st 2020 at 4:14:41 AM

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

The description on Pages In Accidentally Miscapitalised Namespaces needs to be updated to reflect the newly (as in a few months ago) discovered way of fixing capitalization while preserving edit history via the mods' page-mover tool.

The page isn't locked and it's a sandbox and not an Administrivia page, so I don't think there would be an issue with a non-mod updating the description.

(For the record, I can't do it myself because I don't know the details; I only knew about the cut-then-recreate method that became standard.)

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