Outdated Administrivia Pages

This thread isn't for namespace moves? Nobody objected when I asked if Walkthrough Mode should be moved to Administrivia/...

So if this is a "completely unrelated thread", are you saying that it needs to go to TRS?

Edited by Serac on Jun 15th 2020 at 10:58:21 AM

If you want a cut, TRS would be the place but I suspect it won't be opened if there isn't an iron-clad "this is why the existence of the page is harming the wiki" opening post. Under current policy Fan Speak pages live in Main/.

I suppose that a discussion focusing on a single page should get a thread to itself.

Yeah, at this point we should just move the Misty May discussion to TRS, it's just going in circles and any big changes can't be made here anyway.

How's this for a rewrite of the relevant How to Write an Example section?

If the page is organized by medium/genre, it is preferred to sort the examples alphabetically within medium/genre. However, if the page is not sorted this way, put a new example in as the last example in that medium/genre.

Should probably be more like:

"When adding new examples to a trope page, pay attention to how it's organized. New examples should either be sorted alphabetically (if the page is alphabetized) or added to the bottom (if not alphabetized). Alphabetical sorting is generally preferred, but many pages do not follow that organization scheme, and thus the "new examples go to the bottom" style is also accepted in that case. Just follow the page's current organization, and you'll be fine."

That's a lot better, but the whole section about sorting examples should probably get rewritten because the rewrite doesn't really fit with the rest of the section.

Change the single bullet to

If the page is organized by medium/genre, put a new example in that medium/genre. Ideally, examples are sorted alphabetically within each medium/genre section, but if not alphabetized, add the new example at the bottom.

and leave the rest of the "Respect the sorting" section alone.

Edited by Tabs on Jun 16th 2020 at 1:06:49 AM

I mean...is it so hard to just add "if not alphabetized, add to bottom" to remove any gray area?

TBH the whole section reads as a little outdated; 90% of these pages are sorted by medium/genre; it feels weird to even need to mention it as an "if". I can't put my finger on why it bugs me, but something about this section just does bug me.

Edited by WarJay77 on Jun 15th 2020 at 2:39:48 PM

i think it's because newly launched pages are expected to be sorted by medium now, which wasn't always the case, and most pages which aren't are old, small, and ill-maintained. tbh id rather get those up to standard and not have to worry about the disclaimer.

Edited by ChloeJessica on Jun 16th 2020 at 12:02:07 PM

I'm pretty sure more pages are actually sorted alphabetically, since most work pages and YMMV, Trivia, and Recap subpages are sorted alphabetically. I think the problem is is that the layout of the section presents the different sorting methods as if they're all common, and spends a similar amount of time explaining each one. I'd rather just rewrite the entire section, spend most of it on sorting alphabetically and by medium/genre, and add something at the end about how you should follow the sorting on the page if it's sorted some other way.

Work pages and their subpages have to be sorted alphabetically. I'm pretty sure that's not optional- not having them alphabetized makes adding tropes very confusing.

But trope pages? They can be alphabetized and there's a growing trend of it, but it's never been considered necessary and new pages launch all the time with no alphabetizing.

We should make that clearer on the page, because right now, it just says that most work pages are sorted alphabetically. The page mostly just talks about how to follow various sorting methods of pages that are already sorted, and not how to sort pages. And example sorting seems to have significant overlap with Example Indentation in Trope Lists, namely, how to sort multiple examples of a trope within example indentation. The page has two examples of situations where you would use three bullets, and they use different layouts. The first one has this layout:

• Placeholder Franchise:
  • Work: Example
  • Another Work:
    • Example
    • Example
  • Yet Another Work: Example

And the second one has this layout:

• Trope:
  • Character:
    • Work: Example, Example
    • Another Work: Example
  • Character: Example

However, there's a bit of an issue with the second example. The text of Work: Example, Example is "Alice and Bob has [Alice] demonstrating this trope twice when she is in Bob's house." However, if the trope is demonstrated twice, then that's two examples, and then there would need to be another bullet point, like so:

• Trope:
  • Character:
    • Work:
      • Example
      • Example
    • Another Work: Example
  • Character: Example

But this example now uses four bullet points, which are disabled on the wiki. Additionally, it's not clear whether characters or works go on second level bullet points. The example has characters on the second level bullet point, but I think it would make more sense for works to be on the second level bullet point, and there's nothing clarifying what you should do in that scenario.

I'm mostly following, but why would it need to be:

• Trope:
  • Character:
    • Work:
      • Example
      • Example
    • Work
  • Character

and not just

• Trope:
  • Character:
    • Example
    • Example
    • Example
  • Character:

?

Edited by WarJay77 on Jun 17th 2020 at 1:58:31 PM

Well, the second example would be valid if it was just one work, but situations with four bullet points happen because of sorting by franchise. Since the example has sorting by franchise, work, and character, you would have four bullet points. This example:

• Trope:
  • Work:
    • Character:
      • Example
      • Example
    • Character: Example
  • Work: Example

would go on a franchise page, this example:

• Placeholder Franchise:
  • Work:
    • Character:
      • Example
      • Example
    • Character: Example
  • Work: Example

would go on a trope page, and this example:

• Trope:
  • Character:
    • Example
    • Example
  • Character: Example

would go on a work page.

Sure, but you wrote it backwards the first time, putting the characters before the work, which is why I had to ask.

I was using the examples from the page the first time, which had the characters before the works. It would definitely make more sense to have the works before the characters, which is why my hypothetical examples had the works first.

Oh, I got'cha.

Yeah, this page needs some fixin' up, doesn't it?

Yeah, no kidding. But what should we do about those fourth level bullet points?

Sorry if this has been mentioned before but You Have Been Warned seems more like a Just for Fun page than a policy page.

The mods previously stated that Just for Fun moves would be better suited to TRS. (Not to say that I don't agree with what you said.)

Edited by GastonRabbit on Jun 17th 2020 at 1:30:41 PM

TLP Guidelines has this line, under the Creating a TLP header:

• If you find that we already have your trope, or if you reconsider the TLP, discard it by launching it (see below) to Discarded TLP. This is usually, but not always, left to the person who created the trope to do.

I've never made a draft myself, but I don't think this is how it works now.

Edited by Serac on Jun 29th 2020 at 5:22:58 AM

Yeah, sponsors often don't stick around to discard their drafts, don't realize when their draft has issues, or on the other hand, perceive issues that nobody else does; leaving it up to the sponsor sounds correct until you actually think about what happens in practice.

I was more talking about the "launching to Discarded TLP" thing. I assume that sponsors have access to the same discard button other people do when the draft has 5 bombs on it.