Outdated Administrivia Pages

Reposting for top of page: (old)

(current)

Edited by crazysamaritan on Oct 15th 2020 at 7:44:21 AM

I goofed in my previous post. I'm tired and sick and missed that there was a link in the post and that the one in the link was the oudated one, while the one displayed in the post itself is an updated image and not the one that was being called outdated. The suggestion is fine.

Edit: I went ahead and posted an edit request for the image change, since this a minor change compared to other stuff done in this thread.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Oct 15th 2020 at 7:01:33 AM

I've made that change.

So, is this where we can talk about any Administrivia page change?

Because I'm wondering whether we should say on How to Write an Example, that if it's an online work, you should always provide links to the source if you can, if it's an online work that's in parts?

Like a chapter, or a timestamp of a video, or something?

...

I suppose it already is, as part of Weblinks Are Not Examples?

Edited by Malady on Oct 17th 2020 at 6:35:50 AM

Are you thinking of examples, or work page descriptions? Because How to Create a Work's Page says (emphasis mine):

Examples, like the hypothetical:

• Power Glows: In Chapter 3, Ashley glows when she flies.

I feel like Zero-Context Example should have a main title that's less of "what not to do" and more "what you should do". Proper Example Context, or something.

Well, the page is about the "don't do this" thing so giving it a rename would force us to entirely rewrite the thing. It's also very important for us to lay down the "don't do X" stuff because there's a lot of confusion about what proper context is. Re-doing the page would probably make it less helpful in general because there'll no longer be specific rules we can point to.

But still, the term Zero-Context Example is still a bit of an Artifact Title.

We should instead consider merging Type Labels Are Not Examples and Weblinks Are Not Examples into the page.

Edited by ccorb on Oct 25th 2020 at 5:24:39 AM

I mean, we've discussed making a redirect out of Partial Context Examples. I just don't think the page should be entirely retooled.

We definitely don't want to retool the page. It already does a good job of explaining the concept we're pointing at. It just feels accusatory to PM someone "you should read Zero-Context Example" in a way that, for example, "you should read How to Write an Example" doesn't.

But like I said, if we rename it we'll have to rewrite it because the page is about what not to do.

The title is accurate and it works; I personally don't find it accusatory because if you need to tell someone to read the article, they're doing it wrong, and if anything "How To Write An Example" could be considered accusatory too if you see it as insinuating someone doesn't know how to.

Basically, policy pages shouldn't be concerned over whether or not their titles are accusatory; they need to reflect the policy accurately and concisely, which the ZCE page does. It's about being clear.

Edited by WarJay77 on Oct 25th 2020 at 5:41:28 AM

I think you're giving it a little too much credit; I've seen enough ZCE arguments that it's clearly not entirely self-explanatory, the main problems there being that people draw the line in different places, and a lot of editors don't appear to have read the page before.

That said, the page is probably fine as is, and the title, while imperfect, is kinda grandfathered in now.

Which is why we want to add a Partial Context Example redirect. But it's clear in that it describes the page and policy, not that it's self-explanatory. In fact, it's best if it's not 100% self-explanatory, as then people actually have to read the page.

I have seen mods make the "users have Attention Deficit... Ooh, Shiny!" argument when trying to get longer policy pages approved. Seconding the Administrivia.Partial Context Example and/or Administrivia.Half Context Example redirect.

I wrote an entry on ArtifactTitle.Web Original about this.

Edited by ccorb on Oct 25th 2020 at 8:02:58 AM

I think Administrivia.Example Context would work as a redirect for a page discussing how to write proper context, regardless of which page we use (as opposed to one saying how not to write proper context). (To be honest, I'm surprised it isn't already one.)

I'd prefer using the existing Zero-Context Example page for a how-to page in addition to its existing focus on what not to do, rather than creating another one. I don't currently have a strong opinion on whether it should be renamed, though the rename of This Troper to First-Person Writing showed that it can be done through this thread.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Oct 27th 2020 at 6:15:52 AM

I like Example Context. The term "Zero-Context Example" / "ZCE" is sufficiently ingrained in wiki culture that we'd have a tough time trying to replace it now despite it being less than 100% descriptive of the problem, but at least on the official Administrivia page, we're probably better off focusing on telling people what to do than what not to do.

Right now the Zero-Context Example page goes on for quite a long time giving various examples of bad trope entries, but never quite gets around to a full explanation of what good context is.

Yes, it does.

That's a good sentiment. It should be the focus of the page, instead of buried under so much cruft that it's easy to miss.

Edited by HighCrate on Oct 27th 2020 at 8:22:27 AM

It's the first sentence.

This is the Laconic:

The first sentence of the main page doesn't say anything the Laconic doesn't already say.

Hence why it's a laconic? I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

That was a response to crazysamaritan's claim that the first sentence is enough to state how example context should actually be given. HighCrate was referring to how the sample wording for good example context is near the end of the page, vs. 14 bullet points (15 if you count the part about swapping out the trope name; I searched for just "* CorruptPolitician") of sample text for bad context above it.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Oct 27th 2020 at 11:42:37 AM

Right, but what does the laconic have to do with it?

The issue is, it's so much easier to explain bad context than good context because good context depends on what the trope is and where the example is. It's not necessary, say, to go on a character page and explain that Bob is Alice's brother in a Big Brother Bully example, but it's necessary on the work or trope page.

Context is entirely dependent on what needs to be said, but bad context is so much easier to explain because it falls into specific patterns.

Edited by WarJay77 on Oct 27th 2020 at 12:43:43 PM

I was referring to how both the Laconic and the first sentence only say that examples should say how they're examples, as opposed to discussing the specifics. As in, why I don't think "It's the first sentence" is a good argument for a claim that the page focuses more on good example context over bad context.

I wasn't denying that bad context is easier to explain than good context. I was saying the last paragraph of HighCrate's post (which was focused on giving examples of good wording instead of just summarizing it) isn't wrong in saying the page focuses a lot on the specifics of what counts as bad context before getting into the specifics of how to provide good context. HighCrate was arguing that the sample text for good context should be above the sample text for bad context, rather than below it.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Oct 27th 2020 at 11:54:39 AM