So over 10 years ago or so, we used to have a newsletter called Trope Report, which covers all of the changes that happened on the wiki weekly. I have been nostalgic for it recently so I thought of it and it seemed to be a fun way to inform tropers about the changes going on around the wiki.
The sandbox for the project can be found at Sandbox.Trope Report Dummy Edition and the sandbox for ideas/plans can be found on Sandbox.Trope Report Ideas. After a new issue is published, revert the Dummy Edition back to a template using the text on Sandbox.Trope Report Template.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Aug 8th 2023 at 1:16:11 PM
Looks good.
Question: is that section specifically for older work pages that need attention/tropes? It'd be good information to know in case I ever come up with anything.
Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining | Troper Wall
Whoops, that's what I meant.
Like, specifically ones needing attention, or just ones in general?
Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining | Troper WallHonestly, 2012 is way too far, and that being a pentalogy also violates my previous idea that at least 75% of a series has to have come out before 2010. It's like trying to say Kick Buttowski: Suburban Daredevil, Flight, or Sonic the Hedgehog 4 Episode 1 can be classed as old, and those came out in 2010 mostly. All of them can be nostalgic, but really hard to call them old, they just have a sort of feel and advancement nothing from the late 2000s compares to. And practically nobody in my class had a smartphone before 2010, but since that year most people did, and I refuse to consider something that came out in the year when the current trendiest device saw widespread use in a second-world country's elementary school to be old. I don't think the date needs to be pushed in the slightest for the near future.
(To be clear, while I do not intend to participate in the next few issues, I am still watching this thread and regenerating my work list, already have like 14 picks on the to-do list and intend to have 50 by September to keep a steady stream for later.)
Edited by Piterpicher on Jun 22nd 2022 at 1:36:18 PM
Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)I was thinking the same honestly; we decided against Two and a Half Men for older works because it ran from 2003 to 2015, and The Long Earth was published from 2012 to 2016. Could it fit obscure works instead? The writeup does mention it's "not as well known as Pratchett's Discworld books", though that might just be relatively speaking.
I mostly saw this as a mix of older and obscure, so came out before 2010 and has less than 1000 wicks. While making it about both criteria is somewhat restrictive and may mean that some works can't get a mention for years, I believe it also makes the section more interesting for those who seek something actually old and not remembered as well (speaking as someone who often watches You Tube reviews of underrated games, most of which are old by my definition).
Edited by Piterpicher on Jun 22nd 2022 at 1:43:57 PM
Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)I've written about the Character Alignment tropes wick cleaning thread for Project Spotlight. How is it?
- Character Alignment, as well as its subtropes, are Flame Bait, and therefore should not be wicked onto pages under certain circumstances, unless a Chracter Alignment exists within the work, and when a character is stated to be this by Word of God or Saint Paul or within the work. However, some wicks that fail to meet the criteria seem to slip through. The Character Alignment Tropes wick cleaning
thread is currently removing such wicks. If you feel interested in such, feel free to join them.
Edited by callmeamuffin on Jun 22nd 2022 at 10:22:20 PM
Working on Sandbox.The Amazing Race TV Tropes Edition.I think the length is fine. It's about 8.5 lines in a sandbox, and looking at some past issues, there have been other entries of similar length: After Eden (9 lines), Human Resources (8-9 lines), The 'A' Word (9 lines), Yet Another Merge Game (8 lines), Atmosfear (8 lines), Novas Aventuras de Mega Man (8 lines), Giga Wrecker (8 lines).
Edited by Twiddler on Jun 22nd 2022 at 6:40:22 AM
I always interpreted Older/Obscure Work Spotlight as "older and/or obscure" due to the slash (why include it otherwise?), although admittedly the section header does focus on older works:
I'd be fine with it including obscure but recent works. (Although I'm not sure how obscure The Long Earth is, but that's another matter.) Plus we already had The Old Man and the Sea in that section, which is older but not obscure (at least in the U.S.).
Edited by Twiddler on Jun 22nd 2022 at 6:58:40 AM
I'd also be okay with expanding the section to include obscure works, or just creating a new section for obscure works separate from the old works section.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallI am still against accepting works which are only old as explained earlier and IMO it's too broad (likely for readers as well), while splitting into two sections when you know the workload and production needed to handle the existing sections got too large after 18 months is very inappropriate and unsustainable. If the name is too much of a problem, change "Older/Obscure" to "Older & Obscure" and just get over the fact some works won't get in the newsletter.
Edited by Piterpicher on Jun 22nd 2022 at 8:50:13 PM
Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)Well presumably splitting it would mean two smaller sections. And as I pointed out, the section has already had at least one entry that was only old.
So to sum up, the options that have been raised are:
- one section for works that are both old and obscure
- one section for works that are old and/or obscure
- one section for old works and one section for obscure works
and it has been a mix of 1 and 2 so far, but mostly 1.
And it might be too late in the month to do option 3 for the upcoming issue.
Anyways, I'm not really married to any of these options, but how about a compromise between 1 and 2? One section for works that are old and/or obscure, but:
- at least one of them has to be both.
- at least some proportion of them has to be both. (e.g. half, a majority)
That might work, leaning towards the proportion idea with the majority, but just so it's clear, I define obscure as "less than 1000 wicks on the wiki" rather than whether it's truly well-known or not. Admittedly, this is something that should probably apply to all sections related to works unless it's April Fool's or something...
Edited by Piterpicher on Jun 23rd 2022 at 10:28:48 AM
Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)OK. By the way, I think below 1000 wicks to define that a work isn't so popular that it doesn't need promoting is actually a little too lenient. I'd say below 500 should be restrictive enough to make sure of that and still allow for a nice selection.
Edited by Piterpicher on Jun 23rd 2022 at 10:37:31 AM
Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)

It's a pentalogy, not a tetralogy, but otherwise looks good to me.