Unclear Description: Video Source

Punt?

Edited by LaundryPizza03 on Dec 11th 2020 at 12:05:02 PM

No Video Examples, Please! should remain, but would it be best to hide it until we figure it out? Because the page above is unlinked except via forums

Edited by Agent2583 on Dec 11th 2020 at 7:27:14 PM

"Punt" means that if we need to have a crowner on whether to keep that list or to merge it into the future policy page, it can be done after this crowner. Unfortunately we cannot hook more than one crowner per thread.

I've decided to check back on this. Based on these results, I guess people do have issues with attention spans after all.

While I'm really fine if the simpler sandbox gets accepted, I should note that ultimately, the wiki is built on Clear, Concise, Witty principles, and while I think I aimed for a good combination of the three with emphasis on clear, that sandbox is more like max concise but okay-ish clarity and zero wittiness.

I mean, for an example, just saying "fill in the fields" feels poor, because I'm not sure if people would know with what to fill in those blanks for best effect. Please consider this a suggestion for your Video Guidelines sandbox to potentially use my section for it. Also, I'm pretty sure "not over 150 seconds long" is a hard limit, not a suggestion. So I guess that should be fixed too.

Edited by Piterpicher on Dec 12th 2020 at 10:11:53 AM

Well, in my personal opinion Uploading New Videos does do a little worse on the witty front.

I'll see about inserting some of that section. I've asked about that 150 seconds limit too.

By "witty", I meant the "dear amateur director" part I put at the beginning. It was a somewhat jokey introduction, so I thought it added wit to at least some extent. Still, it is a matter of opinion.

But yeah, once those things are corrected in the sandbox, I'll be fine with it. Thanks for listening.

Edited by Piterpicher on Dec 12th 2020 at 12:23:20 PM

Added a bit and asked if the 150 seconds limit is a hard one.

Well...some videos have been glitched to run well over 10 minutes long. But they weren't uploaded to be that long.

Definitely keep No Video Examples, Please!, as it is an index for content not allowed. By removing the page, no one can recognize what pages allow videos easily.

Edited by callmeamuffin on Dec 12th 2020 at 7:30:53 PM

Please mention that video titles are limited to 30 characters, also the odd glitch about over 10-minutes long videos, and it'll (hopefully) be perfect.

Edited by Piterpicher on Dec 12th 2020 at 11:31:46 AM

Video Guidelines is winning, but I still feel it misses important points. For example, duplicate videos are a common issue that is not discussed. We sometimes encounter videos with general quality problems as well; the Coco video for The Unfettered is a good example, being somewhat blurry and skipping random parts for no discernible reason.

I mean, it's not like whatever we choose here will be forever set in stone. Outdated Pages exists for a reason.

For what it's worth currently the tally is:

• Sandbox.Video Guidelines: yeas:10 nays:3
• Sandbox.Uploading New Videos: yeas:5 nays:9

x3: I'm with Laundry Pizza.

Can we call the current crowner? Consensus is clear to swap Video Guidelines, despite its incompleteness, and not Sandbox.Uploading New Videos. I also want to set up a new single-prop crowner about whether No Video Examples, Please! should be merged there.

Okay, the contents have been moved to Administrivia.Video Guidelines, and the sandbox has been put on the Cut List. I will also create Administrivia.Uploading New Videos as a redirect. New crowner: [1]

Shall we cut Sandbox.Uploading New Videos as well, or keep it around as a reference for adding new points?

Edited by LaundryPizza03 on Dec 31st 2020 at 8:14:17 AM

Attached it.

Okay, so what are we going to do with No Video Examples, Please! ?

We're currently in the process of deciding that.

I mean, if we are going to do that, I can merge the page into Video Guidelines after a result has been declared. Considering I made the page in the first place after some tropers agreed I should in the Quality Control thread.

I voted down for merging, unless video guidelines has a normal sized index, collected with tropes which do not allow video examples, because the tropes listed in the notes are too small for some tropers to see.

I'm currently sick and thus kind of disoriented (so I don't remember if I said it in this thread or a different one), but I'm pretty sure I previously said that the small size of No Video Examples, Please! is at least partially due to how video examples themselves are a very recent addition to the site, as opposed to how real life examples have existed long enough that No Real Life Examples, Please! had to be split due to page length limits. (I'm not comparing the example types since that's an apples and oranges thing; I'm comparing the fact that both pages discuss complete bans on the types of examples they cover.)

Edited by GastonRabbit on Jan 7th 2021 at 3:54:27 AM

Another problem might be that the bans are just sort of decided upon in the Quality Control thread. There should probably be a stronger process to decide these things than just "hey, this trope uses blood, ban it from videos" which is currently how a lot of the decisions tend to go. ^note As an aside, I've been disagreeing with a lot of the arguments behind the ban "decisions", because if the trope is properly cited and the thumbnail is done carefully, the only way to watch videos for gory tropes is to willingly click on them. People won't stumble upon them by chance. You can extend this to Jump Scare or Epileptic Flashing Lights, but at least those are actual health concerns and not just "gore bad". This is why I want more concrete and public discussion into these matters.

Edited by WarJay77 on Jan 7th 2021 at 1:55:50 PM

Should No Video Examples, Please! be merged into Video Guidelines? is currently 7:8

If there is not a significant change in the next few days, the crowner will be closed and the pages will not be merged.