Page types define internal functionality. For example, works and creators can have Reviews. Indexes generate index markup. They're supposed to be transparent to the wiki from a presentation standpoint. At some point this seems to have gotten confused, with people demanding types that have no effect on wiki functionality.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Well, of course, but to the wiki functionality, "trope" is a null value; it defines no functionality but merely notes the absence of other features, like index markup or reviews. "Index" is a special case of "trope". You're talking about semantic definitions while I'm talking practical. The wiki parser doesn't care beans about semantics.
edited 15th Sep '10 8:40:21 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"We might have a problem, though, with pages who need both the index functionality AND another functionality.
For example, Discworld is an index, but an argument could be made for it to need the work type (some people may want to review the whole series, after all).
edited 15th Sep '10 8:53:24 AM by Jhiday
Let me ask this: what purpose is served by having Discworld as an index that is not served by having each subwork listed under the appropriate Literature index?
For another example, if all of Tom Clancy's works were listed in Literature under the Tom Clancy subheading, having him as an index of his works would be redundant.
edited 15th Sep '10 9:01:16 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I suppose something called The Whatever Trilogy could be considered a work that would be useful as an index to the books of the trilogy. This is why you can assign 'index' to any page.
This confusion about 'index' just being a thing to attach a function to page is persistent enough that something should be done. Being able to imagine a day when a semester had gone by in which we didn't have to 'splain it again is a smile inducing daydream.
Let's look at what the answer would be for "What is the page type of an index, if 'index' was not a page type?"
Goal: Clear, Concise and WittyWell, one way to do it is to add more page types to further distinguish why something is an index.
- Index is exactly what it says, an index. No examples, just a description and list of articles.
- Supertrope is a trope that may have examples but also indexes subtropes.
- Work Index is a work (that can have reviews) that also indexes related works.
- Creator Index is a creator article that also indexes the creator's works.
That'd be one way of handling it. Another way is to have a separate flag that marks a page as an index, as suggested. Your question of what to do with the "index" type is then kind of moot - you could still keep it as index, and have that choice automatically set the index flag, or call it "flahoozles", it doesn't really matter.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"^^ You mean like "What is the page type of Comedy Tropes?"
It's a supercategory. Subcategories include Parody Tropes etc.
edited 15th Sep '10 10:08:02 AM by SomeSortOfTroper
Fighteer's got it, pretty much. Either we can add a bunch of page types which are essentially "Trope + Index", "Work + Index" etc., or we can have a "list" page type which is simply a list of tropes (e.g. Comedy Tropes) while the "index" functionality is a separate flag set somewhere else.
Hmm. Actually, the idea of a page that is simply an index isn't too appealing. I sort of like the idea that a page must be one of [trope|work|creator|admin] and may or may not also be an index.
Reifying the terms 'supertrope' and 'subtrope' gives me the willies. Ditto the word 'category.' Everybody has their own idea of what these mean, to the point where you can't use these words without declaring which meaning you intend. Way too much typing for me.
edited 15th Sep '10 5:53:35 PM by FastEddie
Goal: Clear, Concise and WittyMy only concern here is that there is still a conceptual difference between a "work index" - that is, an index of works, and a "work + index", in which a main work is the parent and also catalogues subworks. Similarly, a "trope index" is just an index of tropes, while a "trope + index" is a trope that also has subtropes.
Consider Literature - that's an index, pure and simple; vs. Discworld, which is both a work and an index to the various works that fall under its umbrella.
Here's something that might (or might not work): add a new page type called "Verse" that catalogues works that fit a particular theme or plotline. Just a thought.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Adding a description to the top of Literature makes it clearly a trope. A list without an explanation of the organizing principle isn't a good play, anyway.
Goal: Clear, Concise and WittyAccording to our definition, genres are tropes - more specifically, supertropes. They define a set of conventions expected to apply to most/all media under their umbrella.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Remember, we're talking about categorizing pages by type, for purposes of wiki functionality. The definitions should make sense, but they don't have to perfectly correlate with the function of the page as long as they are useful. We've got a lot of odd duck stuff that you could quibble into special buckets, but that's not useful for making the wiki work.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Fast Eddie of 2009 and Janitor said that a medium impacts and constrains on the various tropes that a work can use. Also said, a genre is a collection of tropes. You tell something is fantasy because it has dungeons, dragons and the Campbellian Monomyth in it or what have you. Basically a genre page is a list of tropes with some dressing around it. Add dressing, take it away or put it on another page but it's a list.
So using Fighteer's formulism I'd say put Literature under "Index" because Literature without a list of tropes or works is like a trope page with examples.
edited 16th Sep '10 12:48:22 PM by SomeSortOfTroper
I think the problem is that while technically the argument can be made that genre and media pages can be considered "tropes", realistically they are both thought of and used differently. When most users here think of a "trope page" they think of something like Xanatos Gambit or Gilligan Cut - something used in the content of (or fan reaction to, or development history of) a work. Genre is a method of classifying works, while medium is the actual methodology used to construct it. Neither of them really fit the usual way we think of "tropes".
Long post short, I think it would be useful to consider them as what they are - simple lists of works that fit their category.
Well, we're not interested in having lists that have no organizing principle stated, although we do have some. They just need to be improved.
You can look at the trope list under a named genre and derive a definition in your head. However, leaving that as exercise for every reader is just sort of lazy.
If we have a class of pages called 'list' we encourage that laziness. We can't call such pages a 'definition' because, well, definitions are about all we have.
What's a term that could work to describe both a genre and Death Tropes?
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty

The truth is that "index" no longer describes a particular page type. Index pages include tropes, works, administrivia, and miscellaneous. I think the determination of whether to treat a page as an index should be separate from the page type - a flag somewhere else that tags a page as an index. It makes little sense that pages like Happiness Tropes, Shout-Out, Star Trek, and So Bad, It's Good are all considered "indexes" rather than tropes, works, or lists.
edited 15th Sep '10 6:04:50 AM by Cidolfas