Follow TV Tropes

Ask The Tropers

Go To

Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help. It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here.

Ask the Tropers:

Trope Related Question:

Make Private (For security bugs or stuff only for moderators)

30th Dec, 2019 01:51:45 AM

Honestly, this has grated on me for years. A cleanup project seems like overkill, but it's not a good editing practice.

30th Dec, 2019 01:54:43 AM

^ Though working on it in the actual ROCEJ short-term thread might help...

30th Dec, 2019 01:08:24 PM

Yeah, this is annoying. I'd endorse a removal of most of these sinkholes.

30th Dec, 2019 02:18:08 PM

I've used ROCEJ as a pothole when removing complaining on tropeable topics to tell people not to do it again, but I can see why this could be a problem. I'd be down for removing the potholes. Should the policy from then on be to tell people not to discuss the dicey topics at all?

30th Dec, 2019 03:31:24 PM

If someone won't stop reverting edits to make a entry about a dicey topic more neutral or getting more into detail than they should when they've been told not to in edit reason or PM then that's something to bring to ATT and be dealt with

It's not like a snide reminder on the page is going to stop anyone that's already ignoring edit reasons and P Ms.

30th Dec, 2019 07:13:26 PM

I also support the removal of the sinkholes.

30th Dec, 2019 08:21:12 PM

Please remove those sinkholes. Matters of internal policy like that really have no place on the wiki.

30th Dec, 2019 09:19:51 PM

I guess that it is a problem. I agree they should be removed. I am in the process of creating an ROCEJ notifier in my sandbox, actually.

31st Dec, 2019 12:54:50 PM

I admit I used those potholes in the past because I thought it was a genuine way to end a controversial example without getting too into details about it. Now I realized just how hypocritical and Flame Bait-y they can be.

Edited by DivineFlame100
31st Dec, 2019 01:05:12 PM

So you're saying we should be cautious and exercise greater judgment about ROCEJ potholes? Sounds like somebody ought to make a rule.

31st Dec, 2019 04:01:01 PM

I suggest we take this to Long-Term Projects and start a discussion. We seem to agree it should be dealt with and it's good to coordinate the efforts and report about its progress in one place.

Also — we really could use any help we can get with de-wicking sinkholes and removing other misuse from the wiki. So please if you are reading this and you are casual editors or eager newbies who wish to edit more, please consider joining our efforts in Trope Repair Shop, Short-Term Projects and Long-Term Projects.

Removing or correcting 2 000 wicks is a never-ending Sisyphean task for one troper because every time you remove 10 wicks, 20 wicks appear elsewhere in no time, or even they are put back after a while. It's like going in circles or moving one step forwards, two steps backwards. However, for 100 tropers, it would be a piece of cake and could be dealt with in a day or two.

31st Dec, 2019 05:26:46 PM

Okay, so we remove all the sinkholes where somebody says "that's all we'll say about the subject" and links to Rule of Cautious Editing Judgement. What other links to that page do we remove?

(Also, happy new year!)

1st Jan, 2020 04:08:50 PM

A few times in the past, I was tempted in removing this kind of Word Cruft (think about it. That's the faulty category it falls into). However, I didn't do it myself because this was actually discussed in the past in ATT (the troper who suggested the removal of this was unable to get a supporting majority because the wording of their query read more like "I just find those disclaimers annoying"). It's good to know, now with a more understandable exposition of the problem, that the removal of these things is more supported.

An uncited additional problem originated by this is that it also gives an excuse to add zero-context examples ("this happens a lot in politics. And that's all we shall say about it"). If there's no way to add context to a topic without reliving controversial grounds, then it's not worth brining it up whatsoever.

Edited by MyFinalEdits
1st Jan, 2020 04:12:03 PM

^ It's actually cited on the Zero-Context Example page.

1st Jan, 2020 05:13:41 PM

I'm surprised that this hasn't been established already. Why is it suddenly a problem now? Does nobody here on the wiki have the spine to bring this up?

I mean, it's pretty obvious its a problem when ROCEJ is on the Pothole Magnet page.

Would a cleanup thread be required for this? Maybe use this one:

Edited by PlasmaPower
1st Jan, 2020 05:20:19 PM

^ Probably more like "people only just now got around to realizing it's a problem, or mobilizing to combat the problem".

1st Jan, 2020 05:28:17 PM

Should we also edit the ROCEJ page tell people to not pothole that article?

14th Jan, 2020 06:57:25 AM

Has an official decision been made on the matter?

14th Jan, 2020 08:52:25 AM

Mod statement and a bunch of users agreeing ROCEJ potholes and snide warnings should be removed is not official enough?

14th Jan, 2020 01:25:19 PM

Was just wondering if an official clean up was started.

14th Jan, 2020 01:28:41 PM

A sinkhole cleanup has already been started. Here's the link again.

Edited by gjjones
17th Jan, 2020 02:39:12 PM

Wait, why is this a problem? I've thought it a good idea myself.

17th Jan, 2020 04:57:11 PM

The reasons were discussed earlier in the thread.

18th Jan, 2020 12:45:36 AM

For several reasons covered above:

1)It's more trouble than it's worth because such a warning will often serve to just antagonize the kind of people it's targeting

2)It's often used to create ZC Es

3)It's also often used as an instant shut-down for people to forbid broaching subjects that don't like

4)It's just plain unsightly and gives the text of the page a really snide and hostile tone

18th Jan, 2020 02:37:12 AM

Eh, not sure I agree, but okay. And if people start edit warring, just give them a warning then report them?

18th Jan, 2020 07:37:02 PM

People that want to edit-war are going to edit-war regardless of unsightly warnings (hell, if anything the warnings might spurn them to act even worse) so there's no practical reason for them.


How well does it match the trope?

Example of:


Media sources: