Trope Repair Shop and other threads that could really use help in.

Nova · 2011-08-06 02:32:58

Because it's better than making twenty dozen different threads...

Let's start with this one. I may be wrong, so I would appreciate people weighing in.

Stormtroper · 2011-08-06 02:57:55

Somebody once named Troper Namer a work I hadn't heard of, in a trope page I wrote (and named).

Somebody once put a "no pun intended" on a pun I very much intended.

Also, in the FFVI/Keftka example it's being used correctly.

Also, back when there wasn't the namespace thing or "(media)" titles I had an idea to start a bunch of fanfics/webcomics with trope names so they had to be renamed (starting with There Is No Such Thing As Notability, of course).

Nova · 2011-08-06 03:02:45

Somebody once named Troper Namer a work I hadn't heard of, in a trope page I wrote (and named).

Can you bring that up there please? >_>

Also, in the FFVI/Keftka example it's being used correctly.

Oh, okay.

Nova · 2011-08-06 03:08:25

I think it would be a good idea from now on to provide context, too, for those who tl;dr.

Stormtroper · 2011-08-06 03:16:26

Looking at my list of launched tropes, I might not have been the one who wrote the page with the incorrectly stated Trope Namer. Though I do remember that happening, so I'll bring it up anyway.

Also, I'm wondering why it even matters what the launcher named it after that or not.

Nova · 2011-08-06 03:22:20

Either way, it happened...

I do not understand it either. As far as I am aware, the problem is that people may confuse the trope with the work. However, rather than attempting to get to the root of the problem and treat that- finding a way to educate people as to what namespace to refer to, and to italicize works names- they are fixing the symptoms of the problem- renaming it- which still leaves the original problem there if this happens again.

Forzare · 2011-08-06 03:26:21

I've never even heard of that work. And it's not an especially difficult trope to figure out.

Counterclock · 2011-08-06 03:30:17

~~It's too bad no-one named their work "Nakama"~~

vandro · 2011-08-06 03:31:41

Don't push it. Or someone will...and all hell will break loose.

Stormtroper · 2011-08-06 03:39:44

There's a song called Nakama. How many tropes can you find?

Nova · 2011-08-06 03:47:25

I've never even heard of that work. And it's not an especially difficult trope to figure out.

Neither had I until this work was brought up, and I guessed it...

Nova · 2011-08-06 05:20:41

Really dude

really

Forzare · 2011-08-06 05:27:27

i haha oh wow'd

Counterclock · 2011-08-06 05:32:14

You can't expect doctors to go to med school.

You can't expect Fire fighters to put out fires.

You can't expect the police to lower crime rates.... wait, that one might be too loaded depending on your geographical location... Ummmm

Nova · 2011-08-06 05:50:13

Rules discussions?

Nova · 2011-08-06 06:29:39

This is annoying me.

Forzare · 2011-08-06 06:36:21

I think I remember why I usually avoid TRS. :l

Counterclock · 2011-08-06 06:37:22

~hug~

You know, if you manage to find a way to finally convince some of those people who like to parrot things without actually responding to some of the points you bring up, you may be able to apply that information on how to get people to actually read the rules.

Nova · 2011-08-06 06:43:13

It would be fairly easy to have the rules more obvious though.

Just have something fairly obvious, yet not intrusive on the stylesheet. Since only, well, editors, can edit the article, it's a fair way to stop it annoying non-editors, and it will actually bring it to the editor's attention and make them think they should actually read it.

In fact, making more things only visible to to editors would allow the Wiki to operate more efficiently.

Trigger_Loaded · 2011-08-06 10:45:34

^ Hate to get on your case, but Spark and Fighteer do have a point. You can show the rules in flaming text with a giant neon border, and people will still completely ignore them.

And since they're not supposed to be ignoring the edit rules now, I'm not sure how making them more obvious will make "You should have known about it" a more valid argument. They're supposed to know them now, so it's just as valid.

Nova · 2011-08-06 10:51:30

Yeah, but as it stands now the rules are not very visible. People will not really click on them, as there is only a single small link to them on one single page.

While you cannot force people to read them, many people will at least read through a list of style tips if there is a clear, visible list of them placed in a fairly obvious place.

tl;dr Having an obvious link towards the editing tips means that people who would otherwise miss them will at least see them. Beyond that, it's just kind of common sense to place the rules and editing guidelines where people can see them, rather than as a small link under a block most people will ignore.

Trigger_Loaded · 2011-08-06 10:56:19

^ Point taken. Though is there a link to the edit rules when you sign up, since you have to make an account in order to edit the wiki? If not, that's certainly the best place to put the edit rules.

Nova · 2011-08-06 11:00:37

No, there is not.

LouieW · 2011-08-06 15:46:26

I like the idea of this thread and I would greatly appreciate it if people could look through the first couple of pages of TRS and vote in crowners. I would recommend reading some of the threads so you can understand the arguments, but in many cases, I do not think that is really necessary since a lot of the alternative titles stuff comes down to personal preference.

I think one of the biggest issues with many of the older threads is that there are just not enough votes to do anything, whether doing something would mean closing the thread because of the crowner's no votes or actually working on the trope.

Anyway, that is my request and you can act on it or not act on it. I understand that for those who dislike TRS, it is a bit much to ask, so I obviously do not expect to get everyone to get involved just by posting here.

Elbeem · 2011-08-06 15:57:00

To add a bit to what Louie was saying, even if you do dislike TRS, you can still help by simply voting on threads that have crowners. You don't have to post your opinions or anything. Every vote helps.

Nova · 2011-08-08 10:43:49

And this thread could use more viewpoints.

Basically, it's about a trope named 'Electric Sheep are Cheap', which is named after a notable work. Unfortunately, the name, while based on a notable work, is incomprehensible if you haven't heard of it before. It is still a good name though.

Nova · 2011-08-08 23:51:46

Could people please help explain this?

Counterclock · 2011-08-08 23:53:20

People wearing down my sensibilities?

Best explanation for it that I can come up with it, Cygan.

Vorpy · 2011-08-08 23:59:04

I think that we have a lot of overly sensitive people on the wiki that
are seeing creepiness everywhere out of some weird defence mechanism to
some of the crits that the wiki has gotten. I see creepier stuff than
most of this is cartoons aimed at small children. There is nothing
inherently creepy in talking about breasts. There is nothing inherently
creepy in talking about teens growing into their sexuality. These are
themes from children's shows. There's this weird prudish air to the
wiki lately where anything over a G level sexually is creepy and I find
that attitude profoundly disturbing.

Nova · 2011-08-09 00:01:11

No, I mean, could someone please help me explain to him why people find having articles devoted to talking about people's breasts, up to and including listing breast sizes for common character archetypes up to and on lolis, is creepy?

Vorpy · 2011-08-09 00:03:52

No.

Mostly because it's not creepy.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Trope Repair Shop and other threads that could really use help in.

Comments