All The Tropes Wiki Project, Part XXI

[Bob Schroeck]

Old thread is here.

To save everyone the trouble of having to hop back to the old thread, I'm quoting Geth's last post in its entirety here:

Okay, before I do anything on the actual wiki, here is the new home and community pages optimized for both desktop and mobile view, so people on their computer and on their phone and tablets will see nothing too broken when they look at pages using any tabs

They were recreated using the Tabs extension with MobileTagsPlugin for the mobile view pages and TabberNeue, the fork of Tabber with support for mobile view, as default Tabber does not have mobile support and is entirely broken.

The mockups I'm linking are not perfect, but these should at least have minimal issues switching between desktop and mobile skins, compared to the original versions, which were working on desktop but completely broken on mobile:

https://allthetropes.org/wiki/File:Deskt...e_Page.jpg

I had to change a few section headers to plain wikitext and use a few hardline templates to keep things separated in mobile view while still looking good in desktop view.

https://allthetropes.org/wiki/File:Mobil...e_Page.jpg

In mobile view, the tabs are changed to an accordion-style dropdown that expands to let you read each section without spilling over other text or the dividers.

https://allthetropes.org/wiki/File:Deskt...Portal.jpg

Here I used TabberNeue for the parts using Tabber, which looks only slightly different from the classic Tabber look in desktop. Note the dropdown menu in desktop view for the page list of red links, this will not be visible until moused over and can be condensed if need be. This functionality already exists for the use of Tabs for those not aware.

https://allthetropes.org/wiki/File:Mobil...Portal.jpg

Here is the important part. All the TabberNeue tabs, you'll notice have a scroll bar for what goes off screen and will scroll over to what is off screen and back so mobile viewers can see all Tabber sections on mobile phones and tablets.

There were some minor issues with Tabs on the mobile view Community Portal (I'm on localhost, so this may not be the case on the actual wiki, but aside from some minor issues, it looks fine in mobile except for the fact the list does not condense for the list using Tabs up top), but it no longer shows raw extension code breakage like it did before.

It's not perfect, but compared to the horror show of broken Tabs/Tabber markup we had before, this looks a lot better for mobile users.

TabberNeue will replace Tabber, but they use the same syntax, so it will be an easy drop-in replacement. Tabs augmented with MobileTagsPlugin allows the Tabs extension to work better on mobile and at the very least prevents them from breaking to the point of splaying ugly extension code everywhere at worst.

I look forward to any comments before I make any changes, as I also plan to write up a new policy page for best practices so all pages can look good on mobile and desktop platforms going forward.

Note: TabberNeue may require about 24 hours even after a cache purge for the Miraheze servers to catch up, but given it will primarily affect the Community Portal and then only in the short term, this is the only possible downside of the switchover from Tabber to TabberNeue.

[Bob Schroeck]

Oh, btw, I noticed that HDev411's sock, GoldD954, still isn't banned. Is there a reason for this?

[robkelk]

I thought you were going to do that...

[GethN7]

I thought you were going to do that...

Same.

Anyway, I just would like to know if the mobile view improvements look good enough to make the changes. My localhost mockups don't have InstantCommons enabled and all scripting is called locally, hence any irregularities may be from that, both of which my localhost has disabled for reasons of performance. Otherwise, my mockups should be identical to what they would look like on Miraheze.

[Bob Schroeck]

Okay, Goldie's permabanned. HDev411 isn't yet...

Geth, I said it in my last post on the old thread, but I liked the look of everything you showed in the mockups. I'm okay with them.

And I'm continuing with fixing Cwf1997's problems... and I have to wonder why he has such a fascination with a particular porn parody of My Life as a Teenage Robot.

[GethN7]

Okay, Goldie's permabanned.  HDev411 isn't yet...

Geth, I said it in my last post on the old thread, but I liked the look of everything you showed in the mockups.  I'm okay with them.

And I'm continuing with fixing Cwf1997's problems... and I have to wonder why he has such a fascination with a particular porn parody of My Life as a Teenage Robot.

Done. Both the main page and community portal have been changed and are equivalent to my mockups for the live site.

I need to do some more localhost testing before writing the new policy page on best practices, but now we should have an entirely functional site for mobile and desktop viewers, and TabberNeue thankfully adapted instantly with little switchover issues.

I am open to suggestions on other accessibility and ergonomic features we need improved and will be happy to fix those issues ASAP.

[robkelk]

Now I think of this... Mind you, it's easy enough to retrofit if we want to do it.

Template:Infobox book has an option to specify the franchise that a work is from, linking back to the franchise page. Should we also set the franchise name as a category on the work's page?

Looking at manually-indexed pages on the wiki, I see that some franchises list their works in the franchise's category, and some don't. So there isn't a hard-and-fast rule about this yet.

Add it, or not?

(I'm leaning toward "add it"... but I'm not sure.)

[GethN7]

Now I think of this... Mind you, it's easy enough to retrofit if we want to do it.

Template:Infobox book has an option to specify the franchise that a work is from, linking back to the franchise page. Should we also set the franchise name as a category on the work's page?

Looking at manually-indexed pages on the wiki, I see that some franchises list their works in the franchise's category, and some don't. So there isn't a hard-and-fast rule about this yet.

Add it, or not?

(I'm leaning toward "add it"... but I'm not sure.)

I personally would not be against it. Either way, the category will link all related pages in one place, so it would work in a technical sense either way.

[Bob Schroeck]

Add it.

[robkelk]

Added. Now to find out how many redlinks that created...

EDIT: Apparently, just one. (Which I just created.) Unless there are franchises that have only one work page on ATT, which is possible.

[GethN7]

For ease of voting on the new bot policy, I added a poll to my blog post at the bottom:

https://allthetropes.org/wiki/Blog:Propo...t_accounts

It does not distinguish between regular users or admins, so we may need a better voting idea.

[robkelk]

It does not distinguish between regular users or admins, so we may need a better voting idea.

Why?

[robkelk]

Hmmmmm... As far as ATT knows, The Doctor is still being played by Matt Smith. I've added in "character needs description" sections for Twelve and Thirteen, and redlink titles for the episodes we don't have recapped yet, but... well, I don't watch Doctor Who any more. Anybody want to write some character entries and story recaps?

[Bob Schroeck]

And I've just finished reviewing every last edit ever made by Cwf1997, and what a chore it's been. Barely literate and often incoherent writing, obvious obsessions and misconceptions, small reference pools and more abounded. I noticed he used the same comparison for an actor's singing voice -- "like a combination of Fergie and Jesus" -- twice (the one Rob caught was the second time).

Good things to come out of this labor: I think I've eliminated or flagged for revision all of his worst stuff. And if he ever tries another sockpuppet, there's no doubt I'll be able to recognize it in an edit or two.

[GethN7]

It does not distinguish between regular users or admins, so we may need a better voting idea.

Why?

Given the technical complexity of the decision, this might be considered a technocratic idea best voted on by the technically competent only. Me, I doubt it, most of the policy concepts seem straightforward even for the technically unschooled but just pointing that out since it could be considered a technically specific area of competence best left to staff discretion.

Frankly, don't care either way myself.

[robkelk]

It does not distinguish between regular users or admins, so we may need a better voting idea.

Why?

Given the technical complexity of the decision, this might be considered a technocratic idea best voted on by the technically competent only. Me, I doubt it, most of the policy concepts seem straightforward even for the technically unschooled but just pointing that out since it could be considered a technically specific area of competence best left to staff discretion.

Frankly, don't care either way myself.

If a proposed change makes a difference as to how the wiki looks or works, then by our policy of "We're not TV Tropes so we don't dictate how things are done" we let everybody have a say in it.

If a proposed change doesn't make a difference as to how the wiki looks or works ... then why make it in the first place?

[GethN7]

It does not distinguish between regular users or admins, so we may need a better voting idea.

Why?

Given the technical complexity of the decision, this might be considered a technocratic idea best voted on by the technically competent only. Me, I doubt it, most of the policy concepts seem straightforward even for the technically unschooled but just pointing that out since it could be considered a technically specific area of competence best left to staff discretion.

Frankly, don't care either way myself.

If a proposed change makes a difference as to how the wiki looks or works, then by our policy of "We're not TV Tropes so we don't dictate how things are done" we let everybody have a say in it.

If a proposed change doesn't make a difference as to how the wiki looks or works ... then why make it in the first place?

Fair enough.

[GethN7]

Changing gears, our friend ChristianBethel presented the following series of books showing "Villain By Default" may not always be applicable to Hitler:

https://allthetropes.org/wiki/Topic:Wdcl7dyw4skbpfnq

Now, WWII history is something of a passion of mine, and while I have yet to read these books, I did some research into their critics on both sides of the fence, and most are considered, at worst, somewhat apologist, but they all do mention things that run counter to the Hitler was absolutely evil and the Nazis were too narrative.

Since we strive for objective accuracy here, if our friend wants to mention facts directly counterable by proven evidence to said narrative for the Adolf Hitler page, I will personally research those facts and if verifiable, I will let them ride. Otherwise, Hitler was no saint, and nothing utterly apologist can pass muster, as even Hitler made no secret his ultimate goals were conquest and mass murder as key pillars of his end game and ideology.

Made clear this here:

https://allthetropes.org/wiki/Topic:Wdcpy2gh94xzjso9

[Bob Schroeck]

On another topic entirely, Christianbethel's project to rewrite the Hitler page disturbs me. In particular, his response to the Villain By Default entry strikes me as a potentially apologist move than simply rewriting it to something like "It is difficult to find a work that portrays him in anything but the most unalloyed evil light". I'm willing to stand by and see what he comes up with, but I think letting it go through should be based on a vote of all the mods.

[GethN7]

On another topic entirely, Christianbethel's project to rewrite the Hitler page disturbs me.  In particular, his response to the Villain By Default entry strikes me as a potentially apologist move than simply rewriting it to something like "It is difficult to find a work that portrays him in anything but the most unalloyed evil light".  I'm willing to stand by and see what he comes up with, but I think letting it go through should be based on a vote of all the mods.

That's why I'll be straining it like a fine-toothed comb for the historical side.

It's well known not every single one of the things Hitler did was absolutely evil. His love of highways was such a good idea Eisenhower copied it for the US. Hitler favored campaigns for animals rights and the dangers of smoking, and many laws for the former established during the Nazi regime as still intact today because they were good ideas even then.

That said, I too am leery of a full-blown rewrite. History may be written by the winners, but Hitler did lose after provable evidence of genocide, slavery, and enough war crimes to fill the pages of several weighty tomes were committed by Hitler himself and those for whom he was responsible, so whatever objective good things he was capable of, Hitler committed great objectively provable evils and no amount of provable good he did will ever erase or diminish the weight of those crimes.

If this is merely an attempt to prove "Hitler was a human being just like us, capable of great evil yet not without the capacity to do good, albeit evil was what he became infamous for", then fine. Anything else will be tossed out, and as I said, I'm not averse to getting copies of this material cited and giving it a read to verify things.

[robkelk]

In order to cover our assets...

I've just added this text to the General disclaimer page.

Specific Additional Disclaimers

All The Tropes sometimes makes available copies of works that are in the public domain or available under free-use licenses. The opinions and views expressed on Source subpages are those of the creators of the works, and do not necessarily reflect those of the editors or moderators of All The Tropes. This material is presented in accordance with this wiki's core policy on Literary Criticism.

Rather necessary IMHO, since we host a copy of Mein Kampf.

[GethN7]

In order to cover our assets...

I've just added this text to the General disclaimer page.

Specific Additional Disclaimers

All The Tropes sometimes makes available copies of works that are in the public domain or available under free-use licenses. The opinions and views expressed on Source subpages are those of the creators of the works, and do not necessarily reflect those of the editors or moderators of All The Tropes. This material is presented in accordance with this wiki's core policy on Literary Criticism.

Rather necessary IMHO, since we host a copy of Mein Kampf.

Concur, wise call.

[Bob Schroeck]

Agreed.

[Bob Schroeck]

Meanwhile, yet another topic.

In one month and one day, NormAtreides' six-month ban will be up. We should probably plan for his return to the wiki, whatever form it takes.

[GethN7]

Shared my preliminary findings with Bob, but given the sheer gravity of the red flag I discovered making it public the guy who wanted to rewrite our Adolf Hitler page is on thin ice:

https://allthetropes.org/w/index.php?tit...ingle-view

I checked the sources they want to use, save one which I've yet to acquire a copy of. One is basically a contrarian historian commentary on other biographies of Hitler, taking a devil's advocate position against their positions to encourage critical thinking. Nothing too terrible there, just not a good source on its own.

The books of how Hitler had blacks and other non-ethnic Germans willing to fight for him are decent sources, greenlighted those.

The one source I spiked as being utterly crap is one book that reads like something written by someone who went out of their way to try and rehabilitate Hitler and Nazism and had many glaring errors and outright crap to make me smell the air for BS.

Short version is I told this guy to find better sources or not even bother, all they have one source of facts worth squat right now, and the page does not need a full rewrite to mention those few extra details.