All The Tropes Wiki Project, Part XXXI

[robkelk]

I think most of the mods posted to the thread "Contemplating a rename" on Talk:Ryu and Ken -- which has been slowly chugging along for years.

(TL;DR: Umbire the Phantom suggested renaming the trope, some tropers insisted it not be renamed because of the notability of the source (and didn't budge after I pointed out There Is No Such Thing as Notability and Trope Namer Syndrome), and no consensus was reached. A month ago, I asked whether we'd come up with a new name yet. So far, nobody's insisted on keeping the current name... and a few different names have been proposed.

Could folks read from this post and following, and offer opinions about one or more of the suggested names, please? Considering the amount of heat the proposal created the first time around, I don't want to be accused of imposing my will regarding the trope name. (EDIT: My only real preference here is "not the current name"; I have no strong preference for or against any of the proposals.)

[MilkmanConspiracy]

I think a rename would be good. Shows and games often lose cultural luster over time, and not everyone is a gamer who would recognize characters from Street Fighter.

I chipped in earlier, with the proposal by Haggishunter for "Fu-Plicate" being my current personal preference.

[Bob Schroeck]

I've put in my 2 cents' worth, after sitting on the fence all this time.

[robkelk]

And I've closed the voting after five days. Thanks, all.

[robkelk]

I just noticed that using Tabber more than once on a page creates Lint Errors - one for each use of Tabber after the first.

Lint errors: Duplicate IDs

So the Community Portal page needs to be reverted to using Tabs instead of Tabber.

[GethN7]

I just noticed that using Tabber more than once on a page creates Lint Errors - one for each use of Tabber after the first.

Lint errors: Duplicate IDs

So the Community Portal page needs to be reverted to using Tabs instead of Tabber.

I'd be against that. Lint errors are just things that the internal code parser considers an error, and in that case, I'd call that a false positive, as the syntax being used more than once on a page is exactly what it's intended for.

[robkelk]

I just noticed that using Tabber more than once on a page creates Lint Errors - one for each use of Tabber after the first.

Lint errors: Duplicate IDs

So the Community Portal page needs to be reverted to using Tabs instead of Tabber.

I'd be against that. Lint errors are just things that the internal code parser considers an error, and in that case, I'd call that a false positive, as the syntax being used more than once on a page is exactly what it's intended for.

Then the code needs to be debugged.

[Bob Schroeck]

Do we have a trope for a historical timeline created as part of the worldbuilding for a setting, like the Calendar page at the KanriKyara wiki, or the year-by-year history at the end of my book GURPS IST?

[robkelk]

We have a few tropes that touch on the concept ("Narrative Filigree", "Cryptic Background Reference", "Backstory"), but as far as I know there's nothing that exactly matches.

(The timeline that appears in some copies of Heinlein's "Future History" story collections would be another example.)

[Bob Schroeck]

We have a few tropes that touch on the concept ("Narrative Filigree", "Cryptic Background Reference", "Backstory"), but as far as I know there's nothing that exactly matches.

(The timeline that appears in some copies of Heinlein's "Future History" story collections would be another example.)

Hm. Guess I have to throw it on the stack with all the other half-developed trope pages I have piling up.

[Norgarth]

Another example would the timelines for various table top RPGs/games that are set in a future setting (Cyberpunk 2020/etc, Shadowrun, Battletech, and so on)

[Bob Schroeck]

And IIRC at least some of the timelines on Alternatehistory.com have them as well.

[Vulpis]

Chipping in on the timelines front, and with an adjacent subject...I seem to remember both Anne McCaffrey's 'Dragonriders of Pern' and Mercede's Lackey's Valdemar books having such a timeline, that doubles in showing where various novels in their respective series fit into those timelines. I seem to remember as similar novel timeline for the Legends/Expanded Universe era Star Wars novels set after ROTJ (the ones by Timothy Zahn and others). I also seem to recall multiple versions of the Star Trek timeline. And, of course, there's the infamous Legend of Zelda branching timeline. Though that's more a organization of the events of the games, rather than worldbuilding for them/

[Norgarth]

I recall the 'Dragonriders of Pern' timeline as well

[robkelk]

Looks like there's another free wiki farm out there - Telepedia... which is cool.

I see on The talk page for their "Meta" wiki that the people in charge use the screen names "OA" and "Raidarr"... which makes me wonder. Are they the same people who use those names on Miraheze? If they are, are there any conflict of interest issues if we were to start suggesting to disgruntled Tropers that they can start their own fork of ATT on Telepedia? (I am not up on USA corporate laws.)

[robkelk]

There are two new edits in the Moderation queue, both with substantially the same content, both by HLIAA14YOG -- time stamps 13:27:45 and 13:28:14 UTC today. I don't feel comfortable approving or rejecting them without a second opinion... (Yeah, it looks to me like he's backsliding.) Could somebody else take a look at these, please?

[Bob Schroeck]

Oooh, that's a hard call. It's certainly not the bile and spittle of his past stuff, but given the religious context he's blatantly ignoring there might be some underlying antisemitism buried in there somewhere. If you want to bounce them, well, there's a trivial usage error in both (a missing verb) and he simply cut and pasted the passage he wrote for Cate Blanchett to Sandra Bullock's page without changing the referents (i.e., it's still written about Blanchett). (And that strongly suggests to me that he was so subsumed by personal outrage that he didn't even stop to think he needed to.)

[MilkmanConspiracy]

My nickel on the content as written:
* At risk of being a hypocrite for some of my own edits - This is a wall of text. Outside of the online citation (See next point), and a brief description of skin being taken from one person to help her, everything else is fluff at best and editorializing at worst.
* These are living people - I strongly feel the inline citation is warranted for the exceptional claim. 
* Who said it? On each edit it sounds like the person in question spoke for the other. That’s technically possible, but unusual. 
* No link to an archived version of the article is provided.
* Outlets retract stuff all the time. I’m not saying it’s false, but there may be a good reason it was retracted, including potentially that it isn’t true.

Now to try and figure out if this even had any merits on its face, I did a google search about it. Given the topic this may be not safe for work, but People magazine has an article about it Here. Without the original article, my best reading of the situation based on what is publicly available now is that they did indeed get the procedure done, but it’s not directly taking a body part and injecting it or grafting it, but rather a procedure relying on cloned human cells. 

I think that means the trope still applies, but given the squick factor and the involvement of living people I think a more reasonable edit would look like:
* Human Resources: People Magazine reported here that so and so underwent a cosmetic procedure involving cloned human cells.

[robkelk]

Looking at this troper's history, I see that this is bigger than I thought at first.

I need unequivocal statements from the admins: Did HLIAA14YOG violate our rules?

We warned him in this post that "When your tempban expires, you will remain On Notice. Any violation of any rule, policy, or guideline will be grounds for a permanent ban from editing here."

So this isn't just a matter of rejecting an edit because of how it's worded. This is a matter of perma-banning a user who (as I've pointed out in the past) brings to ATT a viewpoint that is not shared by most of the mods. I need to know that he did or did not do something to deserve a ban before I do anything about these edits.

[robkelk]

That said, I think that he did break the rules. This is what I was going to say to him before I thought to double-check his history:

You said that the magazine has retracted their statement; we must assume that this was because they could not support their statement in court. Since it has been retracted, we have only your word that this was ever published at all.

Also, even if you ''do'' have evidence that this was said, we cannot find any evidence that the action was ever actually performed the way that you described it.

Please note that "Adding incorrect text and presenting it as fact" is listed as grounds for a warning on the first occurrence and a tempban on a repeated occurrence.
Please note that "Making potentially libellous statements on an opinion page" is listed as grounds for a tempban without warning on the first occurrence.

[Bob Schroeck]

I wasn't thinking of the edits on that level. Upon reconsidering in that context, I fully support basically telling him we've had it with his shit and don't let the door hit him on the way out.

[MilkmanConspiracy]

I think I found the article in question on the wayback machine. The article is still live, and there really was a retraction, though annoyingly it’s not documented on the article itself. Given that the context, I wouldn’t be surprised if this was really about SEO or ensuring certain keywords don’t appear, though it’s impossible to tell without a retraction statement.

Edit: Copyedit

[MilkmanConspiracy]

That said, I agree that they may have flown too close to the sun on this. They were warned about such behavior in the past.

"Please note that "Making potentially libellous statements on an opinion page" is listed as grounds for a tempban without warning on the first occurrence."

I’d say it’s more serious than that, since it’s the primary page, not an opinion page.

[GethN7]

That said, I agree that they may have flown too close to the sun on this. They were warned about such behavior in the past.

"Please note that "Making potentially libellous statements on an opinion page" is listed as grounds for a tempban without warning on the first occurrence."

I’d say it’s more serious than that, since it’s the primary page, not an opinion page.

Kinda torn to be honest. On one hand, he does cite something that was written down and it is a factual statement that can be verified. On the other hand, he doesn't stop at the facts, and adds some soapboxing to the end.

Personally, I'm on the fence, but won't oppose the result of everyone else deciding what to do one way or the other.

[MilkmanConspiracy]

That said, I agree that they may have flown too close to the sun on this. They were warned about such behavior in the past.

"Please note that "Making potentially libellous statements on an opinion page" is listed as grounds for a tempban without warning on the first occurrence."

I’d say it’s more serious than that, since it’s the primary page, not an opinion page.

Kinda torn to be honest. On one hand, he does cite something that was written down and it is a factual statement that can be verified. On the other hand, he doesn't stop at the facts, and adds some soapboxing to the end.

Personally, I'm on the fence, but won't oppose the result of everyone else deciding what to do one way or the other.

I’m kind of in the same boat, if my wording didn’t make it clear. I do think they are trying to do better, and it’s human nature to trip up and backslide while trying to change habits, get heated at seeing certain news, etc. Still, the terms presented to them were cut and dry, so it’s difficult to just ignore it.