All The Tropes Wiki Project, Part XXI

[Bob Schroeck]

We have several cases where the city-as-it-is gets one page and city-as-it-is-used-or-portrayed gets another. I think that's sufficient precedent there.

[GethN7]

We have several cases where the city-as-it-is gets one page and city-as-it-is-used-or-portrayed gets another.  I think that's sufficient precedent there.

Fair enough.

[robkelk]

That's one vote for lump (Geth), and one vote for split (Bob).

My vote's for whichever one is less work overall.

[LulzKiller]

I think the nuance lost afaik is that there are places *based* on NYC but not explicitly NYC, think liberty city in the GTA universe.

I think Big Applesauce can be used for non-explicit (implicit) references to NYC, and the tabbed approach can be used for explicit references.

This reduces confusion and adds clarity. Tropes can therefore be divided into the pages depending on the way they reference a city.

[GethN7]

I think the nuance lost afaik is that there are places *based* on NYC but not explicitly NYC, think liberty city in the GTA universe.

I think Big Applesauce can be used for non-explicit (implicit) references to NYC, and the tabbed approach can be used for explicit references.

This reduces confusion and adds clarity. Tropes can therefore be divided into the pages depending on the way they reference a city.

Makes sense, I like this idea.

And Rob, I can handle whatever you think would work best, I just suggested an alternative solution, but if the status quo is cool with everyone else, well, not opposed to sticking with it.

[Bob Schroeck]

Yeah, I like it, too.

[robkelk]

Let's go wit it, then!

[GethN7]

I'm bringing this up for two reasons:

1. There seems to be a wiki bug when linking WikiForum links offsite. Due to what appears to be an issue with offsite URL tracing back to the wiki, WikiForum links may error out, saying the link does not exist or has been deleted even if it's legit, like this:

https://allthetropes.org/wiki/Special:Wi...s_an_issue.

The links still work when used in one's own web browser when linked to internally. This is an issue I can file a bug report with the extension maintainers of the extension for but is not a dire issue for our purposes.

2. The link above (which is the first sticked link in the Wiki Talk forum, please visit it directly, the above link will error out) goes to an issue I pointed out, I and Rob had a bit of debate on it, and Brent was kinda enough to levy his take on it recently. Given a resolution of some sort will allow me to continue to a badly needed cleanup job, anyone else who prefers to comment would be greatly welcomed if you have any opinions of your own to add before any official actions are taken.

[robkelk]

Now I'm trying to figure out just what it is that you want to do. Your first post looked to me that you wanted to get rid of an entire set of categories, but your most recent post (as of this posting) makes it look like yu want to keep them and automate the assignment of them.

So... pretend you're talking to upper management, please. What do you want to do here?

[GethN7]

Now I'm trying to figure out just what it is that you want to do. Your first post looked to me that you wanted to get rid of an entire set of categories, but your most recent post (as of this posting) makes it look like yu want to keep them and automate the assignment of them.

So... pretend you're talking to upper management, please. What do you want to do here?

Well, the subcategories like Film/Heartwarming, from where I and Brent are sitting, are an inherited artifact of how PmWiki indexing was converted to MediaWiki categories, and given there is little reason to believe such things would be used by us, I wanted to just toss them as superfluous.

You countered that people might be upset to not have them, hence my offering solutions to keep them around for that eventuality.

Me, I'm ultimately fine with whatever is decided on, but I'd prefer, speaking for myself only, to toss them as superfluous. I'd keep their actual content pages as a dumping ground for unsorted examples (unless they have none, then I'd redirect them to the main category index for Awesome/Funny/Heartwarming/etc. 

However, keeping in mind I don't speak for everyone, we might wish to retain them, so whatever is deemed most appropriate by the majority, either toss or retain in some manner, I will happily accept and help implement. I'd just prefer to have an answer on the topic because until we get this answered, a lot of cleanup I wish to do either way is frozen until we resolve this.

P.S. - It would be trivial to automate the Lua subpage modules at any time if we need to, so that can be done regardless how we decide on this should we wish to re-add the categories in question here at a later date.

Also, Brent and I have apparently figured out the WikiForum link bug. The URL nomenclature appends a period to the end of the URLs. On the wiki, it understands this, but off the wiki, the period is stripped out by other web services as a non-legit part of the URL, thus breaking the link.

[Dartz]

Silly question.

Are there any restrictions on slipping images into templates?

Somebody did that on Wikipedia to vandalise thousands of pages at once.

Would it be worth restricting template editing to a subset of trusted users? Or is that always the case?

[LulzKiller]

Silly question.

Are there any restrictions on slipping images into templates?

Somebody did that on Wikipedia to vandalise thousands of pages at once.

Would it be worth restricting template editing to a subset of trusted users? Or is that always the case?

Due to the spamflood we already have automoderation to deal with this AFAIK.

I can't remember our namespace protections because I think it's a Phabricator thing IIRC.

[GethN7]

Silly question.

Are there any restrictions on slipping images into templates?

Somebody did that on Wikipedia to vandalise thousands of pages at once.

Would it be worth restricting template editing to a subset of trusted users? Or is that always the case?

Due to the spamflood we already have automoderation to deal with this AFAIK.

I can't remember our namespace protections because I think it's a Phabricator thing IIRC.

Miraheze gives us pretty fine-grained control over practically all namespace operations, bureaucrats can change who gets to edit those. Moderation covers all user-editable namespaces, so template vandalism like that just isn't going to work at all. There are still a few ways to annoy us, which I'm not mentioning here, besides, you'd have to go very far out of your way to do so and most of the methods that don't require a ton of hassle have been plugged one way or another, so our worries of vandalism are practically nil.

[robkelk]

Silly question.

Are there any restrictions on slipping images into templates?

Somebody did that on Wikipedia to vandalise thousands of pages at once.

Would it be worth restricting template editing to a subset of trusted users? Or is that always the case?

Not a silly question, it has been done in the past, and the restrictions are already in place.

I'd rather not go into details.

[robkelk]

Here's a long-term project for somebody who uses Windows and Edge.

Install Microsoft's screen-reader software, use it to read some of our pages (including pages with infoboxes and navboxes), and report back with a list of what needs to be changed in our Style Guide to make the site more accessible for blind Tropers.

Unfortunately, the screen reader doesn't work with Chrome or Firefox.

If this means we need to completely rewrite wiki elements such as {{work}} or {{tropelist}}, so be it. If it doesn't, so much the better.

[robkelk]

Now that we have rules about bot runs, should we put "making an unapproved bot run" on our list of ban reasons? The existing reason "Protecting the wiki" only covers poorly-coded bot runs.

[GethN7]

Now that we have rules about bot runs, should we put "making an unapproved bot run" on our list of ban reasons? The existing reason "Protecting the wiki" only covers poorly-coded bot runs.

That would be entirely sensible.

[Bob Schroeck]

Yes, do so.

[robkelk]

That's a majority of bureaucrats in agreement.

Now, which list does it go on? Warning then tempban, tempban without warning, or permaban?

Considering that only people who should know better are supposed to be doing bot runs, I'm inclined to say "tempban without warning"...

[GethN7]

That's a majority of bureaucrats in agreement.

Now, which list does it go on? Warning then tempban, tempban without warning, or permaban?

Considering that only people who should know better are supposed to be doing bot runs, I'm inclined to say "tempban without warning"...

Considering the issue at hand, bots can do a LOT of damage without most noticing until a while after the fact, so I'd lean heavily in favor of a tempban without warning and an immediate block of the bot with an immediate stripping of the bot flag until the damage can be assessed.

[robkelk]

Change of topic: Now that I've made this, I'm debating whether to roll it out. I've already added it to "The Hero" and "Villains" - should I add it to the pages that it links to?

(Why make it if I wasn't sure whether to use it? It seemed like a good idea at the time...)

[Bob Schroeck]

Considering the issue at hand, bots can do a LOT of damage without most noticing until a while after the fact, so I'd lean heavily in favor of a tempban without warning and an immediate block of the bot with an immediate stripping of the bot flag until the damage can be assessed.

Yes. This.

[Bob Schroeck]

Change of topic: Now that I've made this, I'm debating whether to roll it out. I've already added it to "The Hero" and "Villains" - should I add it to the pages that it links to?

(Why make it if I wasn't sure whether to use it? It seemed like a good idea at the time...)

If you want to put in the effort, sure.  I've done my share of boxes like that -- although not on that scale -- and I'm of the opinion that it's the kind of feature that gives us an advantage over our competition.

[LulzKiller]

Change of topic: Now that I've made this, I'm debating whether to roll it out. I've already added it to "The Hero" and "Villains" - should I add it to the pages that it links to?

(Why make it if I wasn't sure whether to use it? It seemed like a good idea at the time...)

LGTM

[LulzKiller]

This is where I confirm I didn't mess up using that new template, in this new article here.