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. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
To be frank, ~Clancy Gardener is a bit of a wonk about formatting: they've also been called out by multiple people for needless replacements of redirects with potholes.
Past reporting on Clancy Gardener:
- 02 Feb 2023 reporting
by SamCurt, although this one might have been justified?
- 02 May 2023 reporting by StFan.
- 14 Aug 2023 reporting by Lord Gro.
- 04 Nov 2023 reporting by Lord Gro.
- 01 Jan 2024 reporting by StFan.
If anything, the truncated formatting is fine unless there's a need for comparison to differentiate "Same Title (different year)".
Edited by eagle108
I agree. And even when the year needs to be displayed, the truncated formatting still allow to put it outside of the link and the italics, which is a much better look.
^^^ and ^^ If were bringing up other issues with Clancy Gardener, I want to point out something I had to correct them on but didn't report or check if they had made similar mistakes in past edits:
When they were "cleaning up" Mushroom Maiden redirect links, they replaced them with direct links to Mushroom Man but using a Pothole make them look like Mushroom Maiden, including on Characters pages. This broke both the "don't change the trope name when listing it" and "gendered redirects are OK on Characters pages as long as they don't significantly alter the alphabetisation" rules. I sent them notifiers for them but they didn't fix them until after I sent them another message telling them to, despite being active on the wiki in the meantime.
Edited by homogenized
^ For what it's worth, I have not pulled any such business in Characters pages since — when I was cleaning up (or "cleaning up", as you say) Alien Prince redirect links, I left any on Characters pages alone, as you can see if you look at the Related page for that redirect.
I have said it before and will say it again: if a title is formatted as "X (XXXX)", that's the way it should appear. I do make some exceptions, such as if the title is inside parentheses. My being a stickler for grammar extends to not liking parentheses within parentheses, but parentheses within italics doesn't bother me, though I can understand that others may have more stringent standards.
Trimming the hedges, one trope at a time.
Is that, like, an actual rule though? The disambigs are there for, well, disambiging the work; it's not actually part of the title.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
^ It's not a rule. It's just my personal preference. I realize that this is a wonk on my part, but by that token, St Fan has a wonk about truncated formatting. I believe they and I are equally committed to our opposing positions on this.
Trimming the hedges, one trope at a time.
I mean, by saying things like "if a title is formatted as "X (XXXX)", that's the way it should appear", you're making an objective statement on policy that isn't actually a policy. You don't get to decide how things "should" appear, especially not if consensus is against you.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Plus, general consensus has precedence over personal preference.
Well, is there a general consensus?
Trimming the hedges, one trope at a time.
The primary issue at the matter is that you're insisting your personal preference and you've admitted that it's "a wonk on [your] part" of removing the truncated formatting.
^ All right, I'll cop to that, and if my personal preference is in the minority, I'll be (begrudgingly) willing to try to avoid removing truncated formatting if those titles have already been changed more than once.
But I believe my insisting on my personal preference is no less valid than StFan truncating the formatting in the first place if that's not a formal rule. As I said before, I think we're both equally fervent in our positions on this matter.
Trimming the hedges, one trope at a time.
Your assertion that your position could be as much valid as mine is unsubstantiated. Besides aligning more with the consensus that hiding a disambiguation year isn't a problem, there are several reasons why it should be done.
- In a list of trope examples, having some works with a year in parenthesis and some works without, just because the former have the bad luck of sharing their titles with some other works, looks unwieldy. All work titles should follow the same formating for uniformity. (There are also some efforts to always put those titles at the start of the example for easier alphabetization, but that's another debate.)
- The disambiguation year is unnecessary info in most cases, since it's generally easy from context to tell which work is concerned. If there are any doubt, a rollover with the mouse pointer is enough to see the year, or following the link if there's still a doubt about the exact work.
- As pointed above, the year is not part of the work title, and including it is misleading. Even in the few cases where the disambiguation is needed (for example if two works of the same name have examples of the same trope), then said disambiguation year has nothing to do inside the link and italics, which is reserved for the title alone.
^ Regarding your first and third points, it sounds like you're against the very idea of works having a disambiguation year in the page name. It may be an imperfect solution to disambiguating works that "have the bad luck of sharing their titles with some other works", per the reasons you give, but it's the solution the wiki has arrived at, and irritations like some works having a year in parenthesis and some works not, or the disambiguation year being inside the link and italics along with the title, are necessary to this end.
Regarding your second point, the disambiguation information should be immediately obvious to anyone looking at the example. They shouldn't have to jump through hoops, no matter how trivial, like deducing from the context of the example, examining the link with the mouse pointer or following the link.
By your logic, a better solution would be for all disambiguated works to have custom titles removing the disambiguation information. I would be willing to accept this, but from what I know, it's against the current consensus.
Trimming the hedges, one trope at a time.
, there technically was no consensus, just no argument which one is better got anywhere, so it halted on "the first format used is fine".
Edited by Amonimus
TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup
^ Which is the default when there's no clear answer. (In general I don't feel too strongly and I just feel like going out of your way to change formatting is just kinda pointless when there's so much else that could be fixed)
Arguing over which policy is better is not the purpose of ATT anyway.
Edited by WarJay77 Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
On the page Theremin, Clancy Gardener has removed all of the formatting for titles that hid a disambiguation year (such as Film/{{The Ten Commandments|1956}}) to the default custom title. And I'm pretty sure that's not the first page he's doing that.
Wouldn't that count as edit warring if those titles have already been changed once? Or trying to impose a style?
I think it was discussed already that such format were okay, notably because the year in parenthesis shouldn't be inside the italics. I believe a clear ruling is needed on this subject.