Topic on User talk:DocColress

Someone come and delete this from this page...

You had two days to veto that page move at Talk:Complete Monster before the page move was made. EDIT: And the Recent Changes log shows you were online and editing during those two days.

I have restored the page.

And if a page with one entry is your definition of "spam", then (a) you need to learn what spam really is, and (b) I need to unprotect the Complete Monster pages because they were semi-protected under false pretenses.

@Labster @GethN7 @Looney Toons @QuestionableSanity @DocColress @LulzKiller @SelfCloak

Seconded. We have plenty of pages with only one entry on them. That is not at de facto definition of spam.

Thirded. I'd rather we keep the page and eliminate repeats on other pages as opposed to removing it.

I hadn't seen the notification asking me for vetoing it or not. I veto it now because we already have a Complete Monster page for examples from the Tales series to go to, and that entry for the Tales of Berseria monster is already there well before this page's creation. There is no logic in making a separate page for a single example in a single game when we already have that example in a page for all entries in that game series.

For reference, it's the second to last entry on this page, see?

https://allthetropes.org/wiki/Complete_Monster/Tales_(series)

That is still not a definition of "spam".

And it looks to me like we have a project - take all those one-offs listed on pages about multiple works and split them out into pages for single works.

I have restored Complete Monster/Tales of Berseria again. EDIT: And protected it.

I have added Category:Multiple Works Need Separate Pages to Complete Monster/Tales (series).

And I think we need to formally define the policy on how many entries are required for a subpage.

I vote for "1".

@Labster @GethN7 @Looney Toons @QuestionableSanity @DocColress @LulzKiller @SelfCloak

Likewise - I vote for "1".

I still vote for 4, but even 2 or 3 would be better than 1. To put it simply, a trope page that has only 1 entry on it is pure cringe and cannot justify it's existence.

In the unlikely event that you win, Doc, you have just volunteered to "fix" every other one-example page on the wiki. Because if it becomes policy, it's policy for everything, not just your personal little bailiwick. Hope you have a lot of free time.

I will make time if I have to. Honestly, I did not think that one-example pages were a thing. I'd assumed that even pages still under construction would contain two examples at most.

Your ignorance should not be the grounds for a universal policy.

@Looney Tunes: I did not delete under the reasoning of "spam" this time.

@Robkelk: I want GethN7 to weigh in on this. Because, to be blunt, your project idea sounds completely ridiculous, redundant, and painfully needless. Pages that cover multiple works have worked out perfectly fine for years now, on this Wiki as well as on TV Tropes. There is no logical reasoning whatsoever in taking all the one-offs and turning them into separate pages. If we have a Complete Monster page for characters in the Tales series, there is no need to break them all into separate pages. Same goes for series' like Mario, The Legend of Zelda, Kingdom Hearts, Ace Attorney, Dragon Ball, Digimon, Pokemon, Mega Man, Mortal Kombat, Sailor Moon, Sonic the Hedgehog, Star Wars, Yu-Gi-Oh!, etc. Increasing the page count for Complete Monster subpages due to making separate whole pages for individual entries in series' is quite possibly the silliest proposal I have ever heard.

How many entries are required for a subpage? I vote for "4." If all it takes is 1 entry, then it's barely even a page.

We have been splitting up pages that cover multiple works for years now. We even have a category for them that is permanently linked from the Community Portal.

This isn't my idea; it was in force before I became an admin.

EDIT: And I just saw your Relationship request to become my foe. I rejected it. Do you really want somebody who can take away admin rights as a foe?

I feel like if the 'foe' feature is going to cause that much bother, what's the point in keeping it? I don't have much perspective to contribute in the years long drama that is the CM domain of ATT, but can we all remain calm please?

Also SocialProfile is broken on ATT per editing profiles and databases, but that's another matter for another time; if someone is willing to help create a Phabricator report, that'd be great.

Agreed on the "foe" feature. Why do we even have that button?

I cannot recall when splitting up pages like that was a thing for tropes like Complete Monster. What works for things like Awesome, Funny, Heartwarming, Nightmare Fuel, Tearjerker, Wild Mass Guessing, Headscratchers, Laconic, etc. when applied to individual works does not work for Complete Monster.

EDIT: Do you? I suggest we wait for GethN7 to weigh in on this matter before it can be resolved definitively. Until then, my veto stands firm. We do not need a Complete Monster subpage dedicated to a single example from a single installment of a series that already has a Complete Monster subpages where examples from that series go to.

Do I ... want to take away your admin rights? Not without a discussion amongst all of the bureaucrats first and a majority agreement that it's necessary. But if one of the other bureaucrats takes them away, I won't undo the action.

MOD HAT ON: Fine, since you want an opinion, here is mine.

If we have to choose between a dedicated page for just one specific example or lump multiple examples across a series, I prefer the former.

I really, really want to avoid repeated information that the latter is prone to providing, and even if a page has just one example, we can use that page to make sure cloned examples do not exist on other pages.

Series examples would be better served on a communal page for CMs that span multiple works in a series, since they can't be pigeonholed to just one specific work.

That's my take on what should be done.

As for making unilateral decisions, that's why we have a majority rule. You've done a fine job keeping the CM pages under control, Doc, but in this case, I must firmly oppose your fiat decision making as completely inappropriate, and if you want to be obstinate about it, then you might be better off with out your mod powers for awhile.

If you'd like to make a compelling argument why I'm wrong, I'm open to hearing it, as would anyone else, but if your logic fails to sway the majority, then I suggest you accept what the majority have ruled.

"Lump multiple examples across a series" is how Complete Monster has always been done. Like, since the trope's beginning on this wiki. It's still done that way on TV Tropes and is a far more sensible way of grouping together examples of characters who qualify for the trope as defined by the trope's criteria than making a whole bunch of different subpages based on single installments of the larger series or category, especially if that single installment contains only a single character who matches the criteria for qualifying as a Complete Monster.

For example, say we were to make a subpage for every single game in the Final Fantasy series that has an example. In some of those games, there is only one character who matches the criteria needed to qualify as a Complete Monster. But now that the single games have their own pages, what's to stop someone from either adding new elaboration on the character so that the page becomes nothing but rambling about how evil that character is, or possibly adding a character who doesn't qualify? It opens a can of worm that I'd prefer we not open.

There should be a limit to how liberally we use tropes and how far we take "We Are Not TV Tropes". This right here is a line that needn't be crossed.

Series examples would be better served on a communal page for CMs that span multiple works in a series, since they can't be pigeonholed to just one specific work.

But isn't that how it's already been done? This whole mess started because someone felt that because a game's YMMV page only contained a Complete Monster entry, the page should be turned into a Complete Monster page just for that one entry, even though we already had a Tales series Complete Monster page and it already contains not only that example, but that exact entry, word-for-word. In no logical universe should we have both a Complete Monster subpage for the Tales series AND a Complete Monster subpage dedicated to just one character from one of the Tales games. It just makes no sense. In any event, the YMMV page for Tales of Berseria now includes another trope entry aside from Complete Monster, so that should be cause for this matter to be deemed irrelevant and dropped.

I apologize for my inappropriate decision making and again apologize for missing out on when I was expected to Yay or Nay the creation of that page. Sometimes real life will be in the way and I won't have time to tend to a matter on this Wiki until later. But had I tended to the matter sooner, I would veto the notion to make that page, so I feel my veto, while belated, should still be valid. I say Nay to the existence of Complete Monster/Tales of Berseria under the reasoning of Complete Monster/Tales (series) already exists for the purpose of housing examples of the trope that come from all games in the Tales series.

"Lump multiple examples across a series" is how Complete Monster has always been done. Like, since the trope's beginning on this wiki.

Which simply means that bringing Complete Monster into line with other tropes on the wiki is a move that's long overdue.

For example, say we were to make a subpage for every single game in the Final Fantasy series that has an example. In some of those games, there is only one character who matches the criteria needed to qualify as a Complete Monster. But now that the single games have their own pages, what's to stop someone from either adding new elaboration on the character so that the page becomes nothing but rambling about how evil that character is, or possibly adding a character who doesn't qualify?

Why not let people ramble? These are subpages, so the "no natter in the main page" rule doesn't apply. Adding additional supporting information is IMHO a good thing.

I'll come back to the "character who doesn't qualify" bit in a moment.

This right here is a line that needn't be crossed.

In your opinion. As far as I can tell, the rest of us crossed it years ago.

In any event, the YMMV page for Tales of Berseria now includes another trope entry aside from Complete Monster, so that should be cause for this matter to be deemed irrelevant and dropped.

Now it's time to come back to the "character who doesn't qualify" bit. YMMV pages are for subjective examples, but you want to control what gets posted as an example of Complete Monster.

• If CM is a subjective trope, then you're placing the opinion of a mod above the opinions of average tropers - which is what All The Tropes was forked away from TV Tropes to get away from.
• If CM is a not subjective trope, then it was right and proper that the page that I moved be taken out of YMMV. (If it's been added back in, then it should come out again.)

But had I tended to the matter sooner, I would veto the notion to make that page, so I feel my veto, while belated, should still be valid.

The more I think about it - and especially in light of the comment I just made about why ATT forked away from TVT - the less I like the idea of somebody on the admin team having a veto over what other tropers are or are not allowed to post, as long as what's posted is on-topic for the wiki.

TL;DR: Your argument for the wiki doing things your way is, IMHO, a set of good reasons why we should stop doing things your way.

Complete Monster is a subjective character-based trope. Those types of tropes aren't handled the same way as many other tropes on the wiki.

Additional supporting information is a good thing, sure. If the "no natter on the main page" rule doesn't apply, we can allow it, I guess.

Ah, so if the rest of you crossed a line, that explains the problem. Working with absolutely zero restrictions would only make things go wild on the edits on this Wiki like what happened on the Wikia version of this site. Not being ultra Draconian and strict with adherence to rules and guidelines like on TV Tropes isn't exactly licence for total lawlessness in terms of what we could do.

I don't want to control what gets posted as an example. The trope has plainly laid out criteria that controls that, and characters who come close enough to the mark are allowed to be cited as examples on YMMV page just as much as characters who definitively check off all points of the criteria.

It IS a subjective trope, even if not entirely so due to the criteria in place that a character needs to pass in order to qualify as an example of the trope. CM being a subjective trope is what puts it on YMMV pages in the first place, and most of the examples cited on subpages will also be cited on the YMMV pages of their work. If average tropers consider Innominat to be a CM, then he can be cited as an example on both the YMMV page for the game he's featured in and on the Tales series CM subpage. There has never been a problem with having them on both.

I would never veto a character getting added as a CM to a YMMV page, but I would veto the idea of making that character's CM entry into a page unto itself when there's already an existing page for that example to go on.

TL;DR: I don't want the Wiki to do things "my way", I want them to do things in a way that is sensible.

I don't want to control what gets posted as an example.

In that case, there is no reason for you to have a veto.

Anyone who is only reading this thread, please also read this thread and this thread.

In that case, there is no reason for you to have a veto.

Uh, I'm not vetoing Innominat as an example - he stays. But on the Tales (series) page, not on a subpage for the game all unto itself.

You misunderstand.

Since you don't want to control what gets posted as an example, there is no reason for you to have a veto. At all. On any Complete Monster subpage. Or regarding the existence (or lack thereof) of any Complete Monster subpage.

If somebody wanted to put together a page "Complete Monster/Monty Python's Flying Circus", there is no reason for you to have a veto over it, or over what appears on it. You don't want to control what gets posted as an example.

If somebody wanted to put together a page "Complete Monster/Real Life", there is no reason for you to have a veto over it, or over what appears on it. You don't want to control what gets posted as an example. (I would object to the existence of such a page on the grounds of the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment, but an objection is not a veto.)

I have posted a blog linked in the site header to centralize all discussions on this topic, please refer to that and comment as appropriate.

I have no idea what Robkelk is even saying anymore.

I would have to veto such things because that would be blatant misuse of the trope. Pure comedies and real life do not lend themselves to this trope.

Take it to https://allthetropes.org/wiki/Blog:A_post_on_a_recent_bit_of_drama_involving_Comple_Monster_pages_and_moderator_infighting