Topic on Category talk:Trope Workshop

Debated, voted, implemented.

I am amused that I must start this post with almost exactly the same language that Rob used for his proposal below: No matter how many trope candidates we've launched in 2021 and early 2022, we just can't get the number of candidates below 40, let alone down to something manageable -- which, considering how many active Tropers we have editing ATT, is IMHO less than a dozen.

Outside of pages still in the main namespace which are displayed in the workshop due to the inclusion of the Trope Workshop category in the {{tropestub}} template, the majority of pages in the Workshop are old -- some were created a year ago, many others a year and a half or even over two years ago. We have elsewhere stated that pages stay in the Workshop until they're ready to leave, but that assumed that people were actually working on them. We have far too many "old" pages that have been ignored for six, eight, twelve or more months. A good example would be The Bully is a Nerd: Proposed in December 2019, and except for an edit I made in June 2021 to fix some grammar and add a link, it was last edited in January 2021 -- and the last time before that was July 2020.

This is ridiculous.

I propose that if a trope sits untouched for six months it gets deleted, regardless of how close it is to being "ready". We have far too many candidates that have lingered for literally years because no one works on them. I have decided that I don't care if people talk about what could be done to make a candidate work -- if no effort is actually expended to improve it, then it gets shown the door. To clarify, minor edits like grammar and adding links don't count. If no one has done anything to substantially move a trope candidate close to launch in six months, it dies.

Pinging everyone for votes: @Agiletek @GentlemensDame883 @Goo Monster @HeneryVII @HornyLikeIAmA14YearOldGirl @Lequinni‎ @RivetVermin @Umbire the Phantom @Utini501 @Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @Robkelk @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak

To clarify, minor edits like grammar and adding links don't count.

In some cases (from more than one trope proposer), poor grammar is the only thing stopping a trope from being launched. Do we delete these tropes simply because an editor hasn't had time to get to them?

EDIT: In a related note, we need more editors.

The point is, if no one cares to edit them for six months, they might as well be dead anyway. Obviously an admin might, at their discretion, decide to save a trope. But the point is to motivate the tropers to do the fixing. I mean, TVT shoves their new tropes through in three days. Is it really so much to ask that someone do something constructive more often than once every half-year?

So yeah. It doesn't matter if it's one misspelling away from being launchable. If no one gives a damn to fix it and it sits for six months, it deserves deletion.

EDIT: Amazon's fresh out.

I'd rather not. I have trope nominations and if they are going to get deleted, I'd at least like longer notice to save a copy so I could come back with it once I have more examples.

If you can't work on them for six months and need to preserve them, move them into your sandbox and comment out the various Workshop markups. The Workshop is not a place to park stuff and forget about it.

Agreed. If someone doesn't care enough about his or her own writing to work on it, why should anyone else care?

Everyone, it would be best to make copies of your drafts now, just in case.

Maybe give out a "1 week till deletion" notification, pinging the original author and a few other contributors first, as the deadline might encourage them to sit down for the ten minutes needed to get it past the finish line?

I'm content with a one week notice

1 week might be a bit too little considering not every user visits every day. 2 weeks perhaps?

It's because not every user visits every day that we give an entire week instead of a day or two.

One week is more than enough. If they're not editing at least once a week, it's unlikely they have enough interest to be invested in trope creation. Otherwise we can use the same argument to keep extending the warning until we're right back where we started.

That's a reasonable suggestion and something we're already doing on two tropes currently outside of the Workshop. I have no problems incorporating that into the proposed new rule.

I think 6-month auto-fail with a further 1-week warning is fair. If a trope in the making has been sitting idle for that long without any notice of extenuating circumstances from the maker, and said maker can't be bothered even with a week's notice to drop by and do something, even to beg for an extension, it's highly unlikely that the maker is going to come back for it again.

Okay, then, let's phrase the proposed rule thusly:

Trope candidates, unlike diamonds, are not forever. Candidates will live in the Workshop for as long as it takes to whip them into shape, but that means that they must be actively worked on. "Actively worked on" means tropers are editing the candidate to improve it and render it suitable for launch. Comments made in the talk page about how to improve (or save) the page are not working on the candidate; they are chatter that does not affect the state of the candidate. Only actual edits to the candidate itself count as working on it. If a candidate sits untouched for six months or more, it is considered to be abandoned. "Untouched" means no editing activity. (At their discretion, ATT staff may choose to discount trivial changes made in that time -- "trivial" in this context being, for example, edits along the line of adding a single link or fixing the grammar of a single sentence or paragraph. This is to discount "token" edits whose only purpose is to forestall "abandoned" status.) Abandoned candidates will be marked with the {{delete}} template announcing a one-week warning and giving a specific date and time for their deletion. A notice will also be placed on the candidate's talk page repeating this warning and CC'ing all admins and active editors. If no effort is made to reignite development of the candidate, it will be deleted at the end of the one-week grace period. The only thing that counts as rescuing a trope from abandoned status is further genuine development of the trope. Again, "token" edits which do not substantially improve the candidate and move it toward launch do not count and may be ignored by the admins. Protests and suggestions in the candidate's talk page also do not count. If you want to save a candidate, don't talk about it -- work on it.

How does that sound? Does anyone want to offer any amendments or changes?

Nah, looks good

I'd replace 'This is to invalidate "token" edits' with 'This is to discount "token" edits' -- those minor edits aren't invalid, just minor.

And 'A notice will also be placed on candidate's talk page' needs a 'the' added before 'candidate's'.

Other than that, it looks good to me.

Made the recommended changes.

It occurs to me that we should probably note that established tropes moved back into the Workshop for revision are not subject to this rule.

Looks good to me.

That's three yes votes plus my implicit yes vote as the one proposing the rule, and no outright no votes, but I think we should let this go for at least the weekend to give more people time to comment.

To facilitate that, I'll ping the Usual Suspects again: @Agiletek @GentlemensDame883 @Goo Monster @HeneryVII @HornyLikeIAmA14YearOldGirl @Lequinni‎ @RivetVermin @Umbire the Phantom @Utini501 @Jlaw @Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @Robkelk @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak

I'll vote yes too. Don't see much use for it.

It does seem like the time limit makes sense to clean up the workshop; I'd be a soft yes. With that said, this does make me wonder if it's worth taking a deep dive into the workshop and updating the tropes that haven't been touched. I'd be happy to tackle a few and see what I can do to work on them. Thoughts?

You're welcome to. I should note that this new rule was prompted by me doing exactly that kind of deep dive over the last couple weeks, and we've already managed to either launch or delete a dozen tropes or so in that time. Which gives you an idea how big the problem is.

I've no problems with giving others more time to weigh in before making a decision.

Agreeing with GentlemensDame883... and also pointing out that this weekend is Easter weekend.

Oh, good point. No harm and probably much good in waiting longer.

Late, but I also concur on the new rule

I would have extended the waiting time before flushing longer, but as we have more editors who can help with whatever new proposals we have, add my vote to this new rule

I would have extended the waiting time before flushing longer

The new rule gives six months - isn't that long enough?

Okay, with an overwhelmingly proportion of the votes in favor, looks like this passes. I've updated the Trope Workshop page with the new rule (and reorganized it slightly for better readability). Time to find the candidates that deserve a ticking clock, now.

Thank you everyone.