Anyone with more examples of expungements that bug them (or expungements that they like in particular) or possible reasons for expunging in mind that I haven't listed, feel free to do so now and I'll be happy to add them in.
Zen And The Art Of [DATA EXPUNGED] (Archived) / Discussion
Forum
» Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions
» Zen And The Art Of [DATA EXPUNGED] (Archived)
This is the discussion related to the wiki page Zen And The Art Of [DATA EXPUNGED] (Archived).
I hope yoricspungement doesn't catch on. srsly
I really like that your guide has an assigned reading section.
You might want to mention SCP-835 somewhere in there.
My thinking is that technically, that article is sort of centered around a gimmick idea that results in having no expungements whatsoever. I might mention it in passing, though.
It might also be a good idea to at least mention some non-gimmick articles that don't have any expungement at all, just to show that it can be done.
if your reading this your gay
This is fantastic, except when trying to link. Wikidot syntax really doesn't like it.
Really? Are you using
[[[zen-and-the-art-of-data-redacted]]]
or something else?
Settled on
[[[zen-and-the-art-of-data-redacted|Zen And The Art Of DATA REDACTED ]]]
but it doesn't get the [DATA REDACTED] proper in the link, sadly. Trying
[[[zen-and-the-art-of-data-redacted|Zen And The Art Of [DATA REDACTED] ]]]
doesn't work, even with the extra spacing.
Technically not a bug, just a bad design they use with the commands. Stuff inside of [ ] only parses to one level, and gets confused VERY easily.
I've been reading about this for more than half a hour yesterday. Wikidot gets a bunch of complains about this every year. There is also a conversation with a wikidot employee were he claims that they figured out how to fix it, and will update the api in a couple of days, next week tops. This conversation occurred some time in 2008.
Some users suggest an alternative solution: make an image with the text you want, then post it in the forum as an image that links to the page you want. This method even supports inner-wiki links. No highlighting of the link on mouse hover, through.
[http://www.scp-wiki.net/zen-and-the-art-of-data-redacted Zen And The Art Of [DATA REDACTED]]
Zen And The Art Of [DATA REDACTED]
This seems the only way to do it.
/me claps
Excellent job.
This is pretty well done. I generally agree with these guidelines, especially about the Addendum: [DATA EXPUNGED] bit.
I'm pretty light on expungement of anything besides irrelevant specific details myself. I have only one actual [DATA EXPUNGED] in all my articles. That said, SCP-1088's expungement kinda falls under the category of covering up something squicky. Would you say it's a problem with that one?
I would probably call it a mix of squickspungement with a bit of extraneous-detail redaction. Namely, I don't know how you would fill it in with anything that would improve the article, and cutting out the in-between helps the pacing of the article. Expunging squick is one of those things that just irks some people if it catches their eye.
Something I've seen come up a couple of times recently, that might need to be added to Chapter Four, Section 2:
If your SCP has an addendum or experiment that has been completely expunged, followed by a note from a researcher saying that it was scary and will never be done again, your proposal will be downvoted with the forceful rage of a thousand burning Sun Launchers. If it was that scary, what was done would definitely be included. This is the Foundation, not a college fraternity hazing; we don't make our researchers guess what's going to kill them.
If you're adding 093 you have to add 231 as a case where expungement is vital to the endeavour.
Personally I feel people are being too harsh and frankly a bit creepy about redactions. "I want to know what really happens to the little girls!"
/forum/t-449028/zen-and-the-art-of-data-expunged-archived#post-
page revision: 1, last edited: 02 Apr 2021 15:16
