Administrivia / There Is No Such Thing as Notability
This is not Wikipedia. You will see these words written in many places on the website. One of the main ways we are different from them is our take on "notability."
All works are notable.
Wikipedia tries in many regards to be the opposite of what we are. We want to be fun, interesting and a cool place to sink hours of time. Wikipedia wants to be a compilation of previously published facts from respected sources. Serious Business
. Presented with a choice between serious and fun, we went with fun.
Much of our wiki relies on the "Examples" section, where we pull our many articles together. Every now and then you might see a Wikipedia Updater
who will delete your example with no reason. A small Edit War
of delete/restore will start, before someone on the discussion page brings up "notability." This page is your response.
If it fits the trope description, then it can be put in. All it requires is someone to put it in there. Simple as that. It could be a multi-million viewer ABC sitcom
, or an all-but-forgotten Japanese videogame
, or a Sprite Comic
that died after seven strips
We have examples ranging from media as diverse as Film
to Fan Fiction
and everything in between. Removing tropes, examples... anything... because of "notability" stifles the wiki. It can intimidate new writers who wanted to put in an example they liked and had it shot down.
This is a double-edged sword. Someone could add an example they made up and there is really nothing you could do to stop them. If the discussion finds an example to be purely fictional then it might get deleted, might
. That's the way of things. But remember, we're here to have fun. Don't let this stuff burn you out.
By, for, and about fans
TV Tropes Wiki was started by fans. People, that is, who like
stuff. You will see that articles work better here when they are about something you like. This is a little bit of a shock to folks that are used to cynicism about the media. It takes a minute or two to get used to.
People who come looking for a place to bash stuff and rant about how dumb
this or that is are in for some disappointment. Here, anyway. There are plenty of places on the 'Net to bash stuff. Shouldn't be too hard to find one.
This doesn't mean, of course, that every article is all sweetness and light, just that the articles trend more toward constructive criticisms
than toward cynical bashing. More toward what does work, and how it works, than what didn't work and why it didn't.
If you really must vent, we have a Reviews section, and a forum. The main articles aren't for that.
Other than that, all we ask is that the examples fit the trope
. Go on, have fun.
Notability itself is not notable
Yes, we mean that phrasing. Critical ratings, "top X" rankings, popularity, revenue, awards, and other statistical facts about a work's public reception are not our primary purpose. The cultural impact of a work is interesting information; in that context, awards, sales figures, or popularity rankings may be relevant. Definitely talk about that (briefly). But bare information like how much it grossed and how many critics liked isn't what we're for.
Verifiability is important
The main reason that we require Unpublished Works
to sit in their own section of the site is because it's impossible to verify that what their creator says about them is true. While notability is not a standard we apply, verifiability
is. It should be possible for an interested third party to find a work that's documented on our wiki and see for themselves the tropes that we've said are present. This means that works that are inaccessible to the general public (on private servers, requiring private invitations, and the like) should not be documented on our wiki unless there's a [legal] public version available. note
Just because it's notable doesn't mean it's safe to host
We consider every work notable. But works that are nothing but porn aren't appropriate to host on this site
. We don't need porn in order to understand storytelling.