Since you're looking at this page, it's probably safe to assume you not only want to contribute to TV Tropes, you want to be the best contributor you can be.
Don't worry, we're here to help. Here is a collection of some of the most common and most serious mistakes a person can make while contributing to the site. If you see it on this list, don't do it.
Also, keep in mind that this isn't meant to be a exhaustive list of every single sort of misbehavior that occurs on the wiki. This is about honest mistakes that could feasibly be done out of ignorance rather than ill intent. If you're erasing all of the content from existing pages, using hateful language, or making sock-puppet accounts to get more hats for your TLP drafts, you know exactly what you're doing and there's no way those can be construed as mere mistakes.
General Errors:
These are general errors that are problematic everywhere on the site — trope pages, work pages, the Trope Launch Pad, and pretty much every place that isn't the forums. While most of them are very simple, they're also very common. They're also some of the most infuriating mistakes new Tropers can make, which is why doing them repeatedly can get you suspended.
Poor Spelling and Grammar:
What is it?
Everyone makes typos or misspells a word on occasion; this isn't about those instances. This refers to habitual use of bad grammar and spelling, with no attempt to clean it up in the short term, or improve over the long term.
Why is it bad?
Well, there's the fact that sloppy writing can make you look considerably less intelligent than you are, regardless of how good your actual ideas are. Writing poorly also creates more work that others have to fix, whether it's correcting your mistakes or disposing of your edits completely.
How can I avoid it?
The first and easiest thing you can do is surf on over to the Get Help With English thread
, where other, more experienced Tropers will help iron out your mistakes (and, over the long term, help you with your English). This is the best place to start if English isn't your first language, or you simply have a lot of trouble putting your thoughts into words.
For less severe cases, using things like Spell Check or Grammar Check in a word processor isn't a bad idea. It's not a substitute for reading things over and proofreading them yourself, but they represent a good start.
Indentation Errors:
What is it?
Grouping tropes together in example lists, either by listing two tropes in the same line via a slash or multiple tropes under one supertrope or umbrella trope via second bullet points.
Why are they bad?
These trope pairings or groupings are arbitrary and mess up the alphabetization of the page. Entries that are formatted like this often skimp on context, assuming that one trope should be enough context for another.
How can I avoid them?
The short answer is to simply put each trope in its own first-level bullet. For further information, check out Example Indentation in Trope Lists.
Natter/Conversation on the Main Page:
What is it?
Adding unnecessary or tangential information to an example, or attempting to debate/clarify/discuss the example. In several cases, it's adding information better suited for a discussion page, or even a different trope entirely. It can occur as an addition to the same-line example, but most often occurs as an extra subbullet.
Why is it bad?
Natter turns the examples from being informative and focused, to being confused, contradictory, distracting, or even into on-page debate. In worst case scenarios, it brings the example into Thread Mode, where tropers go back and forth discussing the example or adding more unnecessary information.
How can I avoid it?
If an example is misleading or needs to be fixed, Repair, Don't Respond, or take it to discussion and get other opinions about it. If you want to tack on a joke or tangent, don't; it makes the examples less coherent and informative.
Writing in the First-Person Point of View:
What is it?
Writing in the first person — that is, using self-referential nouns like "This Troper," "I", "Me," and "We" while writing about tropes or works.
Why is it bad?
TV Tropes proper isn't a blog or a discussion forum, so such personal writing isn't very appropriate for the site. If you start referring to yourself in the first person, you're basically interjecting yourself into the article. Suddenly you aren't writing about the trope or the work; you're writing about yourself: what you did, or what you thought. Now, you might be a very interesting person, but you aren't the topic of discussion on this site.
How do I avoid it?
Ideally, the best thing to do is write in the third person ("Alice said..."). Second person ("You could say...") is permissible if it's not obtrusive, but first-person writing is always frowned upon. For more information, see our page at First-Person Writing.
Creating Sinkholes:
What is it?Placing potholes in places where they don't make contextual sense, or trying to shove too many into the same phrase — or in worse cases, the same word.
Why is it bad?
If someone sees that a phrase — for example, "The Hero" — is in clickable blue, they're going to think that clicking on any part of the phrase will take them to an article relevant to that phrase. Violating that expectation is disorienting and frustrating. Chaining potholes together not only significantly increases the chance that the display text and the link behind it won't make sense together, but it makes it impossible to tell where one link ends and the next begins, which increases the frustration further.
How can I avoid it?
When potholing, make sure that the text being potholed and the article it links to have a logical connection between them, and that consecutive potholes have some unlinked text separating them. If you think multiple tropes are relevant to a particular phrase, consider replacing that one phrase with several phrases; one for each trope you'd like to link. For more information, see our page at Sinkholes.
Creating "Walls of Text":
What is it?
A "Wall of Text" is a very large chunk of text that isn't broken up by paragraphs or line breaks.
Why is it bad?
Speaking purely in formatting terms, Walls of Text are very hard to read, and most people won't even try. We're under the assumption you want people to read what you spent your time writing, right? Moreover, Walls of Text almost always violate our Clear, Concise, Witty mandate, as they tend to be full of rambly writing, unnecessary details, and irrelevant information that obscures the main point.
How can I avoid it?
When writing things like trope descriptions or TLP drafts, the solution is simple: break up big blocks of text with paragraphs and line breaks, and review your writing to see if there's anything you can cut, like irrelevant tangents or details that don't lead directly to the point you're trying to make.
Examples are a bit tougher, because ideally, examples should not be long enough to require multiple paragraphs. Ideally, examples should be no more than one paragraph long — a good rule of thumb is "try to keep it below 8 lines in length." For the purposes of this website, one medium-sized paragraph per example should be more than enough in all but a few special cases.
If you need help trimming down an example, feel free to stop by the Get Help With English thread, or the Wall of Text Cleanup thread.
Using Spoiler Tags Incorrectly:
What is it?
Spoiler tags are designed to hide text that contains major spoilers within a work, so the reader has to click on the test to reveal it. A Spoiler tag looks like this: [[spoiler:Your text here]] and produces this effect. The problem arises, ironically, when people use spoiler tags too much or incorrectly. There are certain things that should never be spoilered out:
- Descriptions on any Work or Trope page; these shouldn't contain major spoilers anyway;
- Names of Tropes listed on a Work page (though potholes can be spoilered);
- Names of Works listed on a Trope page (again, potholes can be spoilered);
- The names of characters on a Character page (though you can hide identities in other ways, like using "The Killer" instead of the character's actual identity).
TV Tropes has a somewhat difficult relationship with spoilers, as spoilers are somewhat inherent to discussing the tropes within works. However, no one wants to read a website with every bit of text spoilered out — it looks tacky, it can lead to people missing lots of useful information, and a site full of blanked-out text isn't very useful.
As such, we tend to encourage spoilers only on major spoilers such as endings or plot twists, rather than any single thing that happens in the work. It's the best compromise we've been able to make.
How can I avoid it?
The four rules discussed above will keep you out of trouble regarding spoiler use: don't spoiler out the four things described above, and try to limit your use of spoilers to the text specifically describing things like endings or plot twists. For more complete information, check out our page on Handling Spoilers.
Self-Fulfilling Spoilers
What is it?
The practice of using spoiler tags in a way that makes it obvious what the spoiler-marked text is from their length and/or position. This includes things like:
- Tagging short names or words ("A does this" or "the protagonist dies")
- Tagging the gender of a character ("the time she did this")
- Suspicious word placement ("this character seemingly dies")
The entire point of spoiler markup is to allow users to add examples that go into spoiler territory without having to spoil any readers who might be interested in the work. Placing spoiler tags in such a way that the spoiler becomes obvious can accidentally spoil readers who wanted to experience the work unspoiled.
How can I avoid it?
Use spoiler tags in such a way that avoids the pitfalls seen above. In addition, try seeing if you can rewrite the example without having to reference any spoilers. For more complete information, check out our page on the Self-Fulfilling Spoiler, which also contains more specific tips on how to avoid the ones described above.
Zero-Context Examples, or ZCEs:
What Are They?
"Examples" that list the name of the work or the trope... and nothing that explains why that trope fits.
Why are they bad?
Examples need context to be useful. Along with being entertainment, TV Tropes is a resource for aspiring writers and folks who want to be more informed media consumers to look up tropes and learn of different ways to use them. ZCEs don't tell anyone anything about the example aside from "this trope is in this", so they're not much fun to read, and they do nothing to further anyone’s understanding of what the trope is or how it's used in the example.
How can I avoid them?
The simple answer is to explain how every aspect of the trope is used in the example. The entry shouldn't be a doctoral dissertation, but it does have to provide enough information that a person who has never seen the work before can, at the bare minimum, understand how the trope is used and what effect it has in the example. For a more exhaustive look at ZCEs, take a look at our example-laden Zero-Context Example guide.
Shoehorning:
What is it?
A shoehorn is a tool used to help get a foot into a shoe that doesn't fit properly. On this wiki, the word shoehorning is about adding tropes or examples to a page that either don't really fit, or only have the most tenuous of connections.
Why is it bad?
As described above, shoehorning is adding an example that isn't really an example, which kind of defeats the mission of this site. While some shoehorns are honest mistakes or differences in interpretation (for example, assuming you know what a trope is just from reading the name and not the description is a fairly common cause), others amount to wild exaggerations and/or deliberate attempts to mislead readers. In one particularly bad example that really happened, an ordinary four-year-old was repeatedly listed under The Sociopath because... she was spoiled and acted rude to others. Other frequent victims of this are tropes seen as a "badge of honor" and misapplied because the troper thinks it makes the work look better; for example, Nightmare Fuel is commonly used to make out harmless things not intended to be scary as utterly horrifying under the impression that dark = "mature".
How do I avoid it?
The first step is a little bit of honest self-reflection: does your example really fit what the trope is about? If you aren't 100% sure, then it's probably not an example - after all, Examples Are Not Arguable. Make sure you read the description of a trope so you know what it actually is about. If you still aren't certain, visit the Is This an Example Thread for further guidance. The other thing is to remember that Tropes Are Tools; a trope being present in a work is not necessarily good or bad, and neither is a trope being absent from a work.
Excessive Detail:
What is it?
On TV Tropes, examples should follow the law of Clear, Concise, Witty - that is, all examples should contain enough context that the reader can understand what the trope is and how it's being used without having already seen the work in question. However, some tropers fall into the trap of believing more writing equals better writing. As a result, some examples balloon to ridiculous size, filled with excessive information that isn't critical to understanding the trope and isn't really interesting to anyone but the original writer.
Why is it bad?
In general, too much detail can cause your main point to get lost amidst all the excess text, and too many unimportant and/or uninteresting details will cause the reader to lose interest and stop reading.
How can I avoid it?
Learning to distinguish between essential and non-essential information is an important skill for any writer. The first step is to honestly ask yourself: "Does the reader need to know this for my example to make sense?" If you can't confidently answer "yes", then chances are it isn't essential. Remember, it's Clear, Concise, Witty: you need to follow all of them in order to make a good example. If readers want to know everything about your topic, then that's what Wikipedia and Google are for.
If you've done all that and your example is still too long, then look for and remove Word Cruft and things that really shouldn't be in your example in the first place: detailed plot synopses, personal opinions, lists longer than three items, Walkthrough Mode, and so on. For more guidance, consult the Get Help With English thread or the Wall of Text Cleanup thread.
Righting Great Wrongs, or being a Single-Issue Wonk:
What is it?
Righting Great Wrongs is essentially going on a crusade to "correct" entries on the site so that they line up with your personal point of view, or essentially tell readers what they should think about any given subject. It may be something as silly as trying to foist your opinion into an entry about Shipping, or it can be as contentious as changing entries to align with your personal politics. When pretty much all you do on this wiki is Righting Great Wrongs, then it becomes a Single-Issue Wonk.
Why is it bad?
At its worst, Righting Great Wrongs is essentially trying to rewrite reality — speaking of things not as they are, but how the user thinks they should be. That's not what TV Tropes is about at all, and doing this kind of thing is considered vandalism on the wiki.
Moreover, to be perfectly blunt about it, being a jerk about your point of view on a pop-culture wiki isn't going to change the world for whatever you think is "better." It won't do anything at all in the long run, so just don't.
How do I avoid it?
While articles on TV Tropes should generally be written from a neutral point of view, that doesn't necessarily mean that every single bit of text should be completely opinion-free. Opinions are allowed as long as they're put in the proper places (like YMMV pages) and don't either devolve into on-page debates, attempt to rewrite facts, or tell the reader what to think. For more info, see our page at Righting Great Wrongs.
Being Overly Fan-Myopic:
What is it?
Fan Myopia is a term indicating that a person is projecting their perception of a work onto the general populace. It's not uncommon for a really devoted fan (or fandom) to have an exaggerated sense of their favorite (or least favorite) work's importance, influence, popularity, or quality. This can often lead them to make questionable claims about said work.
It should be noted that Fan Myopia is not the same thing as trolling or simply being dishonest. People experiencing Fan Myopia really do think that their favorite is greater than it likely is. The issue is that they're either blinded by their own like or dislike of something, or they're simply missing the greater perspective of how the work is/was actually perceived due to many fandoms being massive echo chambers.
Why is it bad?
In general, people are free to feel however they wish about any medium or work. As far as this wiki is concerned, however, fan myopia tends to lead to editors making questionable (or verifiably false) claims about shows they really love or hate. While TV Tropes is a community of fans, we're here to talk about how tropes are used in fiction. We're not here to spread false or unrealistic claims about any work — be they good or bad.
How do I avoid it?
If you're going to make claims about a work's influence, reception, or quality — which you really shouldn't do outside of specific circumstances — at least make sure that what you're claiming is either true or widely accepted by people who aren't fans of the work.
Wiki-Editing Mistakes:
These are mistakes that are more specific to everyday, garden-variety activity on the Wiki: editing pages, creating non-trope pages, and other non-specialized activities.
Creating Pages in the Wrong Namespace:
What is it?
A Namespace is the "category" in which a page is located. For example, if the URL of your page is https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Tropes, then Main/ is the namespace.
We use Namespaces to sort works into categories by medium: Film/, Literature/, Series/ (for live-action or puppet TV series), and so on. The trouble arises when people add pages into the wrong namespace — for example, using the Series/ namespace for an animated cartoon, which falls under the WesternAnimation/ namespace.
Why is it bad?
It messes with the organizational structure of the website, and makes things that much harder to find.
How do I avoid it?
Review the URL carefully before creating the page, and review Namespace for approved namespaces. Make sure capitalization matches that of the namespace on the list, too.
There's also a process for handling works that can cover multiple namespaces. If you're making a page about a title that has works in several different media, you should start with the medium that the title originated in. For example, you would create Manga/Naruto before creating Anime/Naruto, as Naruto was a manga before anything else. Then, you can create Anime/Naruto as a redirect to the Manga/ page, or you can create the Anime page as a home for tropes that only appear in the anime.
Deleting Entries without Explanation:
What is it?
Not every edit on TV Tropes requires a reason. If you're correcting spelling or grammar errors, your reason is self-evident. If you're adding an example that has context and fits the trope, that's the entire purpose of the wiki.
If you start removing examples without saying why, however, that's a bit different.
Why is it bad?
People generally don't like it when others erase their work without explaining why, so any unexplained deletion has the potential to spark an argument or an Edit War.
Also, it's fairly common for people who delete examples in bad faith — ideological reasons that are irrelevant to the task at hand, for example — to avoid explaining their actions, be it for plausible deniability or because they don't want to own up to their pettiness.
How do I avoid it?
Whenever you delete an example — or even move it to a different page — please take the extra couple of seconds to explain what you're doing and why. If nothing else, being transparent about your actions is a sign of good faith, and it's much easier and quicker to resolve conflicts if this information is readily available.
Complaining:
What is it?
Complaining is when you write too negatively about a character, work, trope, etc you don't like. For example, describing a character on their character sheet as "annoying" is only acceptable if it means they annoy other characters, not if you're saying the character annoys you. On YMMV, there are some inherently negative items such as Ass Pull, but even on YMMV, there is such a thing as going overboard. See Complaining About Shows You Don't Like for more information.
Why is it bad?
First of all, it often just looks unpleasant. No one wants to see a page riddled with insults, snide remarks, and general negativity. On a more serious note, it can and often will lead to fighting— even the least popular works and characters have fans, and fans don't take kindly to people insulting the things they like.
How can I avoid it?
If you have a negative opinion about a work, character, etc tread carefully when writing about it and remember to only state the facts, not your opinion. On YMMV, where you can state your opinion, avoid rambling on about how stupid you think it is or using excessive profanity or insults. Additionally, for the Awesome and Tear Jerker subpages, a character you hate having something bad happen to them isn't automatically Awesome, and something bad happening to a character you hate can be a Tear Jerker. Do not add or remove examples on these pages solely based on your bias of a character.
Gushing:
Gushing is the opposite of complaining: it's being excessively complimentary of something — usually a character or work the Troper is especially fond of. While we have a section where gushing is specifically allowed, it's not allowed on the wiki proper.
Why is it bad?
There's nothing wrong with being positive, but issues arise when people get carried away with praise. Overly gushy writing tends to elicit eye-rolling more than curiosity, and in extreme cases can be awkward or uncomfortable to read. Tropers are expected to be at least somewhat impartial and level-headed on the wiki proper, and gushing flies in the face of that. Even worse, excessively gushy writing sometimes leads Tropers to make overly complimentary claims that are factually questionable if not outright false.
How can I avoid it?
We have a number of pages listed on the Sweet Exists page where you can gush to your heart's content. On the main wiki, however, take care to be realistic and level-headed, and not to let your personal feelings color your writing too much. Again, there's nothing wrong with being positive or lightly complimentary, but let's all keep it within reason.
Engaging in Edit Wars:
What is it?
Consider the following scenario:
- Alice adds an example to a trope.
- Bob comes along and deletes that example.
- Alice adds the same example back to the page.
- Bob (or someone else) deletes the example again.
This may seem like an insignificant thing, but few things will bring the Wrath of Mod down on you more quickly — if you get caught doing this, one or both of you will almost always be suspended immediately pending a meeting with the mods.
Why is it bad?
On an practical level, edit wars often cause tempers to flare and can lead to messy situations that mods and other Tropers have to clean up. Nobody likes cleaning up a mess, especially if it's not their mess. This attitude increases exponentially when you have Edit Wars happening between entire fandoms rather than individuals. And yes, those are a thing.
Outside of that, it's childish behavior that doesn't really mesh with the "discuss and work towards consensus" model that governs TV Tropes as a wiki.
How do I avoid it?
As common as Edit Wars are, they're easy to avoid. Before you hit Step 3 and add the example back, or if you notice this situation happening between other Tropers, go to Ask The Tropers
and ask for advice. The ATT regulars will generally be happy to give their thoughts on what needs to be done.note Trivia Misuse:
What is it?
The main page of a work is intended to house tropes that occur within the work itself, or "in universe" as the local parlance goes. However, sometimes a work comes with interesting factoids that have some relevance to the work, though not exactly to the story itself. These facts aren't tropes, but Trivia, and they go on the Trivia subpage. When Trivia ends up on the main page, there's a problem.
Why is it bad?
It's disorganized, messy, and off-topic. (As any wiki can be at times, but we try to keep things in their proper place.)
How can I avoid it?
Most of the time, you don't really have to guess if something is Trivia — all pages concerning "trivia" will outright tell you it's trivia in a box at the top of the page. Furthermore, if you post a link to trivia on the main page, you will see a little question-mark icon next to your link. If you see that, it's best to move it to the proper spot, or cut it out entirely.
YMMV Misuse:
What is it?
YMMV stands for Your Mileage May Vary and it's the label we give to subjective pages — pages based on opinion — such as Designated Villain and Anvilicious. These pages are not tropes, since tropes are objective: they're either present or they aren't. Still, some opinions are noteworthy enough to keep around — just not on the main page. Some tropers may misuse YMMV in several ways, including:
- Using YMMV entries as nothing more than an excuse to voice their personal opinions about a work or some aspect thereof (that's what the Reviews section is for.)
- Deleting entries they don't agree with.
- Linking to YMMV pages on the example lists of trope pages, or anywhere on a work's main page. This includes both pot holes (links within text) and listing the page as an example of a trope.
- Ignoring the criteria for certain YMMV articles (such as Broken Base and Nightmare Fuel).
- Adding a Playing With page for a YMMV trope.
Why is it bad?
Just because this is a casual wiki doesn't mean we don't want to keep it organized, and we don't want to mix tropes with opinions.
More importantly, acting as though YMMV items are objective tropes is basically treating opinion as fact, and deleting YMMV entries you don't agree with can lead to fighting and Edit Warring.
In addition, the reason Playing With pages are not allowed for YMMV pages is because A) YMMV pages are more about the audience's thoughts than actual fact, making them too nebulous to really be played with and B) it was decided a while back that Playing With pages were for tropes only (which means that both YMMV and Trivia can't be played with).
How can I avoid it?
Before listing or linking to any trope, YMMV or otherwise, remember to actually read the entire trope at least once. This will tell you if it's a YMMV page or not, as all YMMV pages will have a banner at the top of the page indicating its YMMV status. If it is a YMMV page, reading the page will tell you whether there are certain criteria that the example must meet to be valid. For example, Nightmare Fuel requires the entry to be more than just a little unsettling or related to your personal phobias.
If you think you might have an example of an objective trope, but you're not sure, don't add it to the YMMV page. Instead, ask on the Is This an Example? thread if it is a valid example.
Making Unapproved Additions to Complete Monster and/or Magnificent Bastard:
What is it?
Adding examples to Complete Monster or Magnificent Bastard without having the example approved by the appropriate task force.
Why is it bad?
Historically, Complete Monster and Magnificent Bastard have required perpetual cleanup as they are two of the most misused tropes on the entire wiki. For example, despite Complete Monster having a fairly narrow definition and certain criteria required in order to qualify, many people tend to use it as a depository for "I hate this character" or "this character is slightly more evil than a children's cartoon character" examples.
For whatever reason, these two tropes also tend to cause the more violent arguments/slap-fights on the entire wiki. It got so bad that committees were formed to oversee any and all new examples for these tropes.
How can I avoid it?
You can't add examples to the Complete Monster or Magnificent Bastard pages directly, as they're under administrative lock. However, to avoid getting chewed out (if not suspended), be sure to drop by the Complete Monster Proposal Thread or the Magnificent Bastard Proposal Thread to run it by the locals before creating entries for either trope on a work page. They're two of the most active threads on the forum, so you won't have to wait long for some kind of response.
Trope Launch Pad Errors:
These are mistakes that are unique to the Trope Launch Pad. The TLP is where all new tropes are minted, but the actual process is more like making sausage in a butcher shop where the staff are generally friendly and helpful, but also very persnickety and obsessed with quality. And just like making actual sausage, the process isn't always totally smooth or especially pretty. Here's some things to avoid if you don't want to wind up in the grinder. For more information, see TLP Guidelines.
Creating the Wrong Kind of Page in TLP:
What is it?
The Trope Launch Pad is designed to launch pages that belong in the Main/ namespace — e.g. tropes and index pages. However, it is permissible to post drafts for other sorts of pages if the original author needs help with them — Useful Notes pages are common, Work pages less so — but these pages can't be launched using the TLP; the source needs to be manually copied and pasted into the appropriate space, and the draft discarded.
However, there are certain kinds of drafts that do not belong on the TLP. At all. Here are some of them:
- Redirects: TLP is not the place for redirects of any kind.
- Administrivia Pages: New Administrivia pages — that is, the pages that describe site policies, to-do lists, and related miscellany — must be given the thumbs-up by the moderators, and the Wiki Talk forum is usually where any and all Administrivia stuff is worked on.
- For redirects, it wastes the time of all involved and accomplishes nothing.
- For Administrivia, the TLP is not the place to hash out site policy, nor is it the place to run when the moderators or site policies don't give you exactly what you want. (Yes, the latter has happened before. No, it has never worked.)
If you want to create a redirect for a work — say, an alternate name — you can make it yourself. See Creating New Redirects for details. Keep in mind, if the redirect is either rarely used, snarky, or just your pet name for the work, it'll most likely be cut.
If you want to create a redirect for a trope, index, or anything in the Main/ or Administrivia/ namespaces, go here and make a request
. Keep in mind that this kind of redirect is entirely up to moderator discretion, so don't get upset if your redirect doesn't get made right away (or if it doesn't get made at all). If you want to discuss site policy, go to the Wiki Talk forum
. Chances are there's an appropriate thread related to what you need, but if not, you can make your own.Not Adding a Laconic to Your Draft:
What is it?
On the TLP, the Laconic allows you to provide a short description that will appear in the TLP index, and will attract users to come and look over your draft. While failing to include a laconic won't prevent your draft from posting, it does introduce a serious glitch...
Why is it bad?
While users are more likely to skip over (or bomb) a draft with no description on it, the bigger problem is that TLP doesn't save changes made to drafts without a laconic. That's right, without a laconic, you won't be able to make any additions or changes to your draft.
How can I avoid it?
Be sure to add a laconic before posting your draft. If you've already posted your draft without one, don't fret — you can still go in and add it yourself.
Posting a Stub Draft:
What is that?
Before you can launch a draft, you usually need to make your own and get it ready. This is where we run into "Stub Drafts", underwritten drafts that usually only contain a title and description at most.
Why are they bad?
As mentioned, TLP drafts need to be complete before they can be properly launched. Stub drafts are about as incomplete as you can get, usually not even including examples or a laconicnote . Not only are they woefully under-prepared for launch (meaning the sponsor has to work extra hard to improve the draft and combat the criticisms the draft will receive), but it's usually a sign of laziness on the sponsor's part. Worst case scenario, they clog up the TLP page and act as spam, getting people TLP suspensions if numerous Stub Drafts are made by the same person.
How can I avoid them?
When you're starting a TLP draft, take your time. Remember that your goal here is to publish content to the wiki, so you want your draft to look as good as you can make it. There's never any reason to rush, especially at the very beginning, when you're still hammering out the trope and looking for feedback. Of course, feedback does exist, so don't feel you need to get it perfect right away. Just do your best and put effort into it, and you'll be alright.
Premature Launching:
What is it?
Launching a TLP draft before it's ready for prime time. The gold standard for "ready to launch" is as follows:
- The draft is complete: it has an adequate description and a sufficient number of examples. Note that the oft-quoted "three examples required for launch" is a bare minimum, not a gold standard. It behooves you to gather and add as many good examples as you can before launching. This also means it needs to meet the required 12-wick amount.
- The draft has at least five more hats than bombs.
- The draft discussion has agreed that the draft is ready to launch, and there are no more lingering issues that remain unaddressed.
- You've announced your intent to launch at least 24 hours before actually hitting the launch button, allowing others to give your draft the final once-over and suggest any corrections.
Launching a draft before it's ready is basically putting out a substandard product. While it is true that we are a wiki that anyone can edit, not all problems can be easily fixed once the draft leaves the TLP: things like changing the name or making a significant change to the trope's meaning require that a trope be unlaunched or sent to Trope Repair Shop, and both of those involve a lot of extra grunt work that no one particularly likes to do — especially not our overworked moderation staff. This is why premature launches frequently (if not always) result in a suspension from TLP.
How can I avoid it?
Follow the gold-standard guidelines just a few lines up! The real keys to a successful launch are a willingness to cooperate, listen to criticism, work towards a consensus, and simply be patient. This isn't a race; no one gets an award for launching a trope the fastest. The point is to launch a trope that all involved can feel proud of.
Rogue Launching & Stealth Launching:
What is it?
"Rogue Launching" is the term for launching a draft without making some contribution to it. While the term generally implies that the draft has "stolen" from its current sponsor, it also describes cases where an abandoned draft is launched without any advance notice by a person who hasn't worked on it before.
"Stealth Launching" is a similar concept, with some important distinctions. "Stealth Launching" is when a draft's rightful sponsor launches the draft without giving at least 24 hours' notice, regardless of whether it's up to standards or not. If the draft wasn't ready, then it would have to be sent unlaunched just as a rogue launch would.
Why is it bad?
Not only is Rogue Launching a TLP draft considered incredibly rude to the rightful sponsor and all other contributors, but it almost always results in a premature launch, which necessitates unlaunching the trope in order to finish the work on it, which creates more work for everyone. This is why any user who does this will be suspended from editing.
How can I avoid it?
Simple: don't launch any draft you haven't personally contributed to, especially if it's actively being worked on, and always give advance notice. If a draft appears to be in a launchworthy state, doesn't have any unresolved issues, and is Up for Grabs — in other words, the most recent sponsor has declared it so, or it hasn't actively been worked on for two months — then make a post saying you adopt the draft and intend to launch it, and wait at least 24 hours so other users can offer feedback or bring up any lingering issues.
Rogue Discarding:
What is it?
Similar to Rogue Launching, "Rogue Discarding" is the same broad idea applied to discarding drafts: discarding a draft you haven't contributed to or discussed, especially if there's active discussion going on, and not giving a valid reason for doing so.
Why is it bad?
Beside the fact that it's rude to everyone involved, some users have done it in an attempt to supress ideas they don't like, whether it's a case of Righting Great Wrongs or a fairly petty reason (trope drafts involving LGBT issues have been frequent targets of this behavior). While it is quite easy to restore a discarded draft, making a habit of this will get you suspended.
How can I avoid it?
In short, don't discard any drafts that are still being actively discussed, especially if you haven't contributed to the discussion and/or there's no consensus toward discarding.
More specifically, these are some of the biggest criteria for discarding a draft:
- Only pages that belong in the Main/ namespace — tropes and index pages — are launchable from the TLP. Any other kind of page has to be manually copied and pasted to the appropriate space when completed, and the draft discarded.
- Consensus deems the draft otherwise unlaunchable. This can be for many reasons: it's Not a Trope; it's a copy of (or too similar to) an existing trope; it violates site guidelines; it serves little purpose but to attract fighting, Complaining, or Gushing; it is Too Rare to Trope; it doesn't have any narrative significance; the definition and description are virtually unfixable without a total rewrite; etc.
- The draft is required to have at least five bombs, and generally has to have five more bombs than hats to be considered discardable.
- Stub drafts (especially one-line wonders), unless they contain a really good idea or are easily expanded, are almost always discarded.
Failing to Crosswick Post-Launch:
What is it?
To Cross Wick is to post an example on both the work page and the trope page, in order to maximize the potential for Wiki Magic and help people get from one page of the site to another in a Wiki Walk. So, failing to crosswick a new trope is exactly what it sounds like- not adding examples to the work pages when launching.
Why is it bad?
The issue here is two-fold. For one, failure to crosswick can be a sign of laziness. When you're launching a trope, you're taking a big responsibility. Crosswicking is part of that responsibility, so not doing it leaves your job incomplete. More important, though, is that non-crosswicked tropes and work pages have the tendency to not thrive and be forgotten post-launch, due to having little ability to stumble across it while Wiki Walking.
How do I avoid it?
Simple: just crosswick as many examples as you can once the trope launches. Crosswicking can admittedly be a big undertaking, so there's no rush to do it all at once. If you need help, other tropers won't mind lending a hand if you just ask them. Just remember that it's an important step to make sure your new trope can thrive, so take all the time you need to give it that boost.
Spamming "Work Pages Are a Free Launch" Any Time a Work Page Is Posted:
What is it?
Exactly what it says — posting this statement to "remind" anyone who dares post something other than a Trope or Index page to the TLP.
Why is it bad?
While it's not actually against the rules, it does miss the intent of the original statement: "Work Pages Are a Free Launch" is a declaration, not a command. All it says is that you don't have to put work pages on the TLP if you don't want to; it doesn't say that you can't.
From a practical perspective, it's also inadvisable to say it when the posted draft is clearly not ready for launch — work pages may not require TLP, but they do have to be up to a certain standard, and TLP is a place where people can at least theoretically get help reaching that goal. Encouraging people to free-launch an awful work page is potentially making more work for others down the road.
Moreover, if you immediately point this out on a draft that isn't close to being wiki-ready, all you're saying is "I don't want to help you, get out of here." This does nothing to improve the site or the TLP, it accomplishes nothing worthwhile, and it makes you look like a jerk.
How do I avoid it?
Don't say it unless the situation actually warrants it. Sometimes it does need to be said as new Tropers can get confused on exactly what the TLP is for, but saying it by default to anyone who brings a non-trope page to the TLP isn't helpful to anyone, and it can make you look hostile if you do it enough.
Leaving "Doorstep Baby Drafts":
What is it?
Writing a trope draft and almost immediately putting it Up for Grabs, posting a draft and then never editing or working on it, or simply trying to get other people to do your heavy lifting for you.
Why is it bad?
There's two main problems with this.
Sometimes abandoning a draft is justified — there's already a decent amount of work done and the idea has support, but you just don't have the time, knowledge, or ability to see it through to the end. We understand; we all have lives and we've all found ourselves a bit out of our depth. Abandoning a draft immediately, especially with no work being done on it, indicates laziness or an unwillingness to commit to actually doing the work, and it won't do anything to endear your fellow Tropers to you.
Moreover, the TLP has over 8000 abandoned drafts sitting on it, and a shocking percentage of those have never once been edited or added to. That's a lot of junk drafts cluttering up the system, which makes finding decent abandoned drafts difficult if not impossible.
How can I avoid it?
For starters, don't immediately abandon drafts.
If you just want to get feedback on an idea, you can go to the Trope Talk forum (especially the Trope Idea Sounding Board) and ask around. If you just have an idea or concept to tell others about, you can take it to the Trope Idea Salvage Yard and leave it there, though there's no guarantee anyone will pick it up. If you post a draft that isn't garnering any positive interest (or it simply isn't launchable), you can discard it yourself.
The biggest takeaway here is that if you really want something done on the TLP, you generally have to do it yourself. There's only so many people who work on the TLP, and most of them aren't going to drop everything they're working on to do your work for you.
Misusing Hats and Bombs:
What is it? On the TLP, one of the unique parts of the process is having to toss hats and bombs at the drafts. No, this isn't literal: it's a voting system. Hats symbolize a draft is ready for a launch, and bombs are used for launch-stalling or discarding. However, they can very easily get misused.
Hats often get thrown at any draft that isn't entirely discard-worthy, regardless of how ready-to-launch it is. Furthermore, some sponsors actually hat their own drafts as a first step, or even use sockpuppets to get them up to 5 in a short amount of time. Bombs, meanwhile, get used too liberally against mistakes that are easily fixable, as a trolling tactic, or against drafts that certain people just dislike (such as LGBT-related ones).
Why is this bad?
Hats and bombs are completely anonymous to normal users and control the fate of a draft. Those two issues combined means that it's sometimes impossible for anyone, sponsor or not, to tell why a draft is being hatted or bombed. This is bad, because improper usage of these things can interfere with the TLP process. This can be extremely stressful and confusing, concern some of the more paranoid TLP members, or send mixed-signals about the draft's actual quality.
How do I avoid it?
When hatting or bombing a draft, it's encouraged to leave a reason explaining why. Not only does this contribute to the discussion and allow the sponsor to know what they're doing right or wrong, but it also proves the validity of the hat or bomb you added. You should also keep our above-mentioned standards in mind, and remember to not vote too quickly. Allow the sponsor time to improve upon the draft before voting, and if you tossed a bomb, don't just leave it there forever — track the draft with the "thumbs up" button, so you can check in later and change it to a hat when the issue gets fixed.
Mistakes Regarding Images and Videos:
Putting images on pages isn't difficult. Actually choosing the image to use, however, is one of the more contentious activities on TV Tropes. So much so, in fact, that we have an entire subforum dedicated to nothing but choosing and reviewing images to put on pages.
Posting Non-Illustrative Pictures or Videos:
What is it?
This is probably the single most common issue with images and videos on TV Tropes: the image or video just doesn't demonstrate what the trope is.
Why is it bad?
If an image doesn't provide a clear example of a trope in action, it's not serving its intended purpose. The most common expression of this is the dreaded "Just a Face and a Caption" picture, which is literally just plastering a face and a caption on a trope page. There's a little more leeway with this on work pages, but these have no place on a trope page. With videos, while they may have a little more content to them, it's still content that doesn't actually display the trope in action.
How can I avoid it?
The first step is to be honest with yourself: does my image or video really illustrate the trope? If you can't provide an immediate and confident "yes," then you should either refrain from posting it, or take it to either Image Pickin' or The Video Examples Quality Control thread for further guidance.
Finally, remember this: just like the rest of the wiki, images and videos should follow the "clear, concise, witty" rule: Clarity is crucial, conciseness is important, and wittiness is desirable but not at the expense of the other two.
Posting NSFW Images or Video:
What is it?
NSFW means "Not Safe For Work." It's a blanket term referring to any video or image that isn't appropriate for viewing in public spaces, such as ones containing nudity or sexual content, containing graphic violence or gory content, endorsing or encouraging violence or hatred against others, or material that is simply too gross or disgusting for polite company.
In other words, if it's not something a reasonable person would want their boss, teacher, or parents to see, it doesn't belong on TV Tropes. The only real exceptions are some classical paintings containing nudity, like David.
Why is it bad?
While TV Tropes is not intended for use by small children, the general rule is that our content should be viewable by most audiences. We don't want to be the reason someone loses their job or gets in trouble at school, nor do we want to lose advertisers because people are posting inappropriate things on the site. Keeping things reasonably clean is also just a matter of common courtesy to other users — people generally don't want to be surprised by a gory or lewd picture if they weren't looking for one, and they don't want to watch inappropriate videos either.
How do I avoid it?
Just try to keep all content — be it pictures, video, or even text — PG-13. If you're in doubt of whether your image is appropriate, consult How to Pick a Good Image and the users in Image Pickin' before you post it. As for videos, several tropes ban videos outright due to an inherent NSFW nature. For those that don't, though, it's a bit of a judgement call — Try and think about what other people would say or think if they watched it, and if it crosses a line, it's not a good idea to upload it.
Posting Images or Videos Containing Major Spoilers:
What is it?
Exactly What It Says on the Tin — posting images or videos that contain major spoilers for one or more works.
Why is it bad?
In short, many people consider it incredibly rude to spoil a story for someone without ample warning.
How do I avoid it?
Just don't post images or videos containing major spoilers — especially images, because there's a higher probability of someone stumbling into them unaware. It's not a difficult rule to follow. If you must post a video containing a spoiler, make sure to add a spoiler warning to the beginning, and make sure the thumbnail doesn't contain the spoiler in question.
Posting Low-Quality or Unclear Images:
What is it?
Posting images that are blurry, pixellated, have visible compression artifacts, or are otherwise hard to distinguish what's going on in the picture.
Why is it bad?
It really boils down to presentation and usability. Images are not mere decoration; they should clearly show what the trope is about, be clear enough to immediately identify what is happening, and be high-quality enough to be at least somewhat pleasing to the eye.
How can I avoid it?
Be judicious in the images you post to the site. Again, How to Pick a Good Image and the Image Pickin' forum are your sources for guidance on this matter.
Posting Watermarked Images:
What is it?
TV Tropes doesn't allow posting of watermarked images out of respect for intellectual property, copyright law, and artists' rights. A watermark is basically any sort of logo that is neither a "station bug" (a logo added by TV stations) or an artist's signature. This includes anything with a copyright symbol on it, or any symbol of ownership by the artist.
Why is it bad?
Well, we don't like dealing with lawyers, and we aren't interested in using works from smaller artists without their permission. Things like screenshots or scans of works or their promotional materials are generally fair game, but the private property of artists are not.
Plus, if the watermark is from a meme site or another user-submitted content aggregator, those watermarks are just plain tacky and it's pretty safe to assume the image is being used without permission, because it almost always is.
How do I avoid it?
How to Pick a Good Image has a more comprehensive set of guidelines regarding watermarks and copyright issues, and of course, there's always the folks at Image Pickin'.
Ignoring Image Pickin' Notices:
What is it?
When you open a page for editing, you may see a commented-out notice from Image Pickin' giving a summary of the current image's status, as well as instructions on what to do (or avoid doing) and the relevant forum thread(s). As these notices are considered mandates from the moderators, ignoring or actively defying them is... not a good idea.
Why is it bad?
When Image Pickin' chooses a picture, that picture is chosen by consensus which, by wiki law, supercedes any one person's opinion. Unilaterally changing one image chosen by consensus could be chalked up to not paying attention to the tag, but doing it repeatedly is considered vandalism.
How do I avoid it?
Before doing anything related to the image(s) on a page, you should open the page for editing and verify if an Image Pickin' notice exists, and bring up the page for discussion in Image Pickin' if it does. Ignoring these tags will usually result in your changes being reverted, and possibly further penalties, which relates to the next section.
Note that captions on images also go through Image Pickin', either in the threads for those images or in a dedicated thread, and they will have their own tag immediately below the caption stating such if this is the case. Also note that on pages with multiple images, such as Characters subpages, any individual images that have gone through Image Pickin' will have their tags directly above the image instead of at the top of the page.
Changing an Image without Discussion:
What is it?
Making changes to images on pages, especially if the page has an Image Pickin' tag in the page source, and especially if the change goes against the tag (ex: removing an image when the tag states that it was kept on the page), without first discussing the change(s) in Image Pickin' is considered a form of vandalism.
Why is it bad?
Changing images without discussing them in Image Pickin' first is considered vandalism because we want to have high-quality, illustrative, audience-appropriate images on each page. When people change them without discussion, more often than not, the replacement image is actually worse in some way.
Therefore, messing with images tends to be dealt with rather harshly. A first-time offense will usually only result in the change being reverted and an "image changes" notifier being sent, but repeatedly doing this is grounds for loss of editing privileges.
How do I avoid it?
If you see a page image and think you can do better, start a new thread in Image Pickin' with your proposal. There will be discussion and voting, and if the locals approve of your choice, your image will be gracing the page.
Keep in mind, though, that due to the volume of threads in the IP forum, it may be a bit before they get around to opening your thread. Feel free to participate in other threads in the meantime; it's always good to have another voice in the mix.
Adding Complete Works as Examples:
What is it?
Adding a video example that consists of a complete work, such as an entire animated cartoon, rather than just a clip. Similarly, adding multiple videos for one trope that combine into an entire work, such as a YouTube video split up and posted in several parts.
Why is it bad?
Two primary reasons. For starters, TV Tropes isn't looking to become a full video-hosting service. Video eats up a lot of storage and bandwidth, so video examples should include the example of the trope in question, and little else. Secondly, there's the issue of intellectual property, copyright law, and the rights of the artist. We don't really enjoy dealing with cease-and-desist letters from lawyers, and we're not interested in potentially taking money out of the pockets of independent artists.
How do I avoid it?
Just use your noggin. If you have a video of a completed work, don't post it here until you can give us just the part that's applicable to the trope. There are software tools, both free and paid, that will allow you to do this.
Adding Videos to Video-Banned Tropes:
What is it?
Adding video examples to tropes that disallow them, such as Jump Scare or Potty Failure.
Why is it bad?
The tropes that don't allow videos don't allow them for a reason. Videos may be dangerous to someone's health, and we don't want to expose anyone to something that could harm them. They may also be NSFW, and while we don't want to pander to children, we also don't want the site to be full of sexual or gore-filled videos.
How do I avoid it?
Tropes that are video-banned should be listed on No Video Examples, Please!, and should have a commented-out warning on the top of the trope page. If you want to double check, ask at the Video Examples Quality Control thread. Just take the time to check before posting.
Media Source Issues:
What are they? When uploading a video, you're asked to provide the media source the video came from. A few common mistakes seem to be made when filling out this box:
- The video is linked to a redirect, not the actual work page
- The video is linked to the wrong work
- The video isn't given a media source at all
Why are they bad?
Each of these can cause problems later down the road. Videos are expected to show up on the page of the media they came from. Making these mistakes means the video might be harder to locate, might not show up on any existing index or any video-examples subpage, and require moderator intervention to fix if the original uploader can't be reached.
How do I avoid them?
Pay attention when using the Media Source box. The source should link to the actual page for the work if possible, and it should have a source mentioned to begin with. Of course, if the source doesn't have a page yet, there's not much you can do about that — unless you're willing and able to make it yourself, your best bet will be to follow the blank page with the "Follow 📌" button at the top so you'll be able to see on your article watchlist when it does get created. In the meantime, you can also add it to Videos Without a Source.
Visual or Auditory Issues:
What are they? Similar to images, video examples can also suffer from quality problems. The frame rate may be poor or the camera not in focus, there may be a black screen at the start or end, the video itself may be corrupted, and the audio may be out-of-sync, hard to hear, or static-y.
Why are they bad?
We want our videos to be watchable. You can't tell before clicking on a video if it has visual or auditory glitches, unlike with the quality of a still-image. Poor videos can turn people away, and the video will likely need to be deleted and re-uploaded.
How do I avoid them?
Watch the video before uploading it or before it gets approved. While a few minor issues aren't a big deal and could probably be ignored, major problems mean the video needs to be fixed up before being uploaded. There are plenty of sites and applications that allow for video editing, and if possible, a higher-quality clip of the scene may be necessary. As mentioned, one or two small issues isn't something to stress over, but do try and make your videos as good as you can.
