Requests to Unlock Locked Pages

Thanks for the quick fix.

So I'm not sure if that whole issue with japanese words in trope names has reached any sort resolution yet, but judging from the threads from the threads I've been keeping up with it SEEMS like Tsundere isn't gonna be getting a name change anytime soon no matter what happens. If that is the case, can we get Tiny Tyrannical Tsundere unlocked?

If it's still too soon to request this, I apologize. Most of the threads I've been keeping up with that deal with this issue have run dry, and I'm unsure whether or not there's a new thread about it that I'm unaware of.

Re: Tsundere, there will not be a consensus to change the name (and there may be a consensus against the change), but that doesn't mean that it won't change.

Well, its current name-related TRS is advertised as being only for redirect farming. That's all I have to go on at the moment. >_>

Small Name, Big Ego has had an Example Sectionomy again despite the fact that it was doing fine as merged with Ted Baxter. Please fix this Fast Eddie

Bjorn Westlander, Agent Retriever needs to be unlocked, I want to move the contents of a ptitled page there. Can you help?

Has it been published? If it is yet to be completed and published it would go here: Bjorn Westlander Agent Retriever and be indexed on Unpublished Works.

It also was meant for in-universe examples only, Fast Eddie. As agreed in this discussion, the examples of Ted Baxter would be moved to Small Name, Big Ego, and it would only be used for In-Universe examples. There should be no reason it would start fights.

Yes, several stories are already available at my Deviant Art account.

Bjorn Westlander, Agent Retriever unlocked.

Could a mod either unlock the bin laden page or just clean up the tenses? It refers to him as if he was still alive.

This isn't for edit requests for a locked page, this thread is to ask for a page to be unlocked. Osama Bin Laden is Flame Bait and will remain locked — a few tense problems is hardly grounds to unlock it. Fixed those tenses — in future please go here.

Can WebOriginal.This Troper and Crazy Goggs please be unlocked? If we just went off and deleted the pages for every website/internet show that doesn't like us were going to get a really bad reputation.

We measure our reputation by how many people use the site as a resource, and we build that reputation by being the best resource we can be. Looking at the The Goals of TV Tropes, other sites aren't our primary focus and there is no requirement to list them.

edited 29th Jul '11 2:23:56 AM by Camacan

Um, what?

I do not know what you need clarified.

You are concerned as to our reputation and I'm saying the number of users of TV Tropes as a resource is the primary source and measure of that, as I understand it. You also asked for some site pages to be un-redlinked and I observed that listing pages about other sites is optional in terms of the goals of the wiki. You are welcome to make an case for the dazzlingly unexpectedly trove of interesting narrative tropes redlinked site pages could hold. But I really don't expect we're gonna list 'em out of fear for our reputation.

edited 29th Jul '11 7:32:18 PM by Camacan

I'm with Nuclearneo 577—Maybe not Crazy Goggs, but WebOriginal.This Troper should have been let stay. Up until now, we've been considerably more lax than this towards Fan Hater communities. Several have been locked, but only one was cut, and that was because of a lengthy debacle that we essentially started and couldn't have ended any other way.
With this, it just seems petty—if there was hostility from anyone in the separate fanbases, it did not show in the page, it adhered well to the Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment (Let's put it this way: Film.Battlefield Earth and Zardoz were originally much harsher towards their subjects than WebOriginal.This Troper ever was). The page itself did nothing to attract fans the series wouldn't have done, and nobody even considered locking it to keep people in line first.\\

Actually Crazy Goggs was a redirect to it.

One could consider the This Troper series to be a creative work of some description - it's effectively a Dramatic Reading of the TV Tropes site. I realise that it's something of a complicated grey area regarding our rules on personal attacks, but we have other pages dedicated to sites attacking other sites, such as the anti-TGWTG blog Busy Street.

Put simply, the fact that someone is being a raging asshole on the Internet does not seem to be grounds to remove our page about them, or we would have to get rid of a lot of our other articles.

edited 30th Jul '11 2:54:53 AM by Iaculus

Eddie has spoken in this regard. We are not going to act as advertisement for a You Tube series dedicated to make us look bad.

Yeah, it's just that if having a page = acting as an advertisement, then we're advertising some far more dubious stuff. Look, I could understand if it clashes with our rules on personal attacks, given its tendency to name names and even have videos devoted to particular tropers, but all I'm saying is that the arguments given seem a little shaky, and shaky arguments = bad precedent where moderation is concerned.

We have a page on Something Awful, who has been mocking us for awhile now.

^They do stuff that isn't mocking us.

Yes, but the site does not exist just to mock us, unlike that series. Ninja'd

edited 30th Jul '11 3:15:38 PM by Chytus

I'm just saying. They do plenty of stuff in their thread that is considered "personal attacks" (ha).