Page delete for non reason.: Web Original.This Troper

Seriously, why the hell was this deleted? Just because it's made by someone who hates this site is not an excuse to erase the page.

For reference, Fast Eddie cut it with the reason "no way we are advertising for this asshole".

edited 27th Jul '11 3:12:58 PM by JackAlsworth

Going to have to agree with the boss man on this one. A page like that will only start shit.

Actually there was no fighting when it existed.

Yeah, aside from a few watchers on the discussion page, nothing serious.

This Troper series was pretty funny anyway, and there wasn't any fighting on the tvt page, so it should have stayed.

There Is No Such Thing As Notability implies that any work can have a page. There have been understandable times where works have had their pages redlinked or locked for article problems, but this is the first work in the PRLC solely for its subject matter. What's next? Something Awful? Busy Street? All this really does is enforce the perception of the administration being power-mad and the userbase self-deluding.

I mean, really, breaking a cardinal rule of a wiki to get one up on your critics is seen as extremely immature. That's why Wikipedia tends to be almost over-the-top in covering it's flaws. But at the same time, this really doesn't surprise me.

There are plenty of pages for things we shouldn't be advertising for, i.e. Sankaku Complex or Pokegirls.

edited 27th Jul '11 7:16:56 PM by blamspam

Personally, the page didn't harm our reputation. The series itself only has 3000 views per video, which isn't a lot in the grand scheme of things. Something Awful is probably more critical about us.

There are plenty of other pages that should be cut before this one, like Pokegirls. It wasn't really a good idea to cut This Troper. I wouldn't be surprised if the creators of that series notices this.

-scoots out of discussion-

edited 27th Jul '11 7:52:24 PM by chihuahua0

, : Actually, having pages on those sites isn't nearly as bad as the fact that we can't say that Pokegirls and Sankaku are shit. Or, at least, that our ability to do so is curtailed.

Pretty much, if the site can tolerate horrific crap like Pokegirls, it can tolerate This Troper.

Just want to add my voice to those who think that the page shouldn't have been cut. If it had actually caused flaming and edit wars I could see the point in cutting it, but as things stand now, not really.

edited 28th Jul '11 12:53:40 AM by DoktorvonEurotrash

Seconded. I thought we didn't care what others said about us? :?

Well (not speaking for Eddie here, just my own thoughts), we do have a civility rule here, which featuring sites like this could be seen to undermine - that is to say, if somebody were to single out specific tropers and make negative threads or pages about them here, they'd be banned for it. This could be considered a kind of loophole, in that light, which perhaps needed to be plugged.

That said, I think we're better off adhering to the notability policy, even in the cases of works which are somewhat unsavoury like Sankaku Complex. I'm unconvinced that our page on This Troper really needed to be cut, put it that way.

edited 28th Jul '11 3:43:51 AM by BobbyG

I agree that this should not have been cut. Even if it was causing edit warring issues, the way to go would be to lock it up and accept edits via moderation like our other locked pages do.

It's a tropable work that exists in the public sphere where everyone can view it, so it should have a page. We shouldn't be violating our notability policy just because someone finds a work aggravating or distasteful.

That page didn't even attract a shit storm. Am I the only troper who enjoyed it? After all, the troper tale pages were bound to attract weirdos.

I think we have a worse image problem taking it off. Leave it on, and we're saying we can laugh at ourselves. Deleting it makes it seem that TV Tropes can't handle criticism. Which makes us a more inviting target for trolls.

Actually, leave it on and we're documenting a work which publically ridicules certain people posting on this site. It's not really laughing at yourself unless you were quoted in one of the videos, and most of us weren't.

If we were saying we liked the series, it would mean laughing at other tropers, which would put us in an interesting position regarding the personal attacks rule, which at no point says that personal attacks on tropers become acceptable when those tropers are being mocked elsewhere.

However, we were not saying we liked it. A TV Tropes article on a work is not an endorsement of that particular work, merely a documentation of its existence and a cataloguing of the tropes it contains. The Wiki does not have an opinion and does not endorse any work, and while tropers themselves obviously can and do state their opinions in places, a neutral article is not an opinion, positive or otherwise.

For what it's worth, I actually was quoted on one of the videos and still think the page should stay. The fact that I was shouldn't give my opinion any more or less weight than anyone else's, though.

Aside from a few "take it easy! laugh at yourself" stuff on the page (which probably doesn't apply to some of the troper tales mocked), the page was rather neutral.

My two cents on the matter?
We have only had to PRLC one major workpage, and that's because we goaded its fanbase enough that it retaliated in droves.
Compared to the ED incident, which was, if I'm not going senile, a several-month debacle that the higher-ups went to great lengths to keep from reaching the conclusion it did, this merely seems petty. There were no potshots, there was no hostility from either end as a direct result of the page's existence (something I can't quite say about us and ED), just a page detailing the existence of a show run by a (wo)man(?) with an opinion that isn't our own.
Exactly how was that bad enough that it had to be purged from the site like a three-foot tapeworm made of microscopic satan-hitlers?

edited 29th Jul '11 2:43:31 AM by SoWeAteThem

I've modified my original position a bit. The fact that it mocked specific tropers (even if redacting their usernames EDIT: Or not, see below) does make the deletion of the page a bit more understandable. I can see why Fast Eddie wouldn't want it to seem like this wiki condones that sort of thing.

Even so, I still lean towards "it shouldn't have been cut". The video series still exists, there's nothing we can do about that, and as others have said, we have pages about far more offensive works.

edited 29th Jul '11 6:11:51 AM by DoktorvonEurotrash

^ This Troper did display usernames on some videos, e.g. this one:

Note also the video description, which expresses the desire to burn SpiriTsunami at the stake.

There are a number of videos about specific tropers. They also display usernames in the episodes focusing on the Furry Club and Odd Confessions.

edited 29th Jul '11 5:40:30 AM by BobbyG

OK, I didn't know that. Thanks.