Duplicate Image: Notable References To TV Tropes

See my first post in this thread, the one that seems to have been locked prematurely.

…

Alright, I guess I can repeat it anyway.

And I agree with abk 0100's suggestion, especially considering it is not in English, so one would not have to worry about reading it all to get the point.

source: zeit online

translation: literature on the Internet — Fortunately No Wikipedia! — Conventions, conventions and oh, conventions: the website TV Tropes divides stories into (?) individual parts. A funny, wild collection. By Stefan Mesch — In childrens' books, why are girls smarter than boys? Who first made the butler the murderer? And how come...

(350)

edited 22nd Feb '12 7:28:28 PM by rodneyAnonymous

I still say this picture belongs here, as it's a reference to TV Tropes more than illustrating the other trope.

Current image: a reference to TV Tropes from Cracked.com. It involves a lot of tropes.

Both images are a reference from one source, but one of them is troperiffic. It's too bad that headline says Wikipedia and not TV Tropes tho.

edited 22nd Feb '12 7:32:55 PM by rodneyAnonymous

What if I bold "TV Tropes"?

Makes it stand out a bit more, doesn't it? And on the Troperiffic thing, I still prefer that the Cracked picture stay on that page because it is describing a work that would be Troperiffic. Shows the meat and potatoes of that trope better than another image I'd be able to find, and this article is clearly also a reference to TV Tropes.

Yeah, we've been trying to get away from defining ourselves in terms of Wikipedia. Both are wikis. That's about all the comparison you can make.

In other words, the suggestion gives the wrong idea to someone who doesn't know German? 'Cause that would be a good reason not to put it on the page. Or are you talking about the translation in post 2?

edited 22nd Feb '12 8:12:21 PM by FinalStarman

I should also add that Troperiffic requires a bit more than is in the picture. For while it states tropes by name, that just means a work has a lot of tropes, not that they are played up to high degrees.

It looks like that made-up movie prides itself on its tropes. It doesn't seem to be ashamed of itself for it.

EDIT: Come to think of it, the Zeit suggestion doesn't need the headline. It would actually be misleading to keep it in, since the article is not about Wikipedia. Also, would keeping the author's name in be a bad idea? Would removing the name be a bad idea? And that little copyright thing on top of the article's image?

edited 22nd Feb '12 8:17:21 PM by FinalStarman

Clock is set. Are we good with ?

...

edited 23rd Jul '17 1:11:05 PM by Jicragg

I think that'd work better as a page example, if it's not already there.

...

edited 23rd Jul '17 1:10:36 PM by Jicragg

Small translation issue: "Klischee(s)" is Cliché in English.

???

Talking about this translation.

I have some misgivings about an image that uses "Cliché" three times at the start.

A caption that notes this in some way?

edited 11th Apr '12 7:45:53 AM by Raso

I'm all for the German news site.

Might be better if we circle the part on top.

Nice, and agreeing with .

Is that an official sub?

Also, the page could use some cleanup. "Printed media, blogs, and other publications" section should probably be split apart and cleaned up. References from offline sources should be made into their own section. The fanfiction section should be purged, as the page is notable references.

edited 11th Apr '12 11:13:22 AM by petrie911

There Is No Such Thing As Notability

Read the page title. It says "Notable". If there's no such thing as Notability, then the title needs to change.

Maybe I should make a TRS thread about it.

edited 11th Apr '12 12:17:28 PM by petrie911

I knew I should've stuck a wink on that post...I really don't care one way or the other as far as that particular point goes. That being said, TINSTAN does specifically say "We consider every work notable. Yes, every one." so there's that to consider.

edited 11th Apr '12 1:01:11 PM by Willbyr

I think the message there isn't that notability is non-existent, but that all works are equally notable. Properly it is There Is No Such Thing As A Lack Of Notability.

edited 11th Apr '12 3:27:12 PM by rodneyAnonymous