TV Tropes Org

Forums

search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [125]
1
 2  3  4 5

Policy Question: Spoiler tagging Trope Names on character pages:

 1 Shaoken, Tue, 24th Dec '13 1:51:56 AM Relationship Status: Dating Catwoman
I could have sworn I put a discussion on Ask The Tropers but I can't find it, so I'll ask it here.

What is the hard and fast ruling on spoiler tagging trope names on character pages? I've heard that the policy is that trope names never get spoiler tagged full-stop, but the wording on the Handling Spoilers page says "work pages" which I'm afraid someone will use to say it can't apply to character pages.

The reason I ask is because The Walking Dead Video Game is filled to the brim with spoiler tagged trope names and I want to be 100% sure of the policy before removing the tags for the tropes.

 2 Septimus Heap, Tue, 24th Dec '13 1:57:58 AM from Zurich, Switzerland Relationship Status: Mu
Puʻu ʻŌʻō
Trope names are not to be spoilered. And on Ask The Tropers, it's been applied to character pages as well (read: people have been suspended for repeatedly doing so despite being warned).

 3 Shaoken, Tue, 24th Dec '13 2:12:23 AM Relationship Status: Dating Catwoman
Alright, I'll guess I'll start taking them off whenever I see them. I'll leave both commented out reasons, edit reasons and a big-old warning about it just to make sure the point is made clear.

There is discussion on hiding it in other examples, but word of mod has been silent on that. So this is not allowed:

Either leave the name untagged:

Or bury it in another example somehow.

  • Disney Death. He apparently dies midway through season 3. He's fine, but actually dies at the end of the season.

Like I said though, word of mod has been silent on that front, and some tropers think it's still against policy. Besides, normally that sort of thing is overkill; usually, the trope name is not an inherent spoiler. For example, on Characters.The Hobbit Film Trilogy, Glamour under Thranduil was completely whited out. That's completely unnecessary—knowing that Glamour applies to him in some way, shape, or form does not spoil the fact that he's using a glamour to hide scars from dragon fire.
 5 Tuefel Hunden IV, Tue, 24th Dec '13 6:26:55 PM from Wandering. Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Watchmen of the Apocalypse
I do recall discussion where I think it was Eddie himself said that if the mere presence of an example being listed really is a significant spoiler that it should simply be left off all together.

Now from what I have seen such instances are the exception and should be rather uncommon.

I would be willing to bet the mod approach would be a case by case basis and involve discussion about questionable examples at some level or another.

edited 24th Dec '13 8:12:01 PM by TuefelHundenIV

"Who watches the watchmen?"
 6 Fighteer, Tue, 24th Dec '13 8:03:36 PM from the Time Vortex Relationship Status: Dancing with Captain Jack Harkness
An example that cannot be listed without being entirely spoiler-tagged is worthless as an example. One could even say that it violates Zero-Context Example, as the only way a user who doesn't wish to be spoiled could know if it's viable is to read it.

edited 24th Dec '13 8:05:36 PM by Fighteer

Neoclassicism, AKA the Tinkerbell school of economics.
There is the issue of certain characters, though, such as those whose true nature are not what they appear to be. For instance, if the identity of the Big Bad is supposed to be a secret, then certain tropes will be a dead giveaway if they appear on that character's sheet.

A possible solution to this, while keeping in line with the spoiler policy, would be to make separate character entries for the Big Bad, The Mole, or other Walking Spoiler characters, and keep any tropes pertaining to their villainous nature in those sections. Thus, those characters would have two entries; one for how they initially appear, and another for their role as the Big Bad.

edited 26th Dec '13 12:55:34 AM by Wyvernil

 8 Another Duck, Thu, 26th Dec '13 2:31:58 AM from Stockholm Relationship Status: In season
No, the other one.
If it's to that point, I think it's better to just have a spoiler warning in the beginning of the page. Many shows don't have that much to spoil in character pages, but others you shouldn't even glance at.
Check out my fanfiction!
 9 Fighteer, Thu, 26th Dec '13 6:34:13 AM from the Time Vortex Relationship Status: Dancing with Captain Jack Harkness
Correct. We aren't going to hide spoilers on Characters pages by shoveling them off to different parts of the article. Put a note at the top that Here There Be Spoilers and be done with it.
Neoclassicism, AKA the Tinkerbell school of economics.
If it gets to that point, then what's the point of even having spoiler tags at all, if things will be spoiled no matter what you do? Just leave the spoiler warning at the top of the page, telling everyone who hasn't finished the work in question to stay away.

There has to be some solution to this, that keeps a good middle ground between avoiding spoilers while maintaining the spoiler policy.

That sort of categorical answer sounds inconsistent with some works. Using an It Was His Sled example, Star Wars, Phantom Menace. Why should Anakin Skywalker be labeled as Darth Vader when he hasn't changed yet? Why should Darth Sidious be placed under Senator Palpatine, when not even Sidious's subordinates seem to know he is the Senator until Episode III?

Less well-known may be Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman, where one costumed character is a role filled by three women. The categorical answer you two gave would mean that her tropes would have to appear three times, once under each of the women who wear the costume.

Instead, treating these characters as separate people does better honor to the work. It doesn't always make sense. If Mumm-Ra is disguised as someone else for a couple of episodes, then he shouldn't be listed as a separate character for that long. But when 90% of a work separates the two, it does a disservice to the Creator who went to great lengths creating separate characters.
Still new. Still learning. Asking questions and making mistakes.
 12 Another Duck, Thu, 26th Dec '13 11:03:24 AM from Stockholm Relationship Status: In season
No, the other one.
Problem is, a single policy doesn't fit all works. Some series' character pages don't even have spoilers, while others are worse than Death Tropes or Ending Tropes.

[up]I think that if a work treats the characters as different, then we can as well. One example of that would be the culprit in Umineko: When They Cry, and a few other characters, I believe. It just wouldn't make sense to merge some of them into one entry. Even without the ambiguity.

edited 26th Dec '13 11:13:49 AM by AnotherDuck

Check out my fanfiction!
 13 Fighteer, Thu, 26th Dec '13 12:12:27 PM from the Time Vortex Relationship Status: Dancing with Captain Jack Harkness
Listing Anakin and Darth Vader as separate people is fine. I should point out that this is only a spoiler to people who go into the movies completely ignorant of the vast body of cultural knowledge surrounding them.
Neoclassicism, AKA the Tinkerbell school of economics.
Dragon Writer
He pulled an IWHS example deliberately. If, hypothetically speaking, your first exposure to the SW universe really was episode 1 instead of 4, you wouldn't know the Vader/Anakin connection and it would probably be a spoiler.
 15 Fighteer, Fri, 27th Dec '13 8:30:36 PM from the Time Vortex Relationship Status: Dancing with Captain Jack Harkness
We don't need to write around those folks. Really, we don't.
Neoclassicism, AKA the Tinkerbell school of economics.
Yeah, I'm sorry, but Anakin=Vader is one of THE You Should Know This Already examples. I'd argue that the Luke, I Am Your Father scene is even more well-known than Shakespeare's twists by now.
Sure, Discar, I'd agree that Vader = Luke's dad is known more worldwide than Romeo and Juliet die. But my point isn't that the fact is a spoiler. It deals with spoilers because the work still presents the information as a twist to Luke.

But just because world culture knows Anakin=Vader, is it right to plaster the connection from the very first movie? "Everyone Knows", if it is a good argument for It Was His Sled, still isn't a good argument for a Cult Classic, or other obscure work.

My point is simply that if we aren't telegraphing the connection between two characters from a work as well known as Star Wars, then why is it said that all personalities of a character must be in the same folder?

As I said before, my opinion is based on the work going the extra effort on establishing enough information to count as a separate character, should get a separate folder for that character. Star Wars does that with Anakin&Vader. Can't that be a measure?
Still new. Still learning. Asking questions and making mistakes.
 18 Fighteer, Sat, 28th Dec '13 6:45:45 AM from the Time Vortex Relationship Status: Dancing with Captain Jack Harkness
I already said that keeping the characters separate makes sense in this case.
Neoclassicism, AKA the Tinkerbell school of economics.
I appreciate that you would restate your agreement, Fighteer. I hope I didn't make you feel obligated to do so.

edited 28th Dec '13 7:52:43 AM by crazysamaritan

Still new. Still learning. Asking questions and making mistakes.
 20 Another Duck, Sat, 28th Dec '13 10:35:58 AM from Stockholm Relationship Status: In season
No, the other one.
Well, normally you'd be able to hide the connections between two character entries who're really the same character but treated differently. You could do that with Anakin too, but that really is common enough knowledge.

Minor detail, but didn't Romeo and Juliet open with a line about them going to die, or was that another of his works I'm thinking of?

edited 28th Dec '13 10:36:25 AM by AnotherDuck

Check out my fanfiction!
 21 Totemic Hero, Sat, 28th Dec '13 10:54:05 AM from the next level Relationship Status: Abstaining
Spit taker
You are correct; not only that, but the opening narration specifically says they will kill themselves.
"These days they have a stat for how many times a guy goes for a cup of coffee." -Mark McGwire
 22 Eagal, Sun, 26th Jan '14 10:05:48 PM from This is a location. Relationship Status: Waiting for Prince Charming
This is a title.
Le bump. Currently in a small edit war on the character page for Frozen in regards to Hans.

Several tropers, most recently Seraphine, maintain that the tropes that apply to Hans' villainy should be spoilered. I removed the spoilers on the trope names before, citing Administrivia's Handling Spoilers page. Seraphine readded them claiming "Even if it does not follow the Spoiler Policy, it's still a major spoiler to say that Hans is evil and that he is the villain."

I've since re-removed the spoilers on the tropes.

I also intended to remove the spoiler tags in Wreck It Ralph Other Characters but I thought maybe I should bring it up here before doing anything else on that line of thought.

edited 26th Jan '14 10:06:03 PM by Eagal

The madness is catching.
 23 Septimus Heap, Sun, 26th Jan '14 11:18:37 PM from Zurich, Switzerland Relationship Status: Mu
Puʻu ʻŌʻō
That sounds more like a case for Ask The Tropers.

[up][up]Yeah, I saw what you did to that page - really, if that is how things have to be there needs to be a bigger warning at the top of the page and no spoiler tags at all, since there's no point hiding the text if you're leaving that sort of trope name unspoilered.

 25 Jinxmenow, Tue, 4th Feb '14 4:39:22 AM from everywhere you look! Relationship Status: Not caught up in your love affair
Oil Slick Knight
Why not just have two separate character pages - one for things that could conceivably be spoilers and one without spoilers?
"It's called Grand Theft Auto, not Grand Drive Auto!" - Dark Syde Phil

"What does 'horizontal' mean?" - Dark Syde Phil
Total posts: 125
1
 2  3  4 5


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy