The problem lies precisely in the tropes. We shouldn’t go around troping his actual opinions, no matter how stupid and absurd they may be. And if we just cut the tropes wholesale and removed the mockery, it would just be equivalent to a worse version of his Wikipedia article.

Edited by jandn2014 on Dec 29th 2023 at 5:27:35 AM

If we get to be objective about him, I'm willing to go for lower class Wikipedia article, the article is doubtfully copy pasted so we get our own words in and a page gets cleaned up. As for the afterwards, the only think I could think of would be to expand on what conspiracies he's peddled in his works or just their contents in general and trying to avoid taking jabs

But why does the page need to exist, exactly? It doesn’t have many wicks, and worst case scenario, we can just provide a link to his Wikipedia article instead. And I don’t think he’s relevant or important enough to warrant a MediaNotes/ article.

I for one would prefer cutting the page. In fact, I had no idea he had one until today.

I don't see a value here, yeah. It doesn't matter if his ramblings helped make people believe in lizardmen or whatever; that doesn't relate to the wiki.

Exactly. It's interesting information, but it has nothing to do with tropes or media.

At most, that information could go on Reptilian Conspiracy.

Should Find A Grave be cut? I don't think a list of gravesite records really lends itself to tropes. I know we have a list of Funeral Tropes, but everything on the Find a Grave page feels really forced (especially the misuse of Elephant Graveyard to refer to an elephant's burial site).

One of the trope examples is, I shit you not:

• Everybody's Dead, Dave: Can't be stressed enough. This site involves dead people. Period.

Edited by AudioSpeaks2 on Jan 1st 2024 at 11:29:14 PM

Yeah, it's a non fiction site that does not create any content of its own. Also, a lot of the tropes are troping the real life people whose graves are on the site.

Let's not forget a bunch of other iffy examples:

• Grave Humor: The site is a great place to find this trope in Real Life. Barbara Manire Had an "Expired" parking meter installed on hers. Albert DuRee's headstone listed the wrong birthdate, and the correcter crossed out the wrong date and included "Oops!" with the correction.
• The Problem with Pen Island: Arthur Spanks's name is funny enough, but the lack of the word "and" on the tombstone was hilarious, making Arthur Spanks his wife Katherine
• Unfortunate Names: There are two "Fuckers", over 100 "Harry Dick"s. Let's not forget Gay Wiener.

Like, these people were all real.

I vote cut

It tropes real dead beings

I vote to cut it as well. I'm all for Black Comedy and Grave Humor, even with some celebs and famous people. But just mocking the names of random real people who died? Yeah that's pushing it.

I'll send it off to the Cut List then! Thanks for your help!

It’s cut.

Above Top Secret has the same issue of basically only troping real peeps

Bumping the discussion involving Above Top Secret (and, by extension, David Icke), as we never came to a decision on such.

I vote to cut both; one is a non-fiction writer, the other a conspiracy theory website.

I still think that if there's anything tropeworthy on the David Icke page, it can go on Reptilian Conspiracy.

Cut ‘em both. (When David Icke finds out, he’ll probably come up with an elaborate conspiracy theory about how TV Tropes is run by reptilian aliens who don’t want the truth about them to leak out).

Edited by Lymantria on Feb 2nd 2024 at 7:34:01 PM

Well, it was only a matter of time until the truth came out one way or another.

Should Uncyclopedia have a page? It's basically nothing but shitposts and people writing absurd articles about things that don't exist (or at least not in the way they're portrayed). Since it's kind of non-fiction, in that aspect is also doesn't count for TV Tropes.

A lot of examples just link to one article and say it demonstrates the trope in question too, meaning it's full of Weblinks Are Not Examples and ZCEs.

And that's not even getting into the content on the site itself.

Reading through this thread it seems to fall in line with some other sites that have been cut, and I've come to the conclusion that there's nothing about this that's all that tropable. But perhaps I'm off-base here, since it is satire.

EDIT: Sexypedia is just a list of fictional characters people think are hot, and there's nothing tropable here either.

Edited by Zazie122 on Feb 3rd 2024 at 8:45:23 AM

Uncyclopedia I could argue needs a cleanup than a cut, as it's satire enough to be more in line with things like The Onion, just more memey and closer to non-fiction

Not to mention non-fiction can in fact be troped and has been before (see Adam Ruins Everything)

Sexypedia maybe could stay idk, depends on if there's enough tropable site original stuff for 3 tropes

Understandable RE: Uncyclopedia. I was somewhat unsure if it counted or not, but I wanted to bring it up because it's a bit of an odd case that from what I can tell hasn't been discussed yet (at least definitely not in this thread).

Sexypedia really is just "here's a wiki about fictional characters people find attractive" from the little I've looked at it, and I don't think it's tropeable in any way. But I don't want to do a deep dive into exploring the site to be proven wrong lol (It also doesn't ultimately matter, I just wanted to mention it).

I vote to cut Sexypedia; it has no narrative content. Looking at its trope list, it's pretty much just "this trope fits these characters listed on the wiki".

I'm leaning towards cutting Uncyclopedia as well, but I'm not too familiar with it; if there's enough narrative content in the articles, I guess it counts as fiction. We do trope The Onion, after all.

Just because Website.The Onion and Website.Babylon Bee have pages does not mean that Website.Uncyclopedia needs to have a page, and thus, Uncyclopedia can be safely cut as it lacks narrative content.

Edited by Nen_desharu on Feb 3rd 2024 at 5:56:39 AM