Ask The Tropers

Just to point out, Big-Lipped Alligator Moment is not just a "shocking" moment, it's a scene that occurs without any prior buildup which is not ever alluded to by the story afterwards. I don't think either example counts for that.

I just considered Shocking Moments to be a new home for that example, as well as for a completely new example.

I can’t speak for anything else, but I thought that putting “Unmarked Spoilers” in the folder name was not allowed.

The rules say you can't mark a folder as "Spoiler Character" and hide the name. You're allowed to say that a folder contains spoilers as long as you don't obscure what the folder's about.

^ You could say something descriptive of their narrative role, like "Luke Skywalker's father," instead of saying their name, so it's descriptive without being spoilery.

That too.

Yeah, that's what I did for two folders, but MichaelKatsuro decided to remove spoiler tags from spoilerific folders. Can I add the spoiler tags back?

I'd like all of the other disputes to be addressed and reached to their final verdicts.

If there's a spoiler warning in the folder title, you probably don't need to have spoiler tags inside the folder. Anyone who clicks on the folder is doing so with the knowledge that there's some spoiler-heavy stuff in there.

That was the character sheet's previous state. Spoilerific folders would have the "unmarked spoilers" label and its contents would lack spoiler tags.

It would be a lot easier for people to weigh in if you explicitly said what the edits in question were, because honestly trying to follow who changed what is and digging in the history is making brain hurty.

• Nipple and Dimed (assuming you are taking about Michael Katsuro's 3/31 edit): Correct; the previous version did have the double standard, and this version just has "nipples are present here", which is not the trope. However, I assume it was an overcorrection, as the previous version read kind of creepily about how "visibly erect" said nipples were. Find a middle ground that doesn't read like one-handed troping. You don't need to say nipples were erect; the trope is just about them being shown.
• I don't know what specific edit the curly bracket beef is about but generally there is nothing wrong with them.
• I don't think "creator comments that they did this" is particularly enriching to an example and I'm fine with the removal in the Talking Heads example. Creators use tropes; it is not necessary to add whenever they intentionally did so or not.
• I hate sliding scales so I will pass on the Moh's example.
• Regarding the spoilers, either you have an unmarked spoiler notice in the specific folder and have no spoilers in that folder, or you have no spoiler notice and present spoiler markup within that folder. Pick one.
• Others have already weighed in on how the Big-Lipped Alligator Moment is not a BLAM.
• What Do You Mean, It's Not for Kids?: I'm assuming you're referring to the 3/31 edit where a large chunk of Word of God was removed. I agree with this removal — Word of God is by definition ancillary and should not make up a huge chunk of an example, 'specially since we are aiming for clear, concise, witty. The entry you have provided is sort of fine; what it lacks is what would make people think it is for kids in the first place. You cite Sonic but like. That's a fast food chain right.

• I absolutely did not intend any eroticism, just alarm, because I would never write anything like that here. I just wanted to show the nipples are obviously seen like bumps, not like circular marks. However, I may agree that's unnecessary. (Also, I will rewrite my previous version because the interpretation that Evan Stanley added more detail to the nipples of a masculine creature because of the double standard is Speculative Troping to my knowledge.)
• Michael said using curly brackets for names of articles that are more than one word long is discouraged, but I don't know what the community thinks about this. I'll post a thread about this here later.
• Okay.
• Okay. I may add my revision right away since that's technically a new rewrite, not the or like previous version.
• I think it's neither and that Michael was adhering to pre-existing Spoilers Off character sheets.
• Okay. I'll add in my Shocking Moments examples without intervention because they haven't been added before, so they don't need to be treated under the Edit War policy.
• In my opinion, the example brings up the fact that it's a Sonic the Hedgehog Staff-Created Fan Work (the trope article mentions several fanworks as examples, stating the reason that people mistake them to be for kids is the source material), and another fact that kids read the comic despite it not being for them, which is sufficient.

Re: spoilers off: That's also an option, and I've previously written about my thoughts on spoilers-off and when to do it here. But I don't think you can expect ATT to decide which one to use because as MK said previously, y'all are the regular editors and would know best.

Re: last example:

This is the entry on the page as I'm looking at it:

I don't believe that's enough context because little kids watch all sorts of stuff without parental supervision. That's why there are kids' filters on places like Netflix or Youtube — so they don't have a formative memory of accidentally watching the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. It would be better if you described why kids are drawn to it (furry animals I'm guessing?). And you cannot ever expect someone to read the name "Sonic" and immediately understand that it is about furry animals.

• I went with the "However, a notice cautioning the reader about the spoiler-heavy character should be added at the top of these pages as a form of courtesy." route as listed on Administrivia.Spoilers Off as an alternative. I believe that's what MK tried to go on.
• How about "...Ghosts of the Future is a webcomic based on the kid-friendly video game series Sonic The Hedgehog and even created by who is now an official Sonic comic artist and writer..."?