Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
His removal of Not So Different seems appropriate, as that trope does have a Real Life section and does not have a "No Real Life" tag on its page. Unless I am getting this backwards and Not So Different should be In-Universe Only and for some reason hasn't been cleaned up as such.
Less sure about Scandal Gate, which does have the latter.
He also added a line about real life examples being fine for some of those, unless it's specified otherwise. I'm still not sure whether having real life examples of tropes that are supposed to be In-Universe only makes sense or not. At first I thought that meant that listing critics opinions and such was allowed on some of those tropes, but after a quick browse, that doesn't seem to be the case.
Edited by supergod For we shall slay evil with logic...
^ Not So Different could be IUEO in that it should only count as an example if the resemblance is pointed out within the work. If tropers were misusing it by adding works where the similarities between two groups or character existed but were not mentioned and were based on the viewer's opinion, then it belongs on the page.
Reading through the Real Life section of that trope, I'm thinking that it should be limited to In Universe Examples if it isn't already supposed to be, if only because some of those examples are unsupported, biased and/or downright stupid. That subtitles example... yuck.
Also, doesn't the trope require the similarities to be made very clear by the work, usually with the characters themselves realizing it?
Edited by supergod For we shall slay evil with logic...
Most tropes it does not make sense to make in universe examples only, because they are inherently in universe tropes. I think Not So Different is one of these.
Some people are dingbats. If it's not clearly labeled, they'll ask 'but why can't I do that?' They're the reason why a school will have a no underwear showing rule and a no bra strap showing rule.
Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett
Seems like an issue that should be sorted out by discussion.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Based in the replies, i guess this was an unilateral deletion.
Well, i opened a discussion about this in the discussion page. Must the tropes be readded to the list until the end of the discussion, considering that this was an unilateral deletion?
I don't see any reason to permit someone to remove tropes from that article without discussion. Put them back. It's not an edit war unless he deletes them again.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
IUEO is not an ordinary article. Otherwise I'd agree. It sounds like some of the tropes were never IUEO to begin with.
Edited by war877
I've reverted all of the changes.
Edited by Karxrida If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?
Both those tropes went to TRS to discuss IUEO. Scandal Gate was successfully voted IUEO. Unless there was another TRS afterwards, it is IUEO.
Not So Different stalled without a vote and no other form of resolution was reached. It was never IUEO.
Edited by war877
The Buddy 26 removed some tropes in Inuniverse Examples Only. Any discussion about this?