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.
I mean...it doesn't really say anything. I want to know why the series was mentioned but the example doesn't actually explain it and links to The Other Wiki as context. I think it's a valid example but desperately needs more context to make it genuinely interesting.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
What kind of context would you like to see? The actual quote from the decision, or what the case was about?
The actual quote. A lot of the information seems tangential and distracts from the actual point the example is making.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Fair enough. I actually cut the quote when moving the entry from the main page, because this was part of an effort to remove complaining - the main page used to spare no effort to point out how bad the show was, and IIRC the full quote from the judge was actually the page quote. I took part in an effort to clean up the complaining, and the quote fell victim to that effort. Perhaps that was too drastic.
Edited: I see now that this turned the example into a case of Weblinks Are Not Examples.
Edited by GnomeTitan
The full quote is this: "Many things—beating with a rubber truncheon, water torture, electric shock, incessant noise, reruns of Space: 1999—may cause agony as they occur, yet leave no enduring injury. The state is not free to inflict such pains without cause just so long as it is careful to leave no marks."
It's not a compliment on the show, but it's unusual for a judge to mention an SF show in a decision.
Edited by GnomeTitan
So what about the following?
- The series has the unusual distinction of being mentioned in a U.S. Supreme Court decision, in the case of Hudson v. McMillian (1992). Justice Clarence Thomas quoted from an earlier Seventh Circuit decision:
Many things—beating with a rubber truncheon, water torture, electric shock, incessant noise, reruns of Space: 1999—may cause agony as they occur, yet leave no enduring injury. The state is not free to inflict such pains without cause just so long as it is careful to leave no marks.
William Shakesman has not responded, even though he's been editing today, and anyway being a ZCE is not cause to remove an example outright.
Edited by GnomeTitan
I think that works.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
So would it be OK to put the revised example on the Trivia page, or would that count as edit warring?
Looks good to me
Link to TRS threads in project mode here.
Put it in, friend.
It's not edit warring if you discuss it with other people and get consensus first.
Yes, now we have consensus. I asked because we didn't have consensus yet when just I and WarJay were discussing it.
I'll add it later tonight.
Almost exactly a year ago, ~William Shakesman deleted the following entry from Trivia.Space 1999, without leaving an edit reason:
I didn't notice it until today. To me, this seems like a perfectly good piece of trivia (AFAIK trivia pages are explicitly allowed to have entires which are not examples of any trope). In fact, it was I who moved it there from the main page quite some time ago.
I've tried messaging William Shakesman about it, asking why he removed it, but haven't received any reply.
I can't just put the entry back without discussion, since that would be edit warring. So if William sees this, or somebody else has some comment, I'd like your opinions.
Edited by GnomeTitan