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.
Funnily enough, I was about to ask the same question. While I think that they did have a point in some of their deletions, like the Cutting the Knot misuse, I'm concerned that they deleted a lot of commented and uncommented ZCE examples instead of commenting it out or leaving it alone.
Edited by cute_heart Read the letter Cricket!
Here's
a courtesy link to the user's recent edit history.
I actually agree with deleting the Attribute-related tropes. The monsters are associated to a certain element for gameplay reasons, but there is no indication whatsoever that their powers are really tied to it. Just to give one example, the "Stardust" folder had an entry for Blow You Away because said monsters are of the Wind attribute, yet in most adaptations and in the card game itself they are shown attacking with Cosmic Fire.
So you already brought it to ATT.
Anyway as I mentioned on the card game thread the attribute entries do seem to be misused specifically by being ZCE bait when applied to individual cards.
Edited by MorningStar1337
As for the "Sacred Beasts" folder: In my opinion, those entries absolutely need to be trimmed. The examples for Awesome, but Impractical, Balance Buff, Loophole Abuse and a few other tropes are enormous and go against Clear, Concise, Witty. For example, the entry about Uria in Awesome, but Impractical has Word Cruft ("To wit") and many redundant sentences (I saw at least three sentences stating that Trap cards are slow and can only be activated in a later turn).
I have been to those pages, too, and I have often tried changing them to the English names rather than the Japanese ones per guidelines.
That said, would redundant sentences like what Tanta Monty is describing count as Word Cruft? I know such content should be removed, regardless.
Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I am a tad concerned about the way a user named "Wuz" is editing pages under the Yu-Gi-Oh! Card Game area. To wit, this user seems to be cutting quite a number of tropes on the pages citing misuse, particularly with Type and Attribute descriptors and other stuff like Gameplay and Story Integration. I'm not certain if some of these tropes being cut actually do constitute misuse, per se, but I'd like some form of consensus or a second opinion first.
I also find some concern with how that user is editing stuff like the Sacred Beast section in this page. While it may be true that the section might be a bit long (I am considering splitting it into its own page at some point, personally). I don't know if the way this user is going about the edits is constructive, since the user tends to favor straight up cutting examples rather than trying to find alternative tropes that some examples could go under, if indeed trope misuse has occurred. My approach, personally, has always been to try and adapt already inputted text to other more fitting tropes rather than straight up cutting them. The comments that this user has posted while editing the page, saying that he feels like "cutting everything" or that he is "done with" proper editing in favor of cutting text, is somewhat concerning to me, and I feel that it sets a bad precedent for future edits. I don't think a user who is in favor of simply cutting text wholesale rather than finding ways to try and retain said text in some form is generally going to appear constructive to the site, especially if said text isn't blatantly unfitting, trope misuse, or something offensive.
I did edit back in much of the text in the Sacred Beast section that was removed by this user. However, this is more in the interest of me trying to see how it could potentially be edited to better fit wiki standards. It would be harder to do this if much of this text was straight up deleted, as this user seems apt to do. I have also taken some of the users comments into consideration and made some edits to the text to be a little compliant to such comments. However, I do acknowledge that this can be a long process. Part of the reason I am making this inquiry is also in the interest of avoiding an edit war, since I can reasonable foresee one occurring at some point.
The user also does not appear to have as good a grasp of English, so there are some grammar issues I see in his edits. This is not a big concern, IMO, but I feel that it is somewhat of an issue if the text he replaces with his edits had better grammar that what he is replacing it with. When I edit, I try to use a more professional and formal voice rather than a casual one, which this user seems to favor, but that's not a big concern on my part.
I apologize if this is not the correct place to post this, but I'm not sure where else to do so. I hope to seek a second opinion from some one on the matter if the approach this user is taking with those pages is proper or not.
Edited by XDiakos