Discussion History Administrivia / Sinkhole

I have some questions about \\\"TV Tropes Editor\\\'s Use of a Trope\\\".
Does it apply to hypothetical scenarios on Playing With pages and similar? I mean if a trope is used in the hypothetical scenarios themselves. How about hypothetical scenarios on main pages?
Here\\\'s a hypothetical example to illustrate another thing that\\\'s unclear: A show is named \\\'\\\'Bob and Charles\\\'\\\'. Someone writes this on its page: \\\"KarmaHoudini: As Alice put it: \\\'Bob got away with killing Charles, destroying our village, and [[ArsonMurderAndJaywalking tickling a baby]]\\\'.\\\" Is this allowed (a) if Alice is a character from \\\'\\\'Bob and Charles\\\'\\\'? (b) if Alice is a critic from a VideoReviewShow (or similar)?
(Note: Some of the questions originally asked here were answered on Ask the Tropers, and have been removed from here.)

I have some questions about \\\"TV Tropes Editor\\\'s Use of a Trope\\\".
Does it apply to hypothetical scenarios on Playing With pages and similar? I mean if a trope is used in the hypothetical scenarios themselves. How about hypothetical scenarios on main pages?
(Note: Some of the questions originally asked here were answered on Ask the Tropers, and have been removed from here.)

I have some questions about \\\"TV Tropes Editor\\\'s Use of a Trope\\\".
1: Was it agreed upon, or did someone just put it there because it\\\'s his or her PetPeeveTrope? I can\\\'t find much else on this wiki that says the same thing, except for pages for in-universe only tropes like {{Understatement}}.
2: The page says \\\"Linking to the internal use of a trope by the person writing an otherwise unrelated entry is especially bad.\\\" \\\'\\\'Why\\\'\\\'? If someone writes an example that says \\\"KarmaHoudini: Bob gets away with murdering Charles, burning down Daniel\\\'s house, and [[ArsonMurderAndJaywalking stealing a bread from Alice]]\\\", the pot hole clearly refers to the TV Tropes editor\\\'s use of the trope, and not an in-universe use. It\\\'s still an example of Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking, and it\\\'s not misleading in any way. While I think we should focus on the media, we can afford pot holes about a TV Tropes editor\\\'s use of a trope. It\\\'s fun and I don\\\'t see the harm as long as the trope isn\\\'t misused. Heck, the PotholeMagnet page says it\\\'s normally \\\"all in good fun\\\".
3: Does it apply to all tropes (like the ArsonMurderAndJaywalking example above) or just in-universe only tropes? If it does apply to all tropes, the {{Understatement}} example is bad, and if not, the whole thing is misleading and should instead say \\\"don\\\'t pothole to in-universe only tropes if the example isn\\\'t in-universe\\\" or something like that. By the way, if the answer is that it only applies to in-universe only tropes, disregard points 2 and 4.
4: Does it apply to hypothetical scenarios on Playing With pages and similar? I mean if a trope is used in one of the hypothetical scenarios. How about main pages? Where should the line be drawn? That\\\'s another reason I\\\'m against this rule. Forbidding all such pot holes is too strict, and most other restrictions would feel arbitrary.

I have some questions about \\\"TV Tropes Editor\\\'s Use of a Trope\\\".
1: Was it agreed upon, or did someone just put it there because it\\\'s his or her PetPeeveTrope? I can\\\'t find much else on this wiki that says the same thing, except for pages for in-universe only tropes like {{Understatement}}.
2: The page says \\\"Linking to the internal use of a trope by the person writing an otherwise unrelated entry is especially bad.\\\" \\\'\\\'Why\\\'\\\'? If someone writes an example that says \\\"KarmaHoudini: Bob gets away with murdering Charles, burning down Daniel\\\'s house, and [[ArsonMurderAndJaywalking stealing a bread from Alice]]\\\", the pot hole clearly refers to the TV Tropes editor\\\'s use of the trope, and not an in-universe use. It\\\'s still an example of Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking, and it\\\'s not misleading in any way. While I think we should focus on the media, we can afford pot holes about a TV Tropes editor\\\'s use of a trope. It\\\'s fun and I don\\\'t see the harm as long as the trope isn\\\'t misused. Heck, the PotholeMagnet page says it\\\'s normally \\\"all in good fun\\\".
3: Does it apply to all tropes (like the ArsonMurderAndJaywalking example above) or just in-universe only tropes? If it does, the {{Understatement}} example is bad, and if not, the whole thing is misleading and should instead say \\\"don\\\'t pothole to in-universe only tropes if the example isn\\\'t in-universe\\\" or something like that. By the way, if the answer is no, disregard points 2 and 4.
4: Does it apply to hypothetical scenarios on Playing With pages and similar? I mean if a trope is used in one of the hypothetical scenarios. How about main pages? Where should the line be drawn? That\\\'s another reason I\\\'m against this rule. Forbidding all such pot holes is too strict, and most other restrictions would feel arbitrary.

I have some questions about \\\"TV Tropes Editor\\\'s Use of a Trope\\\".
1: Was it agreed upon, or did someone just put it there because it\\\'s his or her PetPeeveTrope? I can\\\'t find much else on this wiki that says the same thing, except for pages for in-universe only tropes like {{Understatement}}.
2: The page says \\\"Linking to the internal use of a trope by the person writing an otherwise unrelated entry is especially bad.\\\" \\\'\\\'Why\\\'\\\'? If someone writes an example that says \\\"KarmaHoudini: Bob gets away with murdering Charles, burning down Daniel\\\'s house, and [[ArsonMurderAndJaywalking stealing a bread from Alice]]\\\", the pot hole clearly refers to the TV Tropes editor\\\'s use of the trope, and not an in-universe use. It\\\'s still an example of Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking, and it\\\'s not misleading in any way. While I think we should focus on the media, we can afford pot holes about a TV Tropes editor\\\'s use of a trope. It\\\'s fun and I don\\\'t see the harm as long as the trope isn\\\'t misused. Heck, the PotholeMagnet page says it\\\'s normally \\\"all in good fun\\\".
3: Does it apply to all tropes (like the ArsonMurderAndJaywalking example above) or just in-universe only tropes? If it does, the {{Understatement}} example is bad, and if not, the whole thing is misleading and should instead say \\\"don\\\'t pothole to in-universe only tropes if the example isn\\\'t in-universe\\\" or something like that. By the way, if the answer is no, disregard point 2.
4: Does it apply to hypothetical scenarios on Playing With pages and similar? I mean if a trope is used in one of the hypothetical scenarios.

SeptimusHeap...this is gonna sound embaressing but how do I find my PMs since I can\\\'t find the message you sent me.

Edit: Never mind, found it.