If a work has a Recap list and a particular Trope only happens in 1 episode that has a recap page, would it still be listed on the work's page?
Hide / Show Replies
First, this isn't about writing example.
Second, Recap will appear on namespace navigation above, just like Characters or YMMV. So it's pointless to listed it in work's page, one episode or hundreds.
Edited by Kuruni
Changed the wording in Avoid Spoilers to match the official policy in Handling Spoilers.
Edited by Arivne
Could the following line be added to the end of the Do Not Add Multiple Tropes With A Slash/Adding Multiple Tropes With A Slash Is Bad paragraph? I think it's a worthwhile addition.
If the tropes have a Sub-Trope / Super-Trope relation with each other, list only the more specific subtrope.
Edited by Morgenthaler You've got roaming bands of armed, aggressive, tyrannical plumbers coming to your door, saying "Use our service, or else!" Hide / Show Replies
I think so. Watch out to keep everything short, though.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
If someone has put in a spelling mistake, are we allowed to correct it ourselves? It seems kind of rude to me, but it would make the wiki look more professional.
Hide / Show Replies
Absolutely. Please do it, in fact. Correcting mistakes is not rude.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Question re formatting for eponymous characters in a Character Title. What's the proper wording for this hypothetical example?
- In Batman Batman has a Cool Car. [It's repetitive.]
- Batman has a Cool Car. [Batman is the name of the book in which Batman the character has a car. The work doesn't have a car, the character does.]
- Batman has a Cool Car. [The source of the character Batman technically isn't stated. Batman appears in a number of comic books, but no specific work has been cited - Batman, Detective Comics, Justice League of America, etc.]
I've seen it all three ways and each seems wrong in different ways. The first seems the least wrong to me.
Edited by randomsurfer Hide / Show Replies
That seems like a question for the Wiki Talk forum.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Figured I should point out that you might want to remove the "Have Fun" example at the bottom of the page, since that's clearly a mindset that's not welcome here anymore.
I really hate to complain like this, but so many people are becoming so absurdly anal-retentive about things like Natter and arbitrary formatting rules that I'm pretty sure were made up on the spot, that it really seems like no one remembers that this is supposed to be the informal, fun wiki. Yes, I'm aware that there needs to be some regulations about what's allowed and what isn't, but when the situation gets to the point that I hear "You should have added that this way, and we're gonna ban you now because you did that in a way we didn't like.", it seems like something's gone wrong.
Hide / Show Replies
"Informal and fun" covers a lot of stuff, ya know. Including example writeups. There are ways to write "informal and fun" that don't involve natter and formatting.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Plus you are not going to get banned for a single mistake. Bans are for persistent refusal or inability to comply.
Let's just say and leave it at that.
Maybe I should explain myself a little better. I'm not saying that people should be allowed to post Natter wherever they like, my issue is that people are so obsessed with removing it that they'll chop and report anything that looks even remotely like Natter, which really shuts down any ability to write up entries casually, since you have pore over every one with a microscope to make sure people don't have an excuse to complain about them. And to be honest, I don't agree with the attitude against Word Cruft here either, but I'm going to leave that be.
And the formatting this place seems to follow is a joke. Honestly, who responds to seeing several related but separate entries by cramming them together into one long, nigh-unreadable paragraph? It's hilarious that the page on the subject refers to this site's formatting as basic English, when every time I've been "corrected" on it, the correction is as far from basic English and organization as you can possibly get.
I've never seen people being that pedantic about entries, so I am not exactly highly concerned
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Well, Pyro Wildcat, you'll have to accept that TV Tropes is a wiki, not a forum.
Which means (among other things) that the fun on TV Tropes should be on the part of the reader browsing the wiki, not on the part of the editor killing time with the wiki. Admittedly, being funny and having fun are two very different things.
Incidentally, your recent edit on YMMV.Pokemon X And Y makes it sounds like the wiki is talking to itself:
- The removal of the Move Tutors. For all the advances made towards making the game more newbie friendly for competitive battling, the lack of move tutors is a glaring omission. Especially since there's several Gen VI Pokemon that lack key moves to rounding out their movesets. Sadly, those who refer to this as a "removal" are willingly ignoring the fact that Move Tutors have never been included in the first games of any generation.
'M not Crazy, just Raven
I removed a two points about Repair Dont Respond, because they were already present near the top of the page and didn't really have any additional information
Now Bloggier than ever before!
Pending
Organising by medium is now the default for tropes pages, at least beyond a certain minimum length The page needs adjusting accordingly. Also, bold in the second level bullets looks a little off, presentationally.
Later: More accurately, having bold text at the start of successive lines looks too heavy, and that was happening because the second level bullet points were relatively short.
Edited by robert Cattle die, kinsmen die. You yourself will surely die. Only word-fame dies not, for one who well achieves it.
Zzzzzzzzzz
I cut this:
If it is a scene from a trailer and it looks pretty solid (notwithstanding Never Trust a Trailer) don't even say that it is from a trailer, again because saying "From the fall 2005 trailer" will become dated.
from the section on "Don't use the phrase "most recent"..." because it seems to me that it is good practice to identify it as coming from a trailer; the scene may play out very differently in the actual film. If the example is identified as being from a trailer, then when the film comes out, if it still holds up, the notation that it was from the trailer can be cut; but if it doesn't, the trailer example can be cut completely.
Counter-arguments, anyone?
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
How about an "Examples Should Stand on Their Own" rule/sentence somewhere, about not telling readers to go somewhere else on the page? ("Nice Hat: Bob wears a striped cap with feathers in his civilian getup, which his colleagues comment on. See Paper-Thin Disguise. [...] Paper-Thin Disguise: Bob's idea of going under cover involves wearing a colorful, feathered hat and overcoat but not changing anything else about his appearance. The disguise fools everyone in town.") It is not related to the Zero-Context rule. These are entries that provide adequate context but tell the reader to read a related trope elsewhere in the example list, which isn't necessarily bad form like ZCE.