01:04:05 AM Feb 15th 2018
Someone just added a suggestion specific to WMG. While I don't think that belongs on the main list, it gave me an idea: what if the edit tips that are displayed varied based on what namespace you're editing? That might be a good idea.
04:22:06 PM Feb 26th 2017
I want to edit something with the Danny Phantom Does this remind you of anything trope and I want to what I should type in with Edit reason box also what would I want to not do in order to avoid getting kicked off the website?
07:35:32 PM May 21st 2016
How do I add links? I am a new troper here, and I want to know how!
08:52:38 PM May 21st 2016
06:41:40 AM May 3rd 2016
It's here where I can ask how to add alternative titles to the pages? Just tried and I canīt do it via regular editing methods...
10:19:22 PM Mar 6th 2016
Can we get something on the order of the old "editing tips" helpscreen back? The one that showed how to do potholing, links, and Not A Wiki Word? I have trouble doing those things without that handy reference which we used to be able to pull up from the editor.
01:47:02 AM Apr 25th 2014
I don't understand this one: "People who edit make up just over 1% of all traffic. That is, about 99% of traffic are non-editing readers. Try to keep this in mind when editing." It informs me of an interesting statistic, but I have no idea what I am expected to DO about it. Can anyone enlighten me?
10:13:54 PM Apr 16th 2014
How can I add a subsection like the CMOF logo or CMOA logo to the main page of a specific work if it isn't there already?
10:04:06 PM Dec 29th 2013
At about what point should a list of tropes on a page be broken down into folders and/or subpages? Is there a specific number, or is it just done when things are getting inconvenient to scroll through?
02:02:44 AM Dec 30th 2013
There's no easy way to count the number of tropes on a page. Just do it when they're getting inconvenient to scroll through — when on a desktop computer the scroll bar is at or reaching minimal size, for example. If you want help judging this, ask on the discussion page or in Ask The Tropers.
08:48:03 AM Nov 17th 2013
Does this drive anyone else crazy? I see a fair bit of "Likewise," or "As in the above example," which assumes that the example is going to stay immediately below the one it's referencing forever and ever. I've been alphabetizing, and I've had to clean that shit up.
05:12:20 PM Nov 11th 2013
If there is a work which you know has so many more tropes than there are listed, but you can't write them all down in twenty minutes, is it okay to keep editing and saving it?
12:13:58 AM Nov 12th 2013
There's a few options. You can write it all out in a word document (although make sure it doesn't turn quotes curly) and then paste it in, you can make a sandbox page and edit that until the final version is ready, or you can just edit the main page for as long as you wish; as long as the page isn't too popular and the work isn't in the news, you're unlikely to have someone else override your edits. Editing, saving, editing, saving the main page in various half-baked forms is discouraged. This is a wiki so pages are always growing, but what's on the page should look like a complete (even if small) page.
08:31:45 AM Jun 20th 2013
- 12: what about if only certain elements of a trope are subverted, without upsetting the basic idea? Is that just downplaying?
10:38:15 AM Aug 22nd 2012
edited by TompaDompa
edited by TompaDompa
I'm experiencing some problems with the :: markup. For one thing, it seems to cause a dotted line where there shouldn't be one. Moreover, it seems to interfere with the spoiler markup, forcing a line break at the colon [[spoiler:<—there]]. The latter problem does not, however, occur with hottips (if I recall correctly).
09:49:11 PM Jul 17th 2012
Can we please get something installed with regard to namespaces? I know that it's been mentioned in a few places on the wiki, but I think that this might just be the best way to convey this information, since very few people (i.e. the few dozen or so TRS and Special Efforts regulars) seem to be aware of the existence of namespaces or know to use them. I know that when I did a YKTTW recently, almost no one namespaced their examples properly, which suggests that there is a lot of ignorance on the subject, and this seems like a good way to spread knowledge of the issue.
10:30:39 AM Aug 22nd 2012
edited by TompaDompa
edited by TompaDompa
I concur. This is especially important for wick counts (for instance, the Trope Overdosed page), since pages seem to be counted twice if they both wick to WrongNamespace/Page and CorrectNamespace/Page (or in general, if a page wicks to both a page and a redirect to the same page, or to more than one redirect).
07:51:16 PM Jul 5th 2012
edited by Kuuenbu
edited by Kuuenbu
There ought to be a better way to enforce these rules. Right now, someone can register and go straight to troping without reading any of this, cluelessly leaving a defecative trail of self-references, word cruft, zero context examples, and other horrible chat room-like drivel that drive me to Brain Bleach and thoughts of violence. The edit page only shows one tip at a time, and it's very easy to miss or ignore it. One thing that could be done is have the whole list shown as an intermediary page during the registration process*, but users will more than likely give it the EULA treatment. An edit filter could be used, preventing the user from applying an edit page if "This Troper" (even worse than self-referential pronouns), any variant of "No mention of...?" or horrible word crufty suffixes like "...anyone?" or "...'nuff said". However, this would more than likely disable anyone from quoting works that use these phrases in dialogue or, worse, their titles, leaving "This Troper" as the only feasible filtering option (sorry to anyone planning on a documentary or webcomic called This Troper; sometimes drastic measures must be taken). The way the website is set up now, the guidelines are going to miss a lot of tropers and result in a lot of the mess people like me have to spend hours and hours cleaning up. There's too much ignorance flying around here and we really should figure out how to crack down on it.
02:21:11 PM Jun 14th 2012
12:05:58 AM Feb 18th 2012
I understand that we aren't supposed to add new tips directly to the list, but can we edit existing parts of the list? and i mean edit, not replace.
06:06:23 PM Sep 29th 2011
edited by AMNK
edited by AMNK
Installed tips #2, #9 and #14 talk about the same thing. Would be a good idea to fuse them in a single sentence.
01:58:27 AM Jul 12th 2011
So, it seems we got a couple of bots hovering around here. If you see any suspicious edits leading to links that are advertising something, then get rid of it immediately.
04:52:28 AM Jun 21st 2011
This may not warrant an entry, but I've encountered it a few times now; People are placing artists/creators in trope lists. Obviously, they are not tropes and don't belong in the lists just because they have a page here. May be it's Entry Pimping, but considering I had to remove The Who from the list of tropes on The Who page, i think it may be more confusion.
12:18:52 PM Jun 19th 2011
Shouldn't there be a rule against indicating time? Sure, you can write 'recently' when a work has just come out, but the example will still be there in a few years, when that doesn't apply anymore.
07:24:34 PM Oct 22nd 2011
Article for that: Examples Are Not Recent. Ideal for shoehorning it in the edit reasons.
01:12:34 PM May 5th 2011
Um, I removed the anti-strikethrough tip before noticing the warning at the top of the page. (Way to be attentive, me.) Sorry about that. I'm guessing it would be silly to add it back, though, since the strikethrough function is gone, but I wanted to be sure... Eheh...
09:09:01 PM Mar 4th 2011
What's the point of having suggestions if none of them ever get installed? I can't recall the last time a new tip was added to the sheet.
09:10:26 PM Jan 15th 2011
I remember when TV Tropes used to be much more laid back than "that other Wiki". Disappointing to see bureaucracy ruin yet another potentially good resource.
12:21:12 PM Oct 14th 2010
Regarding #12: This is confusing. Why shouldn't it be mentioned if something was popular or not? I'd think that would be an important part of the description of a series. It would be odd to write up the Harry Potter article without somewhere mentioning the fact it was (and still is) incredibly popular. I completely agree that "whether or not you liked it has nothing to do with tropes" but apparently suggesting that a work's popularity shouldn't be mentioned seems odd (and what does popularity have to do with you, personally, liking it?). Unless it's referring to there not being notability on TV Tropes and thus whether something was popular or not doesn't matter in the case of making a page for it, in which case it should be rewritten to better reflect such.
12:24:29 PM Oct 14th 2010
Why does it need to be mentioned? What's the difference between these?
12:39:41 PM Oct 14th 2010
I think it would be okay to mention in the overview of the Harry Potter article that it's incredibly popular. What the tip is trying to indicate is that if you're listing a Harry Potter example on a trope's page, the series's popularity has nothing to do with the trope in question, so mentioning it is completely gratuitous. Mr Death has outlined an excellent example of this.
12:40:06 PM Oct 14th 2010
The popularity level of any given work is already known by the reader. They don't need a declaration from TV Tropes to make up their minds about whether or not it is popular. At best, they agree. They nod and move on. At worst, they disagree. That's when we get defensive posting and back-and-forth arguing to present the pros and cons. None of which has anything at all to do with the tropes. The best move for TV Tropes is to stay out of the whole question.
12:20:49 PM Sep 10th 2010
I just wanted to say that I think hyperbole in examples is the single biggest problem of the wiki. I'm already jaded beyond help and the infinite simpletons trying to convince me that something I thought was just alright is the best thing that's ever happened to media is only rubbing salt into the wound.
07:36:12 PM Sep 5th 2010
I move that #4 and #19 (the ones about bullet points) be merged. #19 is broader and includes #4.
01:48:40 PM Aug 25th 2010
"6: Be sure this example isn't here already." Unless you convince us it's so good you need to mention it twice.
08:08:36 PM Aug 12th 2010
Agreed, though I resent "TV Tropes as grammar school". Yes, it's not as sexy as "repair don't respond" etc., but wading through Rouge Angles of Satin, misplaced apostrophes, lack of capitalization and Wanton Cruelty to the Common Comma really takes away from being able to enjoy a piece of text; plus someone will waste unnecessary energy fixing those things. Maybe instead of it's vs. its there should be a primer page on how to be nice to the tormented ghost of the English language.
09:27:55 PM Aug 12th 2010
That said, it's still very silly to devote an edit tip specifically to the proper grammatical and syntactical arrangement of three letters and a punctuation mark. Look at the implemented editing tips. You'll notice that they're all very helpful to new users and cover a wide range of topics, each of them giving advice applicable in many different situations. As opposed to telling you how to write a single word. Look, if you spot a spelling, grammar, or syntax error, just fix it. I don't see the problem here.
10:34:23 PM Aug 12th 2010
edited by TripleElation
edited by TripleElation
I concede the bit about tips having to be applicable in a wide range of situations, which is why I suggested a link to a more general page regarding quick tips on grammar. But what's that with "just fix it, I don't see the problem here"? What, spelling/grammar mistakes on the wiki are specifically my problem? We have casual readers who just come in to read something fun. What sort of experience will we be giving them with sentences like "to be fair theres alot of evidence that their trying to unlock it's full potential...were going to have to wait and see but This Troper thinks its going to be absolutly awesome"? "Just fixing it" is very tedious, and it would be nice if the wiki lifted a finger so I would have to do less of it. At any rate, I don't intend to force this point, as the whole activity surrounding the tips worksheet is starting to give off a distinct bikeshed coloring vibe and there's probably more important work to be done elsewhere in the wiki.
02:19:31 PM Aug 13th 2010
But the issue that I have is that the vast majority of spelling mistakes are simple typographic errors made by people who actually know how to spell the word(s) in question. There's no way to prevent typos without taking control of peoples' minds. You aren't going to stop typos by telling people who know how to spell a word how to spell it - when they misspell it, it's a simple mistake.
12:53:22 AM Aug 1st 2010
Phrases like "keep in mind" are not necessarily word cruft. They don't belong in examples, but they are useful ways of linking paragraphs fluently when explaining things, such as the meaning of a trope. "Keep in mind" is roughly shorthand for, 'I'm about to tell you something you should already know which is relevant to the point I'm making," so helps signal to the reader how the paragraphs fit together. These signals aren't strictly necessary, readers can work out such things for themselves, but it's only in the most formal English that they are disparaged. However, while that's the kind recommended by usage guides, it's not the kind we use here.
01:23:03 AM Aug 1st 2010
I agree that "keep in mind" could be connective tissue. Altered the tip to remove that debatable example. Material that doesn't assume that we know something we may not, then orders us to recall it is less than friendly. Friendly is the kind of writing we do. I hereby disparage them as formally or as informally as possible.
02:05:20 AM Aug 1st 2010
"Of course/Bear in mind/Remember/Don't forget, this episode was written only five years after WWII, when everyone ...." Most of the phrases can be valid connective tissue, under the right circumstances, which are not easily summed up in a single snappy sentence. Thinking about it, I'd go for two guidelines
- Don't assume people know things, unless either it's either already been explained on the same page or it's genuinely common knowledge.
- Don't tell people things they should already know, unless it's relevant in a way that isn't blindingly obvious.
08:54:56 PM Aug 9th 2010
I do like the way those are written better. But I do think it's okay to have a general word cruft comment. It's really not word cruft until you go overboard.
12:53:06 AM Oct 2nd 2010
I just got that tip and was wondering about it too. Robert's suggestions make sense to me, but if we're into being informal and friendly and witty here, implying certain 1-3 word phrases are always "wordcruft" seems off to me. It creates the impression that we're excessively concerned about word count (are we?) and that spending an extra ten characters making something a little funnier or snappier or friendlier might be wrong because it takes up space. If the problem with "keep in mind" is that it's unfriendly, let's just say that.
01:35:09 AM Oct 2nd 2010
Those "reminder" things are not witty. They are — for some reason — incredibly overused. Nor do they add any value. They are just an irritant. I can't say that encouraging people to be witty, friendly, and informal in any way keeps them from doing all that with concision. So, no, we are not counting words. We are hoping for more creativity.
05:41:58 AM Aug 3rd 2011
Plus, that "you know about this"... No, there're people out there that doesn't know that.
02:48:34 PM Jul 31st 2010
Some of the suggested ones are incredibly weak and have extremely narrow areas of focus. "Retcon is one word" is almost completely pointless, primarily because you can say Retcon and everyone will know exactly what you're saying. Another thing that's bothering me is the proliferation of prospective tips that are nothing but technical manuals about how to link to ptitles, for instance. We have entire pages that do nothing but explain this stuff already, guys
08:52:48 PM Aug 9th 2010
It's not pointless. If you use Retcon, the title of the page will be incorrect. The same happens with Dis Continuity. It might be better left as a more general rule of "Use the correct capitalization of tropes," (and explaining why). But it is something you've got to pay attention to, as long as the software uses the link to figure out the title.
10:34:01 PM Jul 30th 2010
I've an idea for a tip: When writing examples, don't use terms which make your entry sound dated. i.e. referring to something as "upcoming" or "recently released". And if you feel the need to word your example as something along the lines of "If the trailer is any indication, this upcoming work looks like it's going to be an example of this trope", you probably don't have enough information to be adding it in the first place.
12:05:03 AM Aug 1st 2010
Or if you do need to add time-sensitive information, date it so that it makes sense. I recently came across "This year, Christmas is starting in August" (referring to Selfridges of London opening its Christmas Store on August 2 2010, a week earlier than its previous record); "this year" is meaningless without context, so I changed it to "In 2010".
08:50:33 PM Aug 9th 2010
Yes, yes. This is very annoying. I've had to fix entries that mentioned "Last night's episode." And sometimes, the examples are so vague, it's a chore to figure out what episode they are actually talking about. I'd even go so far as to say name the episode if you can.
04:46:09 AM Jun 21st 2011
Thirded; a release date may sound over formal, but it provides context and doesn't require a followup edit.
07:22:32 PM Oct 22nd 2011
We now have an article for that one: Examples Are Not Recent.
09:45:29 PM Jul 26th 2010
Are the numbers that show when you go to edit supposed to match the numbers listed on this page? When I went to edit just now, it showed Tip #9 as "More than one page-top quote just gets in the way. Use the Quotes page for the rest." but on the page, it's the last official tip, #18.
09:34:19 PM Jul 26th 2010
Morgan Wick: Suggestion: Have a special page (akin to the auto-indexes like Contributors and Troper Tales) separate from this one for the installed entries.
07:05:35 AM Jul 26th 2010
Memes, such as Candle Jack, don't automatically make things wittier. Resist the urge to shoehorn one i There. I'm very sorry, I had to get that out of my system.
01:34:30 PM Jul 25th 2010
Is it a good idea to change old trope names to more current ones? I've found a page which lists "Bright Slap", when the current name is "Get Ahold of Yourself Man" and am not sure whether I should change it. I came to this page seeking whether there's protocol on this and found none. Ought this tip be added for those as clueless as myself? Discuss.
02:18:45 PM Jul 25th 2010
Use your own discretion if it is established as a redirect. I wouldn't touch it, since it still gets you where you want to go, but someone else could think differently. Unless it's a pun, then you don't touch it, period.
07:04:40 AM Jul 26th 2010
Hm? Why? Of all things, puns are exempt from Wiki Magic? I say if you feel like changing the link to something else, go ahead. Just make sure you don't leave a writhing, bleeding half of a pun in your wake. e.g. use a different pun, write out the pun altogether.
08:48:56 PM Aug 9th 2010
He's saying don't automatically change them. There's no reason to remove a pun just to use the more recent name. Only do what you suggest if you think your edit will make the page better.