Main Protection From Editors Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics

10:15:34 PM Jul 4th 2013
I'm sure I'm not the only person who has noted that there's a certain irony in the Protection From Editors page being, well, protected from editors.
04:22:12 PM Jun 26th 2014
10:33:47 AM Oct 3rd 2011
edited by SamMax
Am I missing something here? How on planet Earth is this YMMV? Sure, we don't always know whether or not they do, but this should be used for admitted or blatantly obvious authors.
04:05:58 AM Oct 18th 2011
Agreed - the situations where a writer is given too much free-reign should be pretty cut and dry. The sentiment may not be shared by fans of the work in question, but that's to be expected.
05:01:03 PM Jul 9th 2011
edited by CNash
Can the issue of having examples on this trope be readdressed? The list SabreJustice posted above doesn't seem unreasonably negative, just critical of some well-known failures and their reasons. There's a little word cruft and some of the examples could use tightening up, but other than that it seems fine. Add a note on the end stating that there are to be no examples about TV Tropes itself, if you want.

I do hate to bring this up, but we're not Wikipedia; we don't require verifications or citations for examples as they do. Or has this policy changed? If not, then there shouldn't be any issue with this page falling foul of "libel" or anything silly like that. A disclaimer stating something like "the views expressed on this page are those of our users and do not represent the opinions of TV Tropes or its employees" should suffice.
06:29:19 PM Aug 20th 2011
I'm inclined to agree, but even putting a more objective list back in and keeping the page locked is likely to result in consternation over not getting a troper's specific example in. It might still work, but at the moment, I'm leaning more towards just leaving the examples out and archiving them hear.
10:55:25 PM May 22nd 2011
Am I the only one who doesn't think this trope is all that bad? Sometimes, a work or author needs to show off what he can do, and the editors and bigwigs could allow said author to bring his vision to life. True, if you let it go too far, then things get messy, but loosening constraints for a work should, usually, allow for a better, bigger story or work.
08:37:05 AM May 23rd 2011
It depends on the author and the work. Protection from Editors might mean, yes, that you get a faithful depiction of, say, Hellboy or Superman.

It might also mean that the author goes off his meds and delivers a handful of books that are more about Objectivism than about the fantasy world he's supposed to be writing about.

It's a double edged sword, and honestly? Editors exist for a reason. Most authors aren't so good that they don't need a second set of eyes looking at their work. By and large, the editorial process probably improves a lot more works than it harms.
10:46:22 PM May 24th 2011
Maybe to you, but in my eyes, it just looks like some form of Executive Meddling getting in the way sometimes. When you go into Author Filibusters or Writer On Board, that causes issues; if you simply use this freedom to create the best possible story you can without being too heavy handed, then that shouldn't be seen as awful. Hell, I personally enjoyed Matrix Reloaded more than the first Matrix film, and a lot of people consider Watchmen a great story, and those were both given PFE. Really, the only thing I can see this as being bad is if the writer decides to go for some ridiculous political commentary or something to that like in a story where it doesn't belong.
04:38:23 PM Jun 7th 2011
To me, this proves that Executive Meddling is NOT always a bad thing, just as Protection from Editors isn't always a bad thing. If anything, this trope proves that a writer's work without editors is like shipping something out without a spot-check. It could be great, but more often than not it could still use a bit of polish.
05:57:32 PM Sep 25th 2010
10:59:31 AM Dec 30th 2010
Ironic considering the page's current status.
05:31:53 AM Sep 20th 2010
edited by IlGreven
My take? If it has to be locked, then it should be cut. As is, it has no value to the wiki other than being a pothole for pretty much every author's page, much like I Am Not Making This Up and the various Crowning Moments were basically potholes for every page on the wiki.
10:40:12 AM Sep 20th 2010
It has 138 wicks. It is not comparable to I Am Not Making This Up, nor is it on 'every author's page.'

This should definately not be cut. This is an objective trope that, like Executive Meddling, is perfectly valid but easily abused.
01:30:55 PM Sep 20th 2010
edited by RedViking
I agree. Just because it's locked doesn't mean it has no value. Besides, if you look at it form one angle, the page getting locked kinda enhances the explanation by taking it into meta territory.
07:49:16 PM Sep 20th 2010
I don't think this should be cut either. I think that with some work, the page can be salvaged with verifiable examples, similar to the efforts being done to Small Name, Big Ego . We just need to be given the chance to redeem this page again, is all.
08:32:55 AM Sep 24th 2010
Nope. According to the Repair Shop, since examples cannot possibly be proven, they should all be cut. I've modified Executive Meddling accordingly.
05:41:25 AM Nov 8th 2010
08:54:33 PM Sep 16th 2010
Given that the example list was removed, the "Not entirely uncoincidentally, many of the names provided here also make an appearance on the Small Name Big Ego list." near the end doesn't make any real sense. As it's locked, I can't fix it. In the off chance anyone who's reading this CAN fix it, could they?
01:09:27 PM Jun 9th 2010
Wait, why were the examples cut here?
02:36:37 PM Jun 9th 2010
04:32:13 AM Jun 11th 2010
I can see why examples one might have been cut(edit wars, perhaps?), but like the other cut page(Small Name, Big Ego), I really think that this page is a lot worse without the examples.
06:31:06 AM Jun 11th 2010
Agreed, the examples needed pruning (actual examples, not Complaining About Shows You Don't Like) but not outright removal.
08:39:06 AM Jun 11th 2010
Apparently, that's too much effort.
06:26:29 AM Jun 13th 2010
edited by SabreJustice
Well, watching people rage against things is cathartic, so I'll give it a shot.

...wait, the page can't be edited? Great. Seriously, just add a disclaimer kinda like this:

Please only add examples that have definitive proof. Once again, this is not for Complaining About Shows You Don't Like, examples must of of creators who had a notable lack of editorial oversight, or other kinds of oversight.
01:17:41 PM Jun 20th 2010
Alternatively, why not just disallow Real Life examples and allow fictional portrayals of the phenomenon?
02:53:52 PM Jun 21st 2010
edited by Aegeus
Can we at least get a note saying "This page does not currently accept examples because it is prone to Complaining About Shows You Don't Like"? The Untwist has a similar note at the bottom. That way, people wouldn't have to go to the discussion to figure out why there's 2 pages of discussion and not a single example.
06:38:52 AM Jun 22nd 2010
I agree with Sabre Justice. This page should have examples; when I read the description, I want to know about actual cases where this has happened. A disclaimer and perhaps a few touches to the description to make it less likely to encourage complaining. One thing that could be done, off the top of my head, would be to avoid words like "unmarketable" and "Wall Banger" in the first paragraph, maybe, since that's likely to be the first thing to be noticed by someone reading the page.
Collapse/Expand Topics