Follow TV Tropes
Why don't we move those to the ymmv pages?
I am inclined to leave the analysis + reception stuff to /Analysis/. The reviews can safely be zapped.
Grand Knights History has a note in the source about how the text is lifted out of wikipedia. Can someone fix this?
I changed it.
Okay, seriously, Havenwood literally has no work summary at all. Providing it even exists to begin with, can someone please provide one?
edited 20th Jul '12 10:10:44 PM by Komodin
Google searching (just searching the name was futile, so I included the names of some characters in the trope list) led me here. This was all I could find.
It appears to be an unpublished work of sorts. The person who created the article for is probably its author, but as shown by the edit history, the person who added the trope list deleted it afterward.
edited 20th Jul '12 10:52:51 PM by MyTimingIsOff
So, should it be moved to Unpublished Works, or cut altogether?
Considering that it not only hasn't had a work description for close to a year, but also doesn't even exist, I'd say we should just cut the page.
We have a page for the comic book Saga that barely deserves to be called a work page. I wanna know who thought it was acceptable to launch a page like that.
edited 21st Jul '12 7:05:45 AM by captainpat
^ Maki P is the only editor involved, and it looks like s/he is the source of all the content.
That is a rather sad page, though. Either Maki P has never read all of Works Pages Are A Free Launch, or they missed the last point that talks about the description needing to be more than a stub.
Kind of borderline case that doesn't seem to be covered elsewhere:
Film.God Of Gamblers has a so-so but functional description, but the tropes listed are all Zero Context Examples. As I've not seen the movie, I don't know how to flesh that out, or even if the trope applies to the movie (What Do You Mean, It's Not Awesome? was renamed to Mundane Made Awesome in part due to misuse, so I don't know if "... Awesome?" was used appropriately thanks to not having any context).
In the past, when I've found cases like that, I've been able to fill in the details on the work page by going to the trope and finding the example and copying it back. Many people seem to feel (or have felt—this is more common with older work pages), that you only needed one copy of the details, and that duplicating the description on the work page was redundant.
Oops, didn't think of that. Brain fart.
Anyway, fleshed out the GoG page. It turns out that the page was using "... Awesome?" correctly, so fixed that with the new trope name, too.
Series.Baby Daddy seems to have flown under the radar. It's short, which is not a strike necessarily, but it has YMMV items and a number of trope examples that aren't wicks. It also Needs Wiki Love badly. It's like someone made it without any idea of how a work article is supposed to be done.
I fixed the linkless tropes and moved the Heartwarming Moment to the proper namespace.
House of Leaves has an incredibly confusing description. Fix, please?
Per a thread in Wiki Talk that was closed, the descriptions for Space 1999 and Saikano need work. I'll take care of the latter; that one I'm familiar with.
edited 17th Aug '12 3:59:26 AM by Willbyr
I think the House Of Leaves description is imitating/trying to imitate the style of the book itself.
An excessively Self-Demonstrating Article tends to be frowned upon when there's no "real" description. I'm inclined to support changing it to something more readable.
Would it make sense to change the name of the thread to "Work and Creator description cleanup"? I don't think a separate thread for creators makes much sense, but I'm pretty sure there's a lot of creator pages that need cleanup as much as any work page.
Also, should copyright-violations stolen from wikipedia or other sites be reported here? Seems like that sort of thing should be a top priority.
edited 17th Aug '12 2:37:31 PM by Xtifr
Wikipedia is copyright-compatible with us, AFAIK. And the thread rename makes sense.
I'm not sure our no-commercial-use clause is compatible with Wikipedia, but in any case, I'm pretty sure that outright plagiarism from Wikipedia (or other sources) is a no-no. And it's almost certainly copyright violation if it's another source.
IIRC the rule is that outright lifting Wikipedia's content for TVT is a no-no.
If nothing else, kinda screws with We Are Not Wikipedia.
(And for The Other Wiki content not on wikipedia.org there's always about.com.)
(Huh. Why was WANW cut? It's locked, so I know it's not an issue of "never made".)
edited 17th Aug '12 4:41:33 PM by Nohbody
I'd guess it was due to Tropers Law abuse, although I don't know for sure.
edited 17th Aug '12 4:43:40 PM by nrjxll
No, it wasn't for Troper's Law or indeed copyright. it's because no page on the wiki should be a clone of another one.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?