Remove entries containing "This Troper"?

Is there any place This Troper is allowed? I don't know the Sugar Wiki policies, but I noticed use of it in Heartwarming.US Acres .

Nowhere (except a couple parody pages on Darth Wiki); that includes not on Heartwarming or Tear Jerker tabs. I personally am slack about removing those ones, though.

If we do add such a system, I think we should just make it turn red, like what we do with YMMV items now. I can see a problem with automatically deleting such things. Imagine the following scenario:

1. I contribute a legitimate example.
2. Someone else comes along and tries to add to it while also inserting "This Troper".
3. The entire paragraph gets deleted.
4. I find myself wondering why I bothered to contribute in the first place.

It's already happened a few times with a human performing step 3, I can't imagine any automated system producing better results. (Although an automated system probably won't also delete half the paragraph immediately above or below it by accident, I'll give it that.)

edited 17th Sep '12 2:16:51 PM by PoochyEXE

Or we can do it the way the Wikipedia spam blacklist does and just reject any edit that matches a given string (like This Troper).

I don't think a reasonable editor should nuke the entire example just because one bullet point below someone wrote This Troper. The proper thing would be to properly rewrite the example so it's proper. (That word just lost all meaning for This Troper.)

Nuking material just for a problem like that is always wrong, especially on this wiki where unlike most other wikis a full page history is not saved forever and eventually something that is removed simply disappears into the abyss.

And yet I've seen it happen many, many times. On one occasion a work page got an edit by the creator of the work and it was nuked entirely for using first person (and not even "this troper", but "I").

By the way, thank you for at least acknowledging that there exists a problem. I've brought up this problem on more than one occasion. Every time I have either been ignored or strawman'ed.

edited 17th Sep '12 6:15:11 PM by PoochyEXE

We don't want people wholesale cutting an edit that happens to include some first person. Context is important. There are very few cases where it's valid, though.

...Why?

Why would content that was there before be erased because of some flaw in later edit?

edited 17th Sep '12 6:14:59 PM by Trivialis

First person isn't any more acceptable than This Troper.

edited 17th Sep '12 6:15:01 PM by strawberryflavored

But the edit should've been modified to remove the first person, not nuked entirely.

I meant the edit was nuked, i.e. reverted and/or entire paragraphs deleted. Not the entire article.

edited 17th Sep '12 6:18:41 PM by PoochyEXE

Correct.

Under the condition the example was appropriate for the actual page. As in, it wasn't an opinion on, say, main.

It is when it's quoting for one. There are rare instances, but some are correct. I found this out when I tried to search for " I " and change things.

I believe the phrase is "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." Again, wrong thing to do. If an item is written in a way that it shouldn't be, but contains worthwhile content, the correct move by any conscientious editor should be to correct the problem, not simply delete the material. And, if it's known who the person was who wrote it that way, send them a message if necessary/reasonable.

Agreed, I think we could definitely benefit from turning that into a new official policy of simply "Only delete or cut as a last resort, when you can't fix it." Would've helped with things like the infamous Lolita cutlist incident, too.

edited 17th Sep '12 6:29:43 PM by PoochyEXE

My own policy with This Troper examples is how they are written. If they sound like a Troper Tales, boom - it's gone. If the This Troper is just in a sentence attached to the main entry, I usually remove only the tacked-on sentence.

Well, yeah. If it is just some sort of disguised Troper Tales thing, then that's not actually an example and deserves to go away.

I often find This Troper used to express opinions in the article, often in conjuction with YMMV pot holes, and also to push WMG or Fridge Logic. Those can be excised without losing anything, too.