Unreleased Work Policy Feedback

Second to last bullet on How to Write an Example

Added this June by a mod (Fighteer).

Edited by Tabs on Oct 3rd 2019 at 5:41:56 AM

There's an issue that was brought up in the cleanup thread regarding what does and doesn't count as a valid citation. Going by a strict interpretation of the rule, we're not allowed to mention that Grookey, the grass-type starter of Pokémon Sword and Shield, is a grass-type Pokemon with the ability Overgrow, even though the official website confirms it.

Stuff like plot points and such are a similar issue too. Even then, this is just basic information from the final work. It's not remotely speculative, which seems a shame why it can't be put on because it's simply not from the trailers.

Yeah, the time to amend the rules to allow website info has long passed.

Why do you say that? If there's a problem with the rules and someone points it out, why can't we amend them? It's not like TV Tropes rules are sacred scripture set in stone.

Because HighCrate was a stubborn box who would always try to push back whenever someone suggested loosening the rules.

Also both threads kinda died after the mods booted him out.

Edited by Crossover-Enthusiast on Oct 17th 2019 at 9:15:16 AM

I think there is a real reason to keep it to just trailers. Anyone who is remotely interested in something is expected to watch the trailers. The makers are very careful about what spoilers they show or don't show, the audience acts like everyone should be familiar with a trailer the day it comes out, so on and so on. It's very much treated, in the real world, as the first "real" look at a work. (and note I'm saying this as someone who tries to avoid trailers as much as possible—I prefer going in completely blind)

Anything beyond that is getting a little iffy. Stuff on the official site? Ehhh... it's probably accurate, but it's not "part" of the work in the same way as the trailers, if you understand what I'm saying. You can ignore that completely and still be able to discuss the work with other fans.

I don't feel super strongly about any of this, I'm just trying to illuminate both sides a bit.

The rule definitely needs to exist, but there probably ought to be some kind of exception for cases such as this. There's a line between treating Word of God as canon, and not being allowed to mention basic facts about the work.

Stuff like story not being troped might be a good workaround. Basic information only is okay otherwise. Major characterization things fall more under story, I.E. sexual orientation, who they fought, etc. Simply their types/skills are rarely relevant to story factors, and don't mean much in comparison.

I agree with the need to loosen the restrictions on valid sources; it was one of the points I fought for when we were going round and round a while ago.

As a potential draft for a new guideline, how about this? "A source needs to be officially from the production company an not just from a person involved in the work." It'll need refining, of course, but it's a start.

That works.

Makes sense, though it can still be touched up. The goal here is definitely to avoid Word of Dante / Word of Saint Paul situations, which have a likelier chance of not representing the final work.

Just in general, video games as a medium probably use their websites as meaningful information sources than other media. Say there's a trailer that shows three clips with the same hero, one wielding an axe, one with a spear, and one with a sword. The official website might elaborate that you can change between them on the fly, or that you pick one at the beginning of the game and stick with it. That's something that would not come up with, say, a movie.

DragonRanger's proposal works.

I'll link back to my wall of text post from back in July, where I said "make it so information from official press releases about the work and directly from the creator or publisher (without a third party involved) can be used as a source."

Cases like this are exactly why.

So what are we doing for this?

Well, if we want to move forward with the "must be from a production company and not an individual" guideline, I thought of a couple of edge cases to consider:

• The work is made by a solo creator, where there's really no distinction between the "company" and the individual. (Think Toby Fox and Undertale)
• A convention panel or similar press event, where the whole intent is to get individuals involved out and talking about the work.
• A press exclusive, like Entertainment Weekly running a cover story on the latest blockbuster or Toku magazines having regular "coming this month in Super Sentai" features. The information isn't directly "from production" the way a trailer or press release is, but it is done with their cooperation.

Whatever policy we come up with, we need to take things like this into account.

My proposed guideline requires both for it to be from an official press release and directly from the creator or publisher, which was done specifically to avoid the "random Twitter statement" problem.

IMO it's often too hard to distinguish "from an individual representing the company" and "from an individual representing themselves," so I made the decision to limit it to press releases.

Can we discuss the "must have a solid release date to be troped" requirement? Because certain media (video games, mostly) are willing to put out a lot of material before they produce a release date—or even a release year. I'm talking full cinematic and gameplay trailers, playable demos, the works. Sometimes it seems like release dates are the last things decided for games.

So I'm wondering if maybe that restriction should be loosened a bit. I don't know a better requirement... maybe any two of a gameplay trailer, cinematic trailer, and release date? I'm just spitballing.

I agree that requiring the release date to be known down to the day is too restrictive and has resulted in well-written pages with a lot of material to work off of (like Overwatch 2) getting cut. The season/quarter of release is probably enough. I agree with RallyBot's suggestion here that the season is sufficient for TV shows because due to the seasonal model they're rarely advertised as coming out on an exact date.

And it's not like we have to treat all types of media the same.

Hypothetically, we could do season for TV shows and exact date for films if we needed to.

I'm willing to scale back the "solid release date" requirement to giving a rough time frame; perhaps all mediums should specify something beyond a year?

And several works (most prominently Dark Phoenix and No Time To Die) were given exact release dates before they had even finished filming. And several Ubisoft works recently had their exact release dates cancelled.

Due to these experiences, I don't believe exact release dates instill any confidence that the work is not "too early in the development process to be troped", since a creator could make up an exact date and call it a day regardless of whether they had finished their work to a release-worthy degree.

I'll throw my hat to Discar's stance today.

Edited by Albert3105 on Nov 11th 2019 at 3:26:32 PM

Count me in for swapping out the release date requirement in favor of something else.

I don't believe we need an actual crowner, but we should at least discuss what to change it to.