Note: The thread currently has a limit of one post every two hours for non-mod users. Currently, this is hard-coded by the admins, but there are plans to give mods the ability to toggle it without admin intervention. After mods are given the ability to do that, the time limit may be further reduced or removed entirely.
This thread is for discussing the following topics:
- Questions and clarifications about the site's rules and policies pertaining to wiki editing, forum posting, trope launching, and so on.
- If you have an idea for a thread on another part of the forums but aren't sure if creating it would be allowed, feel free to ask here.
This thread is not for any of the following:
- Reporting complaints or concerns about specific moderation decisions (e.g. suspensions and thumps). Report these directly to the admins via the contact form
. Selecting "The Staff" sends your message to the admins only, without making it visible to moderators.
- Queries about thumps applied to your own forum posts, including contesting the validity of a thump. Reply to the relevant moderator via PM for these matters.
- Ban appeals (use the "Edit Banned" thread
in this forum).
- Reporting problems or requesting moderator action in the wiki or forums (use Ask The Tropers or Hollersnote or specialized threads such as "Locked Pages"
).
- Queries about locked On-Topic Conversations (OTC) threads or banned discussion topics. OTC has its own moderation discussion thread here
, and the latest statement on the locked US Politics thread
and other banned OTC topics is here
. Bluntly, when certain OTC threads and topics have repeatedly caused problems, we're not going to provide forum space to discuss them again until the moderation toolkit is equipped to handle those conversations.
- Cut List challenges and queries (they have their own thread here
).
- Requests for changes to the site's code or discussion about such changes, as mods cannot change the code; only the admins can do that. Please direct tech requests to Query Bugs or Tech Wishlist (for bug reports and suggestions for feature additions/changes, respectively), and take other tech-related discussion to the Changelog thread
.
- Crowner actions. Please use the holler function instead.
- Discussion about changing or implementing policies. Please use Wiki Talk for that. (Asking whether it's OK to make a specific thread is acceptable; using this thread in place of such a thread is not.)
- Asking about the whereabouts of inactive mods (or other inactive users) before they return, if they return at all. Use the Absent people thread
for discussing inactive users.
Posts that use this thread in place of the sections listed in the bulleted list above are off-topic.
We're aware that the Edit Banned thread has a Non-Indicative Name, due to it also covering non-editing suspensions. We're not sure whether the name for that thread can even be edited without breaking the special coding that keeps posting restricted to mods and suspended users, so we're leaving it alone for now, because better safe than sorry.
(Edited Mar 28 2024, adding bullet about OTC and amending layout a little)
Edited by GastonRabbit on Oct 11th 2024 at 3:20:25 AM
I agree with it being a rule, though I think it would be obvious that it would count as a copyright violation even if it's not plagiarism (since giving credit doesn't keep something from being a copyright violation if you copied and pasted the whole thing).
I got a rock for Halloween.I'm not sure if I'm in the same boat doing it this way but my usual thing has been headline, additional descriptive text if available or needed, link, then an excerpt of the first section of the article. Enough to get the point across and if someone wants to read further they can. I try to avoid the whole article unless it's just that short.
If I am guilty of it on any significant scale it's my dumps from https://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/
since they tend to be pretty thorough in and of themselves.
When it comes to news articles I try not to add too much of my own wording for concerns about editorializing, possibly the opposite end if this issue where someone posts a story claiming it says one thing, but that's only true so long as you don't actually read out and find it said something else entirely.
Edited by sgamer82 on Nov 21st 2022 at 4:46:49 AM
Here's another example
of what I'm talking about. Rather than "link, discuss", it's "link, dump".
But if they summaries have sentience they may rise up and very briefly conquer us all!
More seriously, I recall this being brought up in the past. That's part of what prompted my use of exceprts rather than the whole article. The other part of it is for some sites copying and pasting too much at once doesn't work well and exacerbates the issues of extra stuff being included.
I tend to approach it with a mindset of balancing providing enough info you don't have to go anywhere else, not going overboard, but also providing the news as it is provided.
Edited by sgamer82 on Nov 21st 2022 at 5:02:11 AM
How about a link with some salient excerpts, would that be acceptable?
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesIf the articles are being used in support of an argument, then it would be the ultimate in laziness to just dump the text as if a point has been made. People should explain how it supports their argument (quote if necessary), then just leave a link for the curious.
I didn't choose the troping life, the troping life chose meI sometimes post articles I think others in the thread may find interesting, is that also not allowed?
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesDepends on what you mean by "post articles". I'm sure everyone also thinks everyone else would find their article interesting.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallWhy can't people just say something like: "I found this article on topic X at site Y, it argues that person A's influence on topic X has been overlooked for years because of reasons B and C, link here"
I didn't choose the troping life, the troping life chose me@Redmess: The purpose of posting an article or video should always be to spur conversation or provide useful information. To be as useful as possible, the post should include:
- A link to the content, preferably including the title
- A synopsis of the content sufficient to allow someone to obtain a gestalt of what it is attempting to convey
- (preferable) Your own personal interpretation of the content/agenda for posting it
Alright, I'll try to do that more.
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesI think that rule is fine, as it does sound like laziness/copyright violations. Should old posts have their copied descriptions removed (not necessarily thumped if they were made before the rule) to prevent reports of copyvios from writers, or has that ship sailed? (struck after reading below posts)
Edited by Piterpicher on Nov 21st 2022 at 11:15:44 AM
Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)There's no need to start editing old posts,that's pointless,you don't penalize someone after you've just made it a rule,it can be a thing for future reference though it may take time to sink in,like not adding context to youtube video
Edited by Ultimatum on Nov 21st 2022 at 9:51:10 AM
have a listen and have a link to my discord serverIt would also be a Herculean job well beyond the power of this forum's moderation team, so that's a no either way.
Hope shines brightest in the darkest times.
Edited by Piterpicher on Nov 21st 2022 at 11:15:26 AM
Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)Same thing with Zalgo.
Checking in on this account after leaving the site, MAN that is a cringy forum post history. Daaamn. Never again.Characters.The Black Dahlia has been put on the cutlist, but shouldn't it be turned into a redirect to Characters.The LA Quartet instead?
I recreated the page as a redirect because it's part of the book series so I think it's fine to have.
Macron's notesSo we're generally in agreement about expanding the "link, discuss" rule?
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I'd say so. So far, people have been supportive about it and I think it's a good rule to have.
Macron's notesDone.
I rewrote the whole thing to make it clear that it's a cohesive policy.
To continue the conversation from here
.
What is the proper definition of "Edit War"?
- Edit war starts when someone reverts an entry back to own edit. (How most people see it.)
- Edit war starts when anyone unilaterally reverts anyone's entry, but it's not suspendable yet and is a signal to start a discussion. (What two mods said, and I suppose is the C example at Edit War.)
If it's the second one, I'll ask in the other thread to spell it out on Administrivia.Edit War.
Also "edit war" and "edit warring" (aside being a noun and a verb) apparently may not be referring to the same thing as well, and I guess "edit warring" is the first of the two mentioned above.
TroperWall / WikiMagic CleanupI think there need to be multiple reverts of the same entry back an forth before it can be called an edit war. It's not just about reverting a change, it is a fight about that change.
Hope shines brightest in the darkest times

Yeah while it avoids the external travel issue of people just linking, it’s got copyright questions around it and is not great for conversation flow.
There’s a reason that my preferred method is to say “[new organisation] are reporting X, the money quote is “[quote from article]” and then put a footnote link to the news page at the end of my sentence.
Edited by Silasw on Nov 20th 2022 at 1:22:50 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran