TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Ask The Tropers

Go To

Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help. It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread for ongoing cleanup projects.

Ask the Tropers:

Trope Related Question:

Make Private (For security bugs or stuff only for moderators)

WarJay77 (Troper Knight)
2021-09-22 18:11:24

Not to be rude Perkeez, but when you do this you need to be able to point out specific edits. Nobody will want to dig through the page history to find examples of what you're claiming.

Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall
perkeez Since: Aug, 2018
2021-09-22 18:13:37

Got it

Just trying to improve any page that needs it.
Arctimon (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
2021-09-22 18:26:20

OK, but what's wrong with the examples? I haven't watched the movie in a while, so I wouldn't really know whether they're valid or not?

Did you at least try to PM them to see why they deleted them?

Edited by Arctimon
perkeez Since: Aug, 2018
2021-09-22 18:27:57

They delete valid examples, for one. They also change examples so they're barely recognisable, and these are examples that are already well written.

Just trying to improve any page that needs it.
laserviking42 Since: Oct, 2015
2021-09-22 18:34:37

Again that is rather vague. Looking at your edit links, the second one is an actual deletion, so let's take a look:

  • Restricted Rescue Operation: The plot is driven by the supers being forced underground and forbidden from using their powers to help people. Notably, there's a scene in which Mr. Incredible/Bob Parr's boss threatens to fire him if he leaves to help a man who's being robbed. In that scene he was already in trouble for teaching his customers to "penetrate the bureaucracy" of the insurance company he was working for.

Restricted Rescue Operation is about actual rescue operations (i.e. a military/para-military group going behind enemy lines to rescue people) being restricted by outside forces. The example above is actually about supers who have to hide their identities and not engage in superheroics. That deletion is valid IMO.

The fourth link has a number of deletions revolving around a character named Snug. Snug's actual presence in the movie is a phone call with Helen, the rest never made it past storyboards if I'm recalling correctly, so troping him as a character seems a little extreme.

Edited by laserviking42 I didn't choose the troping life, the troping life chose me
Arctimon (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
2021-09-22 18:35:29

The first and third edits are trimmings, which seem fine to me on first glance.

The second edit about Restricted Rescue Operation was deleted with an explanation, which I don't really argue with. Based off of their edit reason, I can see why the example didn't fit.

I'm pretty sure we don't count deleted scenes as being tropable, so on the surface, the final edit seems legitimate. Someone may want to double-check that just to be sure.

TantaMonty Since: Aug, 2017
2021-09-22 19:09:47

^ That's correct.

I agree with laserviking and Arctimon and think that rva's edits are perfectly valid.

MichaelKatsuro Since: Apr, 2011
2021-09-23 01:11:24

I have to concede that THIS EDIT is a bit poorly phrased. It says that "Helen is frustrated that he's trying to prove himself with some kind of a superhero workout" which makes it sound as if that's what he's doing, and not—as the movie makes clear—only what Helen thinks he's doing. Yeah, the next sentence makes it clear what the real situation is, but still. Clunky way of phrasing things.

Edited by MichaelKatsuro
perkeez Since: Aug, 2018
2021-09-23 01:22:41

There have been edits that do not improve the example, and the excessive nature of the edits is a power grab to me.

Just trying to improve any page that needs it.
Eiryu Since: Dec, 2013
2021-09-23 01:37:11

^ Would you like to provide examples of edits that don't improve the entry?

MichaelKatsuro Since: Apr, 2011
2021-09-23 01:45:08

^^ That seems a bit like confirmation bias. Intentionally or not, "power gram" seems overly accusatory.

perkeez Since: Aug, 2018
2021-09-23 03:15:27

^ I understand if others don't think so, but it's been going on for a long time, and pretty consistent at that.

Edited by perkeez Just trying to improve any page that needs it.
MichaelKatsuro Since: Apr, 2011
2021-09-23 03:22:47

Those links to The Incredibles only lead me to the edit history in general, not to any specific edit.

EDIT: Also, there's nothing wrong with a tweak just because it's "unnecessary". If the tweak makes the writing worse, please explain how.

Edited by MichaelKatsuro
Eiryu Since: Dec, 2013
2021-09-23 03:34:57

The YMMV deletions have thorough edit reasons that seem reasonable to me. YMMV can be deleted if it’s a misuse of a trope or premature.

As for the edits you say are unnecessary, frankly, they seem to be editing out word cruft and fixing sentences. To me, that’s not an issue. Personally, I like when someone edits my writing to clean it.

ETA: You seem to be of the opinion that no entry that doesn’t obviously violate any rules should ever be touched by anyone who didn’t add the entry, but that isn’t how a wiki works and it’s not possessive to try to improve the way a page reads, add clarifying details, or reword things more concisely.

Things that don’t violate rules can still be improved.

Wikis are collaborative writing projects. Not everyone likes those. If you don’t like how it works, that fine.

Edited by Eiryu
MichaelKatsuro Since: Apr, 2011
2021-09-23 03:42:26

Yeah, exactly. Let me put it this way: If rva makes changes purely and only for the sake of making changes, but those changes aren't hurting the sentence quality, then they aren't a problem, regardless of whether they were absolutely necessary or not.

This is a wiki, and the entire point is that as long as you don't decrease the quality of a sentence, there are no limits to the changes you're allowed to make.

perkeez Since: Aug, 2018
2021-09-23 03:46:01

OK, OK. I just want to be able to edit without fear of my efforts being fruitless.

Just trying to improve any page that needs it.
Eiryu Since: Dec, 2013
2021-09-23 03:48:49

Edits that get improved later aren’t fruitless. I’m not sure why you think that way.

perkeez Since: Aug, 2018
2021-09-23 03:57:01

I just want to help out without the feeling that someone is waiting for me to make an edit and then change it. I understand if others don't feel that way, but that's just me.

Just trying to improve any page that needs it.
Eiryu Since: Dec, 2013
2021-09-23 03:59:46

Rva has made it clear that he has no interest in engaging with your edits at this point, so I feel that issue is settled, then.

perkeez Since: Aug, 2018
2021-09-23 04:00:50

I hope so

Just trying to improve any page that needs it.
MichaelKatsuro Since: Apr, 2011
2021-09-23 04:08:12

I understand if others don't feel that way, but that's just me.
That's the thing, though. The idea that an edit should remain unchanged is just your preference. To be blunt, if you don't like wiki entries being edited except when they have to be, then you gotta accept that things being changed is the point of a wiki.

perkeez Since: Aug, 2018
2021-09-23 04:11:29

I'm a mod elsewhere, I understand that it is one of the functions of a wiki. I just don't like the feeling of someone hanging over me.

Just trying to improve any page that needs it.
Tuvok Since: Feb, 2010
2021-09-23 14:06:48

I get the feeling their not hanging over you. Perhaps your being a touch overprotective and maybe consider you might be holding a grudge over the incident that got you both banned. I see a lack of malice in their changes, seems by consensus to seem correct.

Edited by Tuvok
Top