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.
I don't think so. The reason we can't go off of Word of God is because Lying Creator and Trolling Creator are things that happen. Trailers and stuff don't get troped as "this is what will happen in the work", we trope them as "here's a trope that was found in the advertising".
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Creating a Work Page for an Upcoming Work
- All There in the Manual, Word of God, and Word of Saint Paul, for practical and pragmatic reasons, are banned from being the sole source of an example, or having examples of their own. They are defined by their relationship to the final work, but we cannot compare it to said work until we have the released work. In covering pre-release works, we are only troping things that purport to represent the work itself, and its advertising solely as advertising.
Blog posts are not the final work, but if they contain gameplay footage and characters... I guess they can be cited?
It seems that numerous tropes have no citation. They should be (re)hidden or a citation given.
For the second question, you're right. It's not acceptable. And I find it pointless, too. Are readers going to the adaptation's page to find tropes on a different work?
Given our extensive list of Adaptation Deviation subtropes, I agree you cannot reasonably assume what things an adaptation will carry over from the source material.
Edited by Synchronicity
All right then, should I go ahead and re-hide the non-acceptable entries? My primary worry is that any action I take will be undone anyway, since I had already left commented-out warnings at the top of the page to explain what I'd done and why but my original edits were undone anyway.
I suppose I could just provide a link to this thread, and if the material is un-hidden again I can just resurrect this discussion.
^ If someone ignores a commented-out warning, send them an "ignored comment" notifier.
Why would the incorrect entries be hidden? Shouldn't they be deleted?
I didn't choose the troping life, the troping life chose me
Fair question.
I'd be fine with doing either, personally; my preference leans towards hiding chiefly because, when eventually the work gets released and if the entries remain accurate by that point, simply deleting the ampersands would be quicker than just rewriting whole entries from scratch and would ensure examples aren't lost by accident.
Then again, it's also true that deleted entries can just be copy-pasted from the page history anyway. Plus, keeping the entries present but hidden could tempt people to unhide them ahead of time, and if they don't remain accurate you'd have the headache of ferreting out the incorrect information and separating it from what's still correct... so on that thought, just deleting the improper entries and eventually retrieving material from the page history might well be the cleaner solution.
Edited by Theriocephalus
It's "pre-large content change" rather than "pre-release", but I think I noticed a related issue. A lot of content edits for Red Flood have been made by creators of the mod to change or remove things according to future (unreleased-yet) updates of the mod. I guess the creators already know what they want to do with their work, but shouldn't we trope a work "as it currently is" instead of troping it like the create intent it to become? A ton of France-related entries have been deleted because a massive rework of France is in the making, but it isn't released yet.
^ Even if the game was reworked, that doesn't mean those trope examples never existed. The entries should be restored and specify that they apply to the earlier version (assuming that that earlier version was actually published; if not, then it's What Could Have Been).
Edited by Twiddler
If I'm not mistaken, some of them still apply to the current version they intend to retcon. The pages for Kaiserreich: Legacy of the Weltkrieg (another similar mod for the same game) had (still have?) the same issue of "let's rewrite the pages according to the next yet-to-be-released version and remove any trace of how things were before the update".
Edited by Psychopompos007
To be clear, is the "current version" they apply to a released work, or is it a planned work? If it's the latter, they shouldn't be on there anyway. If it's the former, they should be restored and made to specify which version they apply to.
What I refer as "current version" is an available (fanmade) work which pages have been edited to reflect the planned content of the next updates before they are completed.
Edited by Psychopompos007
Then that is in violation of our upcoming works policy. These changes should be reverted with an edit reason pointing to this thread.
And considering that 1) Some of those edits are made by the dev team 2) Many of those edits consist in removing entries about a faction that is being massively reworked and is considered as an Old Shame in its current state, I fear attempting to bring back the pages into sticking to "current content only" could lead to an Edit War.
Edited by Psychopompos007
The devs don't have special rights over how the trope page is handled — see The Fic May Be Yours, but the Trope Page Is Ours
Alright, changes made. I went for the less extreme version and hid instead of deleting. I'll keep an eye on the pages, and the situation goes into a full edit war I'll probably start a new thread to deal with that specifically.
Changes were reverted again, this time for the Daemons of Chaos page of Total War Warhammer III. I am getting the feeling an edit war is inevitable.
The page ^ : Characters.Total War Warhammer The Daemons Of Chaos
An edit war has already happened. Benji 1990 restored commented out examples, Theriocephalus removed them citing this thread, and Benji1990 re-added them with this edit reason:
I can't tell if Fudget Muppet has edit-warred, but they're displaying a poor attitude here too. They made two null edits to leave edit reasons siding with Benji1990:
ETA: made this a separate thread
for visibility.
I've taken some measures there.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
So, my understanding of wiki policy re:troping unreleased videogames is that generally speaking, the only material permitted for creating new examples is that present in trailers, teasers, gameplay footage, demos, open betas and such; stuff from official websites, press releases, posters and so on cannot be troped — at least that's how Creating a Work Page for an Upcoming Work has it.
Now, my question is, are exceptions made for situations where official websites and Word of God and such include an unusually high amount of information about the work, or not? For instance, if The Adventures of Alice and Bob isn't set to release for another five months but the creators have already said a lot in blog pots about how Alice and Bob will play, what their equipment will be and what kind of storylines they'll have, would that information be allowed on wiki pages before release?
The specific reason I am asking is that, some time ago, I commented out a large number of examples on Total War: Warhammer - The Empire of Grand Cathay due to their being taken purely from blog posts, which under my understanding made that disallowed material. Later
, that edit was entirely reverted, with the justification given being that the information came from official blog posts. I wanted to ask if I had been overzealous, and thus if the reversal was justified, or if the material should just be hidden again until release.
Since we're on the subject, I have a question about another edit of mine that was reverted
(Sep. 15th). If Work A is a direct adaptation of Work B, is it acceptable to list tropes for Work A purely because they're present in Work B, without their actually being present in any kind of released or pre-release material in Work A at the time of writing? To me that just seems like speculative troping, even if it's likely speculation.
Edited by Theriocephalus