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.
After a glance at the cut page's history, approximately all of the tropes on the page were troping him as a person or his statements.
There was also nothing in the description about his fiction writing, so if needed I think the Creator/ page can be made wholesale.
Would you mind posting the description in Sandbox.Rush Limbaugh so I can use it for a creator page? It'd be remiss not to mention his politics.
The description says
Wasn't the Jones page deleted because of a lack of tropeable work? Should that line just be cut?
Also, aren't we supposed not to tell people to use the ROCEJ like that, since they're supposed to know to use it anyway?
What there's an effort to remove is the grating 'and that's all we'll say about that'-type sinkholes tacked onto questionable real life examples, especially the ones that use it in a transparently preemptive manner ("Most people consider Politician X to be a Neo-Nazi, but that's all we'll say about that"). I don't believe there's any rule against just mentioning the ROCEJ.
^ It says on the ROCEJ page "Don't wick to this page in trope descriptions or examples. The rule already states that tropers are editing cautiously by default — we don't need to be reminded of it every time we discuss anything possibly contentious."
^^
Indeed there is
. As far as I'm aware, the majority of the ROCEJ sinkholes that stay after being checked as part of that cleanup effort are in commented-out notes that would only be visible to people about to edit the pages. I don't know if mentioning it is against any rules, but sinkholing it on the page frontends (especially in the "And that's all we'll say" flavour) is definitely frowned upon for at best coming off as condescending, and at worst paradoxically drawing attention to the very kinds of argument that the rule says most tropers are trying to avoid. Hence why the cleanup effort was agreed on about a year ago.
Going back to my original question for a moment, I'm having doubts that the cut was actually discussed, since the page was never dewicked.
^^Some new tropers don't immediately read the rules, so I think mentioning is fine.
"Unite GUN/BAZOOKA/LAUNCHER/TANK!"
Was the cutting of Radio.Rush Limbaugh discussed anywhere beforehand? The post
cited in the edit reason (from the Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment project thread) doesn't mention the page specifically, and I flipped through the whole thread after that point and didn't find any discussion either.
The cut reason says he "exclusively talks about politics and doesn't make tropeworthy fiction", but he did write some fiction books. So even if the Radio/ page had to go, at least some of the content should've been moved to a Creator page.