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)

DracMonster Since: Jan, 2001
2014-01-18 12:21:14

Cheesus, DAT EDIT REASON! I think it's longer than the actual article! Having said that, you did snap back at him yourself a little. Be careful not to shoot your moral high ground in the foot.

Edited by DracMonster
Shaoken (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
2014-01-18 15:25:02

I went and removed the justifying edit from the example since it's more Fridge Logic and speculating on stuff never stated in the work.

Candi Since: Aug, 2012
2014-01-18 20:13:03

I usually stick such Justifying Edits on works I'm not familiar with on the discussion page, with an edit reason of "pulled to discussion" and a more detailed reasoning on the discussion entry itself. Sometimes I leave the main entry, depending on what the justifier says. ("This happened because of 'X'" as opposed to "This isn't an example because of 'Y'".) With Fridge Logic that needs to be pulled, I include in the edit reason recommending it be taken to the work's Fridge page.

Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett
Shaoken (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
2014-01-18 22:10:10

I'll remember that for next time, thanks.

SeptimusHeap MOD (Edited uphill both ways)
2014-01-19 00:01:22

I generally remove any speculation-based entry if it's on a main page. I've noticed that lots of natter and Justifying Edits rely on speculation.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Candi Since: Aug, 2012
2014-01-19 00:21:32

The problem has to do with works I'm not familiar with or don't remember clearly, particularly if a source isn't referenced. I don't know if they're referring to something they saw in an episode that explains things , and should be incorporated into the main entry (and just didn't provide the reference to when X happened), or if it's something they're speculating on based what they saw in the work. ("Alice did X with Charlie in Episode #, then Bob did Y with Charlie in Episode other#, so this means Charlie must have done Z to both of them because of X and Y." ) The first might either disqualify an example or be incorporated into it, depending, while the second goes to Fridge Logic, WMG, or somesuch.

It's often easier to put it on the discussion page and let those who know sort it out. Googling can solve some things, but it can also be a pain in the rear, especially if I couldn't care less about the subject or actively dislike it.

Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett
Shaoken (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
2014-01-20 11:46:46

I just got a PM from Omega complaining about the line of speculation I removed. It wasn't rude, but shows they are still not going to give up on the issue.

Anyway, the line is pure speculation about why a game that's work page describes as being made on acid has a green power up that makes a ship invincible. Perfect on fridge logic pages but not on a main work page.

Edited by Shaoken
Fighteer MOD (Time Abyss)
2014-01-20 12:39:56

Edit: I already suspended him, but if he wants to bitch at you via PM, we can turn that off too.

Edited by Fighteer "It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Top