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.
We are discussing this already a little bit below. It doesn't seem like the decision that added the citation requirement for UI on the trope page was intended to apply to reciprocal examples on work subpages, but that leaves a great big hole that allows people to add whatever they want. I agree that the rules should be the same for both, but I'm not sure that there is general agreement in that regard.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Ah, didn't see the topic. Should we continue this here or down there?
Honestly, I think it makes more sense for citations to be required on the works' page. Way I see it, if someone's coming to the UI page itself, they're expecting controversy. If someone comes to a work's YMMV page, they're probably fans of the work and more likely to get incensed by a UI that comes directly from someone's ass.
But that doesn't seem to be the rule as currently written. If we want to rewrite the rule to that, peachy. But... let's do that, rather than lead to this sort of confusion.
Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.The reason why it applies only to the main UI page is because the nonsense examples that prompted the rule were on the UI pages and not the YMMV pages. If the YMMV page examples contain silly stuff like the one that prompted the citation requirement on the main UI page expanding the rule may be appropriate, but if no, no.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanWell, one potential factor for why citations would be more important on the UI page is that it's easier for YMMV pages to be self-policing; they constantly see traffic from people familiar with the work who can see an example and say "that's factually incorrect." The UI page itself may be the only thing that someone ever sees of a work, so someone can easily color another's opinion of a work with an entry there.
So I can see some justification for why you'd only need it on the UI page itself (that and plain difficulty in making sure that the rule gets followed, but that's hardly a valid excuse). Still think it does make more sense to have a rule that applies to both.
Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.As I said below, I also believe it makes more sense to have all examples be required to meet the same criteria regardless of the location of said examples.
Edited by Tropesofknowledge Souleye - PPPPPP - Potential for Anything 3DS FC: 2621-3105-8671I agree. Which would mean that removing non-cited examples is appropriate. Only problem is that Eddie has indicated his disagreement with this in the past.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Personally, I think it has a place on the YMMV page without citations but ONLY if it's not causing flame war (e.g. the Unfortunate Implications are generally agreed to exist by the page viewers and page editors) AND if it's related specifically to a specific self-referencing event.
Example would be that a Contemptible Cover depicting rape imagery for shock value/titillation on a work that generally was not about misogyny and violence toward women could and should be listed as Unfortunate Implications on a YMMV page. As in, its existence is its own "citation."
On the other hand, let's say Tumblr SJW types with an agenda started drama that heavy metal in general is rotten to the core with white male privilege. That would need a citation because while there's unfortunately plenty of argument for it, there's also some strong argument against it, and simply stating "heavy metal is a form of music strongly based on white male privilege" is just begging for a fight - so the actual substance of the allegation would need to be cited.
So... what's the verdict? I'm still seeing decent-seeming examples (that aren't being argued over) getting pulled because "UI require citations" but I don't want to readd them if that's valid.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.I'd say keep pulling the uncited ones. We did arrive at that decision, so let's run with it.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Then can a note be made on the Unfortunate Implications page itself making it clear that's the site's stance?
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.Since nobody else seems willing to take a position on the matter, I'm going to say yes. I'll look at the main page to see if it needs rewording.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

What's the official verdict on Unfortunate Implications requiring citations on a work's YMMV page?
The Unfortunate Implications page itself is pretty vague about it, but the discussion page
(most clearly, Sep's post on Aug 22 2013) and the TRS thread that put the need for citations in the first place
both make it seem pretty definitive that citations are only required on the main Unfortunate Implications page, and not a work's YMMV page.
But I still see people cutting UI from a work's YMMV page saying Citation Needed. Now, a lot of them deserve to be cut for the sake of Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgement, but is cutting for Citation Needed incorrect?
And either way, a note should probably be put on the UI page about whether wicks need citations or not.
Edited by Larkmarn