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)

lexicon Since: May, 2012
2015-05-23 18:54:16

You can find out who by going to the page history.

Midna (Old as dirt)
2015-05-23 19:02:13

Hmm... I just checked, and all these shenanigans apparently happened long ago. Like, old-layout long ago. Two years ago long ago. I guess we're not solving that mystery, annoying as it is.

pearlina brainrot affects millions of people worldwide. if you or a loved one are suffering from pearlina brainrot, call 1-800-GAY-NERDS
Candi Since: Aug, 2012
2015-05-23 19:43:02

I plead guilty to having done that a few times, but only when the entry needed rewriting in the first place for some reason, and I didn't confine it to just LA TV. Just going through and doing it to do it because of personal preference strikes me as a waste of time.

Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett
nrjxll Since: Nov, 2010
2015-05-24 00:14:24

Um, what exactly is wrong with this? It's not something I would waste any time on myself, but it seems harmless.

SetsunasaNiWa Since: Apr, 2015
2015-05-24 02:05:40

It is not harmless, it is not lazy, it is not alphabetization thing. What it is is the "State the source" rule adherence, see Administrivia.How To Write An Example.

When you read through list of examples, you skim looking for familiar work names. The name should be closer to the start of the line so you don't have to overinvest into reading things you do not need at all. That thought alone's enough to warrant such rule.

Edit: For page alphabetization, things like this aren't any extra obstacle.

Edited by SetsunasaNiWa
SeptimusHeap MOD (Edited uphill both ways)
2015-05-24 02:42:35

It's a style question. Something for Wiki Talk.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
NemuruMaeNi Since: Apr, 2014
2015-05-24 23:17:21

Another thing to mention. That is only "a style question" when examples are Zero-Context Example material cited by query starter. If it's a good example, it'll spill something about the work. And here's how it is important.

If I plan to enjoy a Work A to the fullest and I want to avoid spoiling slightest details, when I see...

  • Work A: There are two instances of...
  • In the second half of Work A, new team...
... I'll stop reading very soon after seeing the work title and go on to next point of same level indentation.

But if it goes...

  • There are two instances of backstabs in the main heroes team quest and arguably the third when they pass through the rite of reincarnation in Work A.
All I have left is consider investing in voodoo dolls.

Edited by NemuruMaeNi
Candi Since: Aug, 2012
2015-05-25 09:34:15

That would be bad example indentation.

It should be:

Work A

  • First backstab
  • Second backstab
  • Rite of reincarnation, possibly with spoiler formatting.

I have a hard time saying anything about the style. Works are supposed to be italicized and are generally Wiki Worded. I have a knack where I can focus on just those aspects and ignore the rest of the example, looking for the works I want to read about. So as long as those two wiki formatting rules are followed, where the work name falls in the example means diddly to me.

Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett
SetsunasaNiWa Since: Apr, 2015
2015-05-25 10:32:31

^ No, it's your "should be" that would be bad example indentation, because the imaginary trope was "no less than two backstabs in a single story" :|

Edited by SetsunasaNiWa
Candi Since: Aug, 2012
2015-05-25 20:59:39

That makes no sense whatsoever to me with the example(s) you gave. Please clarify.

Edited by Candi Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett
NemuruMaeNi Since: Apr, 2014
2015-05-25 23:38:12

I will not. Not here at least. This is Ask the Tropers and this query is about where to put work names in those examples that allow for different placements.

Edited by NemuruMaeNi
Candi Since: Aug, 2012
2015-05-26 04:53:06

Then please either PM me or start a wiki talk/yak fest thread and link to it.

I've reread the example in the relevant post several times. I can think of few tropes where listing several examples in one entry is necessary or good wiki writing. The only ones I can think of are behavior tropes, and even then I'm not sure the example is written properly.

Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett
Fighteer MOD (Time Abyss)
2015-05-26 06:15:13

The stylistically correct way to write an example is:

  • Work Name: Description
  • Trope Name: Description

Work examples that deviate from this are usually going for some variation of witty, which is acceptable as long as the title of the work is stated reasonably close to the start of the text. The 2.0 overhaul will largely do away with this, though.

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