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.
^ That's oversimplifying it.
In my opinion, Split Personality shouldn't be tagged, as you've said, anyone who's seen All-Stars or knows about Mike would most likely know about Mal as well. Rage Breaking Point should be tagged, as it involves events in the story.
In any case, that page needs to be cut and recreated, as its namespace is miscapitalized. It's Fanfic, not Fan Fic.
Jawbreakers on sale for 99¢^^^The Rage Breaking Point example is perfectly valid, but I feel like the Split Personality entry was made unnecessarily vague. Like, with the way the example is written, it could easily be interpreted as Mike having different or more personalities than in canon. And since the fic was written before All-Stars was a thing, I really do think that Mal's presence is a spoiler since there was no indication he even existed at that point. Also, not to be rude or anything, but I don't think you can exactly say what is and what isn't a spoiler when you've admitted to me you haven't even read the fic you're trying to trope.
Edited by N8han11If you can write around the spoiler so avoid the need to tag then do so. There is also the option of putting a "Here Be Spoilers" warning on the top of the page and avoiding the tags that way. Also, not all spoilers are created equal. Is it a big work changing spoiler, or a minor thing that happened spoiler? If it is something that is well known about the work, then don't tag those either. Try and use the spoiler tags as sparingly as possible. Ultimately we're here to collect the tropes in the work and not be coy about the events in the work.
I'd say your rewrite is the best option here. From what I can see the spoiler tags achieve nothing here. Especially on a fanfic. I mean fans going to read those are already going to know about the stuff from the original work, I'd only tag things that are unique to the fic, not things carried over from the original work.
Edited by CrypticMirrorAs I noted in our PM discussion, not having read the fic is relevant to questions of factual accuracy in an example, but not necessarily to judging whether that example complies with this site's policies.
Putting a spoiler warning atop the Examples section and stripping out all the spoiler tags is a reasonable option, if a bit drastic, given that we're talking about a Dead Fic with no ending to spoil. Even with a Spoilers Off warning, though, it's still better to write around the spoilers wherever possible.
In troping my own competition story, I have taken a two-fisted approach. On the one hand, I have written around the spoilers as best I can without compromising example clarity. For instance, I didn't include a whole paragraph of spoilers to explain my use of Only Mostly Dead; instead, I just said, "A challenge gone wrong leaves a contestant clinically dead but capable of being resuscitated." On the other hand, mindful that "spoiler" means different things to different people, I added a warning atop the example section reading, "Because this story is full of twists, you may encounter unmarked spoilers."
Bigotry in the name of inclusion is still bigotry.But I feel like leaving the example intentionally vague defeats the purpose of spoilering it to begin with. That's what the tags are for: to keep the spoilery information hidden. Like, the Only Mostly Dead example you listed off could easily be rewritten to actually say what contestant and challenge it's referring to, just keeping the contestant's name spoilered out. That would add more information to the example. There could easily be a middle ground between being overly spoilered and being overly vague.
Edited by N8han11Precisely. The whole point of writing around spoilers is to render spoiler tagging unnecessary.
Yes, it could, but to what end? The example as I wrote it clearly and concisely tells readers everything they need to know to understand what the trope is and how it is used. If you're not already familiar with the work or its parent, what do you really gain from knowing whether the hapless contestant's name is Alice or Bob? Would the names really mean anything to you? Using a description ("a contestant") instead of a name is the "Simplify for Non-Fans" part of our example writing guidelines.
Likewise, how does it help your understanding of the trope to know the incident occurred in (for instance) the "Labors of Heracles" challenge as opposed to the "Charge of the Light Bridgade" challenge? The notion behind the "concise" part of Clear, Concise, Witty is that more detail is not necessarily better. There are certainly tropes where those details might be important; but in my Only Mostly Dead example, they're not. In the Split Personality example we've been discussing, they're not.
I do exactly as you suggest when I believe the situation requires it ... but it usually doesn't.
By definition, an example that enables the reader to understand what the trope is and how is is used is never "overly vague".
Edited by Gideoncrawle Bigotry in the name of inclusion is still bigotry.If you don't think the contestant's name is information worth noting, I really don't know what I can possibly say to change your mind any more. There are things that are definitely worth noting, and the character's name is definitely one of those things. Intentionally leaving out context creates Zero Context Examples, and poorly conveys how the trope itself would actually apply.
Edited by N8han11I understand that the character's name is not necessarily critical. Everyone else who has weighed in on this discussion also seems to understand that. Wikis run on consensus, so there it is.
All details are not created equal. There are critical details, without which you have a Zero Context Example; and there are peripheral details, without which you have a somewhat vague example that is nevertheless easy enough to understand. You are conflating the two, but they're not the same.
Bigotry in the name of inclusion is still bigotry.And to properly express the tropes, we need to give proper details on how they happen. That includes character names. Otherwise, it's a Zero Context Example.
There is nothing special or sacred about character names that makes them necessary for an example to have sufficient context. Providing only a character name is a textbook Zero Context Example, but "sufficient context" does not inherently require naming the characters involved. What defines sufficient context is simply that the example explains how the trope is used and roughly where in the work—a description that references characters by description rather than name can satisfy those requirements.
E.g., one could write the nameless example:
Luke, I Am Your Father: The hero believed all his life that his father was dead, and was told by a trusted ally that his father was killed by the primary villain. However, during the film's climactic fight scene, the villain reveals that he is the hero's father.
or the same examples with names:
Luke, I Am Your Father: Luke believed all his life that his father was dead, and was told by Obi-Wan Kenobi that his father was killed by Darth Vader. However, during the film's climactic fight scene, Vader reveals that he is Luke's father.
The former, nameless version is actually more informative to a reader unfamiliar with the work and its characters, since it specifies the characters' roles in the story, providing context for why the revelation is significant, while the version relying on character names does not.
In terms of the specific example, listing the names of this guys alter egos and the fact that they "make appearances" tells me nothing except that they exist. Given the trope in question, that may technically be enough context to establish that Split Personality is used in the work, but it's neither particularly informative nor interesting. Referencing "Mal" by name tells me absolutely nothing at all, since it's a contextless name. By contrast, Gideon Crawle's rewrite gives context to how the personalities play into the story (appearing in response to different triggers), so it actually has more relevant context than the original, despite removing the names.
Edited by NotOnAnyFlatbreadExcept the character names are still necessary to know the full context of the trope and to stop people from getting confused. I've been trying to suggest a reasonable middle ground, but now I'm certain this thread requires moderator intervention since I'm not sure how to properly proceed.
Edited by N8han11This is what using spoiler tags and feeling obligated to leave out information leads to: arguing over just how much information you have to leave out, to cater to those people who presumably feel the need to not find out about a work but are compelled to read the work page anyway.
The answer is to not do it. Write your examples. Leave a spoiler warning at the top of the list if you feel the need.
N8han11, if by "requires moderator intervention" you mean the mods are the only people you'll listen to, then I agree we need a mod to weigh in. I would bet good money, though, that a moderator will simply tell you what the rest of us have been telling you: that character names are not inherently meaningful for this site's purposes. (That is, if the mod doesn't just say, "Take it to the Forums.")
Even with fanfics, don't assume everyone reading the page knows the work or its parent. Character names are meaningful to people who know the work, but not necessarily to anyone else—and it is those others we're supposed to gearing examples to.
Edited by Gideoncrawle Bigotry in the name of inclusion is still bigotry.So what I'm gleaning from this discussion is that the best option would be to simply delete the spoiler tags altogether and put a notice up at the top of the page warning of spoilers. Because I really don't see the point in using spoiler tags if all the examples are just going to be so vague that nobody who reads them knows what they're talking about anyway.
Edited by N8han11Asked and answered, and you're overstating your case. Again.
Bigotry in the name of inclusion is still bigotry.Bumping for the Moderator opinion N8han11 requested.
Edited by Gideoncrawle Bigotry in the name of inclusion is still bigotry.Well, N8han11, you pretty much explained the policy four posts up, so yeah. If you need a MODERATOR VOICE to confirm what you already know, then fine, here it is.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Apologies in advance for the length of this post.
N8han11 and I need additional opinions to resolve a philosophical disagreement on example writing practices. I am trying to avoid spoilers, simplify for non-fans and write concisely in accordance with our example writing guidelines. N8han11 seems to think loading examples with tagged spoilers is the better practice, and even tried to put a spoiler tag in the work description.
N8han11 recently created the page, FanFic.Total Drama Avengeance Old Losers Vs New Losers. I do a good deal of cleanup work in the Total Drama Fan Works section because that space is an interest of mine, so I looked over the article and did some cleanup to remove excessive spoiler tagging. As part of this cleanup, I endeavored to write around the spoilers and improve conciseness by removing spoilered out details I thought weren’t needed to understand the examples. In the Edit Summary, I cited several elements of the Spoiler Policy to explain my revisions.
N8han11 promptly reverted most of my revisions, restoring their own texts (add-delete-add) with the unexplained claim that my revisions were somehow improper, and even restored a spoiler tagged pothole after I pointed out that such things are against policy. I didn’t want to be called on the carpet for edit warring if/when they were, so I invited them to discuss the matter via PM or on the article’s Discussion page. It took some prodding, but they eventually agreed to a PM discussion.
We eventually reached agreement on one of the problem tropes (Locked into Strangeness), but we have reached an impasse on others, most notably Split Personality.
After N8han’s reversion of my edits, the example reads:
Note the spoiler tagged pothole, which N8han11 still seems unwilling to do anything about.
My version, as subsequently revised during our discussion, is:
No spoiler tags required, which is what writing around spoilers is all about. I also suggested splitting the spoilery details and improperly tagged pothole off into a different trope example, to wit:
N8han11 asserts that my text for Split Personality is too vague and that it’s bad practice to remove information for any reason. They didn’t respond to my Rage Breaking Point proposal at all before declaring an impasse.
Setting aside the questionable benefit of loading an example with details that are just going to be spoilered out, I contend the spoiler tag in Split Personality is a Self-Fulfilling Spoiler. Mike and his evil alter ego (named Mal) were the central focus of an entire canonical season; so if you know Total Drama and see a spoiler tag on a Split Personality example, you’re probably going to automatically assume it has something to do with Mal. If you don’t know Total Drama, you probably won’t care about the spoiler anyway.
Tropers, it’s in your hands now. We have agreed to resolve our dispute here.
Edited by Gideoncrawle