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.
Just my personal opinion of course, but I think that sort of thing is absolutely unacceptable.
As a counterpoint, I don't have a problem with it, as long as it isn't the entirety of the example.
Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
That looks like part of a description to me. Which is probably ok.
If that's an example, it violates Weblinks Are Not Examples.
Edited by bitemytail Health sure is versatile. It's possible to be both light-headed and dim-witted. At the same time, no less.
I think it's ok in a trope description to get across We Are Not Alone.
Doing it for a work description doesn't seem helpful; not all tropes have wikipedia articles but virtually all professionally-produced (i.e. not fanfic or roleplay) works have a wikipedia page, seems like an instance of Captain Obvious.
"It's just a show; I should really just relax"
A wikipedia article will likely explain in great detail the real-life context of the work, its creation, release, reception, etc. Rather than just link to it, it may be better to read it and use all that info to populate the YMMV (for audience reactions) and Trivia (for the creation of the work) namespaces with that info. For example, if you read there that "the author said that he was inspired by...", then you can add a Follow the Leader entry.
Tropes are based on the plot, and Wikipedia tries to keep plots to the bare minium so it isn't as helpful for the main main page.
Ultimate Secret Wars
(Disclosure: I am an active editor on Wikipedia) Seems like something that would be fine on a Trivia page.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Here's my primary objection to crosslinking to Wikipedia: We aren't a front-end for them. Now, it's not like it's a commercial venture that we're giving free traffic to, and Wikipedia links are generally fine when they explain technical concepts in more detail than is suitable for a TV Tropes article. However, it's generally a bad practice to send people from one site to another site. We want readers to stay here, not wander off elsewhere.
If someone wants to look up a work on Wikipedia, they can go to Wikipedia and look up the work. That's what I do. I guess there will always be folks who are too dense to figure that out, but we aren't catering to them.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Interestingly, "Freaky Friday" Flip has a link to Wikipedia's list of examples as well, not as a substitute for examples so much as to prove how prevalent it is in fiction.
(Also a Wikipedia editor here. Hiya!)
Edited by Brainulator9 Contains 20% less fat than the leading value brand!
While I can understand linking to Wikipedia for certain trope concepts, is it allowed/proper to link to Wikipedia for work pages? E.G.;
Clarifying edit: I'm specifically asking about work descriptions. Edited by crazysamaritan