Ask The Tropers

Looking at the page, I'm going to have to side with alpha. ZCE means Zero-Context Example and none of the examples being commented out or deleted have any real context to them. It doesnt matter if theyre confirmed or not if they lack sufficient context

My troper wall

I think Alphatater confused the issue somwhat by writing "zce, no citation" in his comments (not in the edit reason) which is a bit unusual. These are two different issues. If an example is a ZCE or not has nothing to do with citations or confirmation, but, as Acebrock writes, about the context provided in the example.

For example, the commented out example

• Tough Armored Dinosaur: Amelia (Ankylo Hammer Zord) and Javi (Stego Spike Zord)

doesn't explain why the Tough Armored Dinosaur trope applies to Amelia or Javi.

Also they didn't delete the Zero Context Examples but commented them out which is the right procedure. The examples they deleted were only based on information stated on the official website and not the work itself.

Edit: ↓ looks safe to add the examples back after maybe changing the wording. Also there's an edit war going on.

Edited by Sirena

I get what Alpha's trying to say but She's a Man in Japan, Brother–Sister Team, and Breaking Old Trends are not ZC Es. The Green and Black Rangers are siblings. The Green Ranger is also a male in the source material and is the first official female Green Ranger in PR history. I mean all the context needed are mostly there. Here are some of the deleted entries:

• Breaking Old Trends: Izzy will be the first female Green Ranger in Power Rangers. - She is. All Green rangers since the franchise premiered in 1993 have been male. It's been heavily featured in promotional materials and fan sites as well. Full context right there, yet reason for deleting is "speculative troping". The character is played by Tessa Rao (I know she has a page but here's her official site and IMDb profile for more extensive info)
• She's a Man in Japan: Female Green Ranger Izzy takes the place of male Ryusoul Green Towa from Ryusoulger. Notably, this is the first time the trope has come into play since the Yellow Ranger was changed from male to female in Power Rangers Wild Force (and the first time it's been used with the Green Ranger rather than Yellow). - Again, full context there.
• Stock Dinosaurs: According to the website, the main team have four dinosaurs and one ice age megafauna. - Just reword the "According to..." since it makes it seem like speculative troping. The mechas are in the trailers and promotional materials.
• Brother–Sister Team: Javi and Izzy are stated to be step-siblings on the official website. Their Sentai counterparts are also siblings. - Again, just reword the "are stated to be step-siblings according to..." line to not make it speculative troping.

Edited by RT1986

No, they were right to comment them out and their edit reasons are correct. In addition to Zero-Context Example, per Creating a Work Page for an Upcoming Work, all entries must have pre-release citations. And those^ are still lacking in context. For example:

• Stock Dinosaurs: According to the website, the main team have four dinosaurs and one ice age megafauna. This does not have any context as to WHICH dinosaurs they have so one can judge if they are stock or not. (ZCE) Neither does it have a promotional material citation. (no citation)

Even if it does have context, a lack of citation still means it'll be yoinked out.

• She's a Man in Japan: Female Green Ranger Izzy takes the place of male Ryusoul Green Towa from Ryusoulger. Notably, this is the first time the trope has come into play since the Yellow Ranger was changed from male to female in Power Rangers Wild Force (and the first time it's been used with the Green Ranger rather than Yellow). You are right that this has context. But which promo materials show this? The trailer? The poster?

It is not the job of people who do the cleanup to find appropriate promo materials for context. They can only judge to see if an example meets the requirement or not. Adding context and citations is the job of the people who are anticipating the work and making the page. If these tropes do show up in the trailers as you say, then feel free to add them back with proper citations and context. See Unreleased Work Cleanup if you have more questions.

V Yes, oops, thanks for catching that.

Edited by Synchronicity

^I assume you mean that it is not the job of people who do the cleanup to find appropriate promo materials. Not nitpicking, just making sure there are no misunderstandings.

Edited by GnomeTitan

^^ You're right, however that's the examples they didn't comment out but the ones they deleted. In general, is it ok to delete pre-release examples without citations or should they be commented out?

^^^ They're in the trailer which is linked to the series page (see here). The character in question is the girl in green cap in the far right of the screen. A few YT reviewers have also mentioned this.

As for the dinosaurs, some of them are also shown.

^ What Sirena said.

^I'm not doubting information for these tropes are in the promo materials, I am saying they need to be added back with that context. This Is a Wiki: you don't need to tell me they apply as much as you need to write up the example properly.

FYI, the page has been brought up at the Unreleased Work Page cleanup previously with these issues.

While commenting out is preferable, I don't think deleting is incorrect. Either way, the page is clean and it's the same effect to non-editors.

Edited by Synchronicity

I don't think this calls for moderator action and I think that discussion on individual examples should be occurring on the discussion page here.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

^^ Yeah, all good. However, I've been aware that anything could trigger an edit war these days (not just in this wiki) so I'm just trying to reach some sort of an agreement, if you may. BTW I also participated in the forum you linked.

Edited by RT1986

"It is not the job of people who do the cleanup to find appropriate promo materials for context. They can only judge to see if an example meets the requirement or not. Adding context and citations is the job of the people who are anticipating the work and making the page."

I actually have a bit of an issue with this. I find it frustrating when someone swoops in to shoot down examples while giving no indication that they actually care about the work. If you're worried about this stuff, you should put in at least a little effort to correct it; don't just leave it as someone else's problem.

^ You don't always need knowledge of the work to spot a poorly-written example. But you do need knowledge of the work to fix it. If you lack the knowledge required to fix an example, the next best thing you can do is hide it, explain why, and leave it for someone else to fix.

Just because you don't care about a work, that doesn't mean you have to tolerate unacceptable trope examples. In the end, all of these examples are part of the greater whole of a work that is TV Tropes itself, and caring about TV Tropes means hiding the bad examples that bring its quality down.

If you have a problem with people hiding your trope additions, learn how to write them properly in the first place. Give enough context, and cite sources when necessary.

Edited by Zuxtron

An example can be checked against the trope description, but it can only be checked against the work if you have access to the work. Therefore, we can expect editors to check example quality without being able to expect them to be able to correct the example.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

I sometimes come across obviously wrong examples for works I don’t know anything about. For example, it can be a ZCE, or a Five-Man Band with seven members. In such a case, I tend to ”swoop down” and delete it or (for a ZCE) comment it out, but I sinply can’t fix it since I don’t know the work.

I know, and I've done the same at times. But I feel there's a difference between coming across a one-off bad example and taking it upon yourself to regularly monitor a page. In the latter case, I feel at least some effort should be made towards acquiring the knowledge that's available. Especially if the alternative is blanking nearly the whole page.

For what it's worth, if context for something is very obvious I will try to cobble a writeup together from something else on the page — like if the page is titled Alice and Bob and it lists Name and Name with no context, I'll write something like "The film is titled Alice and Bob after its two leads" or something instead of commenting it out. But you cannot expect that from all editors at all times.

No, it's the same mentality whether you're commenting out one bad example or five or eighteen. If the whole page had been written decently, there would be no need to blank it. Especially with upcoming works, which only exist as a compromise.

---

Anyway, this seems off topic now that the examples have been brought to the upcoming works thread.

Edited by Synchronicity