Follow TV Tropes

Discussion Administrivia / ThereIsNoSuchThingAsNotability

Go To

Jul 16th 2014 at 10:33:49 AM •••

I wish Wikipedia was more like TV Tropes. The problem with Wikipedia "notability" is that the sources they cite are often prejudiced. For example, I wasn't allowed to write an article about Boise because the only source I could site was my own experience living in Boise but I've noticed other articles that cited sources that were written by people who had no firsthand knowledge of the subject they were writing about. So basically, Wikipedia becomes a form of hearsay because all you have to do is get your prejudicial opinions published and then you can cite yourself in Wikipedia and say whatever prejudicial thing you want and it must be true.

I wish there was a better way to authenticate material. No system, (citing sources or giving examples) is fool proof.

Hide/Show Replies
Jul 16th 2014 at 11:15:00 AM •••


Personal experience is not a reliable source. That's why you can't make a page on that basis there. This page provides more details.

As a sidenote, getting your opinions published in a way that makes them acceptable to Wikipedia standards requires far more than merely putting them on the Internet. Reliable sources are not hearsay, either.

And to be fair, this is not the page for this kind of discussion, really.

Feb 2nd 2014 at 6:19:20 PM •••

Does this apply to things other than examples or work pages? For example, can any show have a recap page?

Hide/Show Replies
Feb 3rd 2014 at 12:23:55 AM •••

No, it's strictly a "what gets examples and work pages" rule. It's sometimes taken out of context, though.

As for recap pages, if there is enough material, sure.

Oct 9th 2013 at 9:58:01 AM •••

This is a really bad rule. Basically anyone can make an entry about anything, no matter how terrible or how politically incorrect it is.

Hide/Show Replies
Telcontar MOD
Oct 9th 2013 at 10:08:21 AM •••

You have summarized the rule accurately. Please take it to the forums if you would like to challenge it, providing reasons for why it is bad.

Edited by
Telcontar MOD
Dec 10th 2013 at 11:23:42 AM •••

Well, yes, but it's still the proper place for it rather than this discussion page.

Dec 10th 2013 at 11:48:54 AM •••

Also, the original poster of this discussion has been booted.

Nov 27th 2012 at 10:54:54 AM •••

What just stories posted on sites like Mibba? Are they allowed, and if so what section would they go under?

Hide/Show Replies
Telcontar MOD
Nov 27th 2012 at 11:36:29 AM •••

Yep, those are allowed; they are published on the web. If the last part of your question refers to namespace, Literature/ is used for web novels.

Aug 23rd 2012 at 9:43:26 PM •••

Hi, my name is Chris Cutter, I'm the co-founder and head writer for The Awesome Blog, a blog that covers everything from, social commentary, comedic articles, and serial novels. I'm also a troper, and was wondering if, because of this trope, my associate and I could create a page for our blog? Thank you in advance. :)

Hide/Show Replies
Telcontar MOD
Aug 24th 2012 at 1:28:35 AM •••

Yes, you can. Make sure you have at least three tropes about it to start with or it could get cut, and put it in the Blog/ namespace. See also How To Create A Works Page, and good luck!

Aug 24th 2012 at 3:50:33 PM •••

Awesome thank you :) Already rolling under the Blog/ namespace. How would I add a picture (our logo) to make the article more catching?

Edited by ChrisCutter
Telcontar MOD
Aug 25th 2012 at 2:39:04 AM •••

Use the image uploader to get it on our server. Images In Wiki Pages has formatting tips.

Apr 25th 2012 at 4:14:01 PM •••

"We consider every work notable. Unless it is nothing but porn. We don't need porn in order to understand storytelling."

... I am extremely confused as to what is considered "nothing but porn" here now after what happened. Is it "anything with shown sexual content, especially if the character is underage by USA law or looks underage, and anything that has pedophilia undertones even without erotic content" now?

Edited by banedoyle Hide/Show Replies
May 24th 2012 at 10:18:14 PM •••

That section looks like an obvious rule patch to me.

May 25th 2012 at 7:02:53 AM •••

^This particular rule is for Porn Without Plot or Fanservice Without Plot. The paedo rules are to be discussed in the Aboud Content Violations Discussions forum thread in the Content Violations forum.

Dec 15th 2011 at 4:20:39 PM •••

No Real Life Examples Please states that "a work portraying real life is still a work", and examples of how a work portrays a real-life subject are fine. So I guess these are the exceptions to there being no such thing as notability: where Wikipedia requires that a subject be mentioned in reliable sources, no-real-life tropes require that a subject be mentioned in works. Where did I err?

Hide/Show Replies
FastEddie MOD
May 23rd 2012 at 4:17:34 PM •••

There is no such thing as notability with regard to works. Real life is not a work of fiction, political speeches aside.

Jun 10th 2011 at 7:35:52 AM •••

For extra effect, imagine Uncle Vernon shouting this at Harry Potter- who soon discovers that his parents died not in a car accident, but a heated VfD debate, then goes on to become one of the greatest Wikipedia editors in the history of the world.

Edited by TripleElation
Nov 3rd 2010 at 10:12:23 AM •••

How far is this valid? Of course, it applies to tropes and examples, that's for sure. Does it also apply to works, so may you, for example, create a page about a book that, let's say, has only been published in German and had a print run of 5000 copies? Or, to go even further, the author of said book? May he have his own page? And then there are, of course, celebrities, like Barack Obama - how much of a celebrity do one have to be? And what about the Useful Notes section? Does anything that may be useful - for example, a long explanation of the ruling system of Charlemagne - deserve its own page? Basically, where are the borders (if there are any)?

Hide/Show Replies
FastEddie MOD
Nov 3rd 2010 at 10:20:22 AM •••

This applies to all works. All works are admitted.

If you want to write up a page on a creator of whatever fame, it is admissible, as long as it list tropes related to the creator. Not an encyclopedia article, a description and a list of tropes.

Oct 11th 2010 at 12:50:55 PM •••

Could we add a bit of a corollary? I've seen some things that, "No Such Thing As Notability" aside, really don't need to be on the page. I remember one reference to an online RP that someone was in once. TINSTAN aside, having that on the page doesn't really help anyone to understand the trope better.

Hide/Show Replies
Oct 12th 2010 at 5:38:02 AM •••

Neither does six dozen references to Anime works that only five people outside of Japan have ever seen, yet we don't stop those examples.

Apr 29th 2010 at 10:32:34 PM •••

I was thinking we could add a note about how the reverse applies too: just because something is well-known or popular; "notable" by other standards, doesn't mean it has a page already, and rather than complaining or being SHOCKED about it not being there, then add it oneself or put it on the List Of Shows That Need Summary.

To be fair, I haven't really seen anything like that, so I may be trying to address a problem that doesn't exist, but that's why we have discussion pages after all!

Hide/Show Replies
Type the word in the image. This goes away if you get known.
If you can't read this one, hit reload for the page.
The next one might be easier to see.