This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
TV Tropes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "TV Tropes" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
This page is not a forum for general discussion about TV Tropes. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about TV Tropes at the Reference desk. |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Like other wikis, users can help edit this website by adding things, such as more examples. To edit, they must be logged in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:4700:2D30:ADF1:3277:E3C4:7E49 ( talk) 21:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Tvtropes is commercial? how come? 218.85.36.207 ( talk) 05:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
xkcd just mentioned TVtropes, so don't be surprised if you start getting bombarded for a few days. (This happened a couple weeks ago at Voynich manuscript and it was pretty ridiculous.) rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 11:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, please no XKCD vandalism this time. Another webcomic has already been mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.232.41 ( talk) 11:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
As "tvtropes ruining your life" refers to the altered perception of fiction, it doesn't seem correct to say that the xkcd comic refers to that phenomenon. The xkcd comic refers more or less only to the site's tendency to launch excessive numbers of browser tabs. It does have dialog suggesting that he's learning new tropes, but that can definitely occur without the "life-ruining" aspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.248.88.156 ( talk) 14:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The old version of the page linked to a forum post giving a brief history of the wiki; in particular the year it was founded. Does anyone have the link? -- DocumentN ( talk) 23:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Should we mention that they only refer to Wikipedia as "that other Wiki" in a he-who-must-not-be-named sort of way? I always get a huge kick out of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.40.32.14 ( talk) 17:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused as to what this phrase refers to. I've heard some people say it refers to making you aware of tropes like in the article, but I've heard others say it refers ro just how damn addictive their site is. I looked it up on the relevant page at TV tropes, the text supports the first definition but the picture in the article is of a man sitting down to read one article and staying there until he dies which fits the second one. Are you sure we're working on the right definition? Should we mention both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.40.32.14 ( talk) 19:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The site’s reputation has gone down hill from the moment it was created in 2004 and hasn’t stopped for breath since. More then half of the tropes are depressing in which many of those create both fear and hatred. Also most viewers on the site choose a fight instead of a write and by 2024 it will be deleted completely and permanently, after two decades of mismanagement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.17.196 ( talk) 10:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I apologise if I sounded mean spirited. -- 124.169.215.165 ( talk) 14:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I just added a TV Tropes article as an external link on dolly zoom, to cut down on the less notable examples. We should link to the relevant article whenever related trivia becomes too voluminous; it's likely all our examples are on there anyway.
In fact, it would be a good idea for dual Wikipedia/TV Tropes editors to add the examples to TV Tropes before deleting a list of trivia here. ... And now I just want Wikipedia:Wikipedia Is Not TV Tropes to exist. -- BlueNight ( talk) 17:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Page locks do happen rarely but usually they happen for many of the same reasons they happen on Wikipedia: edit wars, controversial subjects (currently The Last Airbender and the backlash against it for example), or in the case of Lolicon, "we're just not comfortable even really having this page because of it's subject mater so it's going to be restricted." The most popular sentiment is that people should be able to say that a work is bad or did something badly or well, just not to saturate a page with either negativity or gushing. (And even that is currently facing scruitiny from the site admins). EllePollack ( talk) 02:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
How is what he says about the site relevant for this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.0.39 ( talk) 03:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The quote attributed Robin Hanson cannot be found in the cited article; in it he merely remarks upon the trope database and how it will make for an interesting research topic. The quote can be found on the Tv Tropes page for 'TvTropesWillRuinYourLife'; no where can I find Hanson saying it first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.111.34 ( talk) 11:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The comic references are just trivial mentions. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to gather every trivial mention of a work. Listing the Irregular Webcomic occurrences would be akin to listing every single time "Never Gonna Give You Up" has appeared in the media. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why a user recently removed the citation tags on two claims regarding the naming policy. As I see it (and based on the recent editing history of the article) these are important factual claims and pertain to a major ongoing process at the website. Please find appropriate references rather than cutting the tags! 137.82.81.194 ( talk) 17:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Is there any source about the current number of articles on TV Tropes? I wasn't able to find it-- Sumail ( talk) 09:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 216.41.197.137 ( talk) 13:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Try here: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/page_type_counts.php
A Troper from TV Tropes here. I think the article should note TV'S Tropes The Great Crash and The Situation, with the latter being a recent important development and the former being very important too. 71.157.173.132 ( talk) 16:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
By that, are you referring to the events of "The Strange Case of the Missing Ads"? Rincewind32 ( talk) 20:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Might could use a less gimmicky subject heading. "The Strange Case of the Missing Ads" makes it sound like a detective mystery wasname. Just have it as "Missing ads" or something. 71.97.59.52 ( talk) 04:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, The Great Crash happened several years ago, unrelated to The Situation. 24.176.184.74 ( talk) 01:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Why is this even important? Its just a irrelevant thing that happened. We're notrecording every single time Facebook and Youtube crashed are we? -_- Having REAL movies like Killing Ariel is more important than labeling a one time event in one unnoteworthy incident. 75.68.200.32 ( talk) 01:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
And? Who cares? Tvtropes itself isn't really notable let alone a not needed thing that happened to it. It doesn't really matter if its a big event. I agree with the guy above me, its irrelevant to wikipedia in general. Its incredibly not notable. Super mario fan ( talk) 15:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm requesting that instead of continuing an edit war here, everyone involved instead discusses their reasoning here. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 00:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Has anybody else been getting a full page ad lately for MyWebFace? It just appears randomly and you can go back but it just shows up again later. So far I haven't had any issues but still... Maslego ( talk) 04:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah the place seems to be downgrading rapidly. Now you have to LOG ON to edit when you originally didn't which is now seemingly decreasing the popularty. I've always had trouble with the ads. Some ads force you to restart the computer. 00:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.4.220 ( talk)
Does this discussion really belong here? It doesn't seem to have much relevance to the article, and reads more like a forum discussion than a lets-improve-the-page discussion. -- LordNecronus ( talk) 10:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
There is an ongoing debate at Talk:Lackadaisy (and edit war at the associated article) about whether or not TV Tropes is suitable as an external link. Additional opinions would be appreciated, thanks. -- El on ka 20:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems there has been some disagreement on the site as to what a trope actually is. As of late, many of the older tropers on the site have been renaming and rewriting old tropes, as well as calling new ones invalid, because they disagree with the notion that a trope used by a specific subculture, such as anime fans, is really a trope. Is it fair to say there is cronyism going on on the site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.232.88 ( talk) 04:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Yeah the place has been in a constant state of turmoil. Really terrible site with absolutely apalling moderators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.78.133.86 ( talk) 00:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Should there be a section on this page for criticism of TV Tropes? There is quite a large amount of criticism of TV Tropes from different corners of the internet, and a good portion of it is somewhat justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.210.95.115 ( talk) 17:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The article was recently edited, stating that tvtropes has 'closed'. Curiously enough this very article seems to be the only place where this is actually stated. Anyhow, a source for this claim is needed (especially since I suspect that the claim is false) 86.94.166.57 ( talk) 19:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know about this closure, but the site's been down the last few days. 173.66.211.53 ( talk) 17:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I have a problem. Ever since early morning, TV Tropes has been down for hours, and the entire site and its pages are wiped off the Internet! When will it be restored and fixed?! Here's the link to the site that has been down for hours. -- Angeldeb82 ( talk) 17:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the point of this page, it looks like just a big ad for a web page (which may or may not have closed). It's not the slightest bit encyclopedic, i.e. talking about tropes in the visual medium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.64.54 ( talk) 01:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it just describes the site. Language is not promotional in the least. -- Speededdie ( talk) 01:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
@ Speeditor: I am mostly satisfied with the sourcing of the current text now. Unless someone wants to say that the article is giving undue importance to a controversy that only two self-published sources mention ( WP:BALASPS concerns, basically), it might be OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Well @ Jo-Jo Eumerus:, I found a source on the forum of TV Tropes of Fast Eddie very rightly stating that the site using the license can waiver any and all of the individual rules of the license as the license is "free" and owned by TV Tropes Foundation. Whether its recommended or not by CC Corp, this would be a great addition as a rebuttal to the following, if you can find it. There basically was a discussion on TV Tropes in which some users debated this. A admin disagreed citing the specific content right-waiving rule and Fast Eddie ended the conversation with that rebuttal. Speeditor ( talk) 17:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@ Jo-Jo Eumerus:, found it. Took a good few searches to find again, but its there now and I've added it to the article. =D
Their entire content policy and the way the site owner talks shows they don't allow anything like that. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheContentPolicyAndThe5PCircuit The source doesn't even say anything about separating anyway. Gune ( talk) 17:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Check the history. Gune ( talk) 07:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request was not specific enough. You may consider leaving your comments on the Talk page or escalating significant issues to the conflict of interest noticeboard. |
An IP has just
changed "sexual" to "sexist" but the sources cited only discuss sexual tropes, not "sexist" tropes, so the edit should probably be reverted. It also seems to me that the article is confusing the "Google Incident" from 2010 (In October 2010, in what the site refers to as "The Google Incident,"
Google withdrew its
AdSense service from the site after determining that pages regarding sexual tropes, and particularly
rape tropes, were inconsistent with its terms of service.
[1]
[2]
) with the one in 2012, since the TheMarySue article is about an event in 2012 (
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheSecondGoogleIncident), but I can't think of a quick fix.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
16:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
In the case of sexual versus sexist, when we think of the word sexual, there can be an association with warm sensuality and love that comes to mind. This is not at all the depiction in these tropes — which are more often connected to violence and misogyny. I don't think many people would object to describing rape tropes as sexist tropes. But I'm not sure, was that the reason why the ads were initially pulled? Spintendo ᔦᔭ 00:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
"I can't think of a quick fix."Spintendo ᔦᔭ 06:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
In October 2010, in what the site refers to as "The Google Incident,"
Google temporarily withdrew its
AdSense service from the site after determining that pages regarding adult and mature tropes were inconsistent with its terms of service.
[1]
[2]
In a separate incident in 2012, in response to other complaints by Google, TV Tropes changed its guidelines to restrict coverage of such topics. Feminist blog The Mary Sue criticized this decision, as it censored documentation of sexist tropes in video games and young adult fiction. [3] ThinkProgress additionally condemned Google AdSense itself for "providing a financial disincentive to discuss" such topics. [4] The site now separates NSFG articles (Not Safe for Google) from SFG articles (Safe for Google) in order to allow discussion of these kinds of tropes. [1]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
You've done a wonderful job of explaining the background information, thank you for that. Now, if I could impose on you once more, could you explain what it is you'd specifically like done to the article, per WP:MINDREADER I cant immediately say what that is. While your text is full of context, what it's missing is instructional directions such as Please change this to this:____ Please advise. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 17:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
WP is not a fan-boy or fan-girl encyclopedia. Even, when the article is describing or informing readers about really cool pop-culture fan websites, such as, "TVTropes". Devolving the definition of "tropes" to "descriptions and examples of various plot conventions and plot devices, more commonly known as tropes", as the first sentence of the article does, is confusing to any serious student of the English language. Much as, the word "meme" has devolved into almost anything "common usage" deems appropriate, the word "trope" seems to mean something quite different here apparently, than the standard definition in the OED. (my Bible) -I have used "Bible" in this context funnily enough, as a "trope"- "Tropes" in general are: "1. a figurative or metaphorical use of a word or an expression. 1.1 a significant or recurrent theme; a motif."(OED) If this is the definition of "trope", to what does the opening sentence of the article allude? Yes, that question is purely rhetorical. The opening sentence of the article is lax and non-idiomatic despite it's pop-culture appeal to the fan-(person) of the day. Words may have new meanings for hip and "in" group writers, however, I hope the readership demo for WP is significantly larger than that. Bjhodge8 ( talk) 05:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
"my Bible" You mean unreliable collection of myths, legends and political propaganda, that have debatable historicity? Dimadick ( talk) 09:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I think you are underestimating the importance of motifs in narratives of any kind.
TVTropes discusses recurring elements in fictional narratives of any genre. Not limiting themselves to popular culture, a large part of the website is devoted to OralTradition, Legend, Fairy Tale, Mythology, and Nautical Folklore. Dimadick ( talk) 10:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
References
Hi, I just finished working on the german article on TV Tropes, which i loosely based on the en version. While translating, I've found some problems with this article that could be adressed imo:
Anyway, thanks for all the good work! Cheers -- AlanyaSeeburg ( talk) 16:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
(Disclaimer: I am a member of the staff there, but I am posting this in personal capacity) Doesn't this source run afoul of WP:USERGENERATED? The information seems to be based on user input. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I just updated the thinkprogress citation. It had been moved to their archive subsite. I kept the original `archive-url` (rather than changing it to one I just queried The Internet Archive to make). Does this matter? I didn't notice any substantial difference between the old archive and live/new-archive versions of the article... Macks2008 ( talk) 01:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Might be worth it to include their page on Wikipedia? [4] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Website/Wikipedia Sanchopancho02 ( talk) 11:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Is there any info available about the proportion of women on TV Tropes? It’s not stated on its website at all. 2406:3003:2077:173E:7CBB:693E:2EF5:9BC2 ( talk) 07:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Your Mileage May Vary has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 9 § Your Mileage May Vary until a consensus is reached. cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
TV Tropes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "TV Tropes" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
This page is not a forum for general discussion about TV Tropes. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about TV Tropes at the Reference desk. |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Like other wikis, users can help edit this website by adding things, such as more examples. To edit, they must be logged in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:4700:2D30:ADF1:3277:E3C4:7E49 ( talk) 21:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Tvtropes is commercial? how come? 218.85.36.207 ( talk) 05:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
xkcd just mentioned TVtropes, so don't be surprised if you start getting bombarded for a few days. (This happened a couple weeks ago at Voynich manuscript and it was pretty ridiculous.) rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 11:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, please no XKCD vandalism this time. Another webcomic has already been mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.232.41 ( talk) 11:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
As "tvtropes ruining your life" refers to the altered perception of fiction, it doesn't seem correct to say that the xkcd comic refers to that phenomenon. The xkcd comic refers more or less only to the site's tendency to launch excessive numbers of browser tabs. It does have dialog suggesting that he's learning new tropes, but that can definitely occur without the "life-ruining" aspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.248.88.156 ( talk) 14:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The old version of the page linked to a forum post giving a brief history of the wiki; in particular the year it was founded. Does anyone have the link? -- DocumentN ( talk) 23:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Should we mention that they only refer to Wikipedia as "that other Wiki" in a he-who-must-not-be-named sort of way? I always get a huge kick out of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.40.32.14 ( talk) 17:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused as to what this phrase refers to. I've heard some people say it refers to making you aware of tropes like in the article, but I've heard others say it refers ro just how damn addictive their site is. I looked it up on the relevant page at TV tropes, the text supports the first definition but the picture in the article is of a man sitting down to read one article and staying there until he dies which fits the second one. Are you sure we're working on the right definition? Should we mention both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.40.32.14 ( talk) 19:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The site’s reputation has gone down hill from the moment it was created in 2004 and hasn’t stopped for breath since. More then half of the tropes are depressing in which many of those create both fear and hatred. Also most viewers on the site choose a fight instead of a write and by 2024 it will be deleted completely and permanently, after two decades of mismanagement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.17.196 ( talk) 10:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I apologise if I sounded mean spirited. -- 124.169.215.165 ( talk) 14:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I just added a TV Tropes article as an external link on dolly zoom, to cut down on the less notable examples. We should link to the relevant article whenever related trivia becomes too voluminous; it's likely all our examples are on there anyway.
In fact, it would be a good idea for dual Wikipedia/TV Tropes editors to add the examples to TV Tropes before deleting a list of trivia here. ... And now I just want Wikipedia:Wikipedia Is Not TV Tropes to exist. -- BlueNight ( talk) 17:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Page locks do happen rarely but usually they happen for many of the same reasons they happen on Wikipedia: edit wars, controversial subjects (currently The Last Airbender and the backlash against it for example), or in the case of Lolicon, "we're just not comfortable even really having this page because of it's subject mater so it's going to be restricted." The most popular sentiment is that people should be able to say that a work is bad or did something badly or well, just not to saturate a page with either negativity or gushing. (And even that is currently facing scruitiny from the site admins). EllePollack ( talk) 02:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
How is what he says about the site relevant for this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.0.39 ( talk) 03:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The quote attributed Robin Hanson cannot be found in the cited article; in it he merely remarks upon the trope database and how it will make for an interesting research topic. The quote can be found on the Tv Tropes page for 'TvTropesWillRuinYourLife'; no where can I find Hanson saying it first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.111.34 ( talk) 11:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The comic references are just trivial mentions. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to gather every trivial mention of a work. Listing the Irregular Webcomic occurrences would be akin to listing every single time "Never Gonna Give You Up" has appeared in the media. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why a user recently removed the citation tags on two claims regarding the naming policy. As I see it (and based on the recent editing history of the article) these are important factual claims and pertain to a major ongoing process at the website. Please find appropriate references rather than cutting the tags! 137.82.81.194 ( talk) 17:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Is there any source about the current number of articles on TV Tropes? I wasn't able to find it-- Sumail ( talk) 09:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 216.41.197.137 ( talk) 13:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Try here: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/page_type_counts.php
A Troper from TV Tropes here. I think the article should note TV'S Tropes The Great Crash and The Situation, with the latter being a recent important development and the former being very important too. 71.157.173.132 ( talk) 16:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
By that, are you referring to the events of "The Strange Case of the Missing Ads"? Rincewind32 ( talk) 20:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Might could use a less gimmicky subject heading. "The Strange Case of the Missing Ads" makes it sound like a detective mystery wasname. Just have it as "Missing ads" or something. 71.97.59.52 ( talk) 04:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, The Great Crash happened several years ago, unrelated to The Situation. 24.176.184.74 ( talk) 01:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Why is this even important? Its just a irrelevant thing that happened. We're notrecording every single time Facebook and Youtube crashed are we? -_- Having REAL movies like Killing Ariel is more important than labeling a one time event in one unnoteworthy incident. 75.68.200.32 ( talk) 01:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
And? Who cares? Tvtropes itself isn't really notable let alone a not needed thing that happened to it. It doesn't really matter if its a big event. I agree with the guy above me, its irrelevant to wikipedia in general. Its incredibly not notable. Super mario fan ( talk) 15:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm requesting that instead of continuing an edit war here, everyone involved instead discusses their reasoning here. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 00:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Has anybody else been getting a full page ad lately for MyWebFace? It just appears randomly and you can go back but it just shows up again later. So far I haven't had any issues but still... Maslego ( talk) 04:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah the place seems to be downgrading rapidly. Now you have to LOG ON to edit when you originally didn't which is now seemingly decreasing the popularty. I've always had trouble with the ads. Some ads force you to restart the computer. 00:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.4.220 ( talk)
Does this discussion really belong here? It doesn't seem to have much relevance to the article, and reads more like a forum discussion than a lets-improve-the-page discussion. -- LordNecronus ( talk) 10:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
There is an ongoing debate at Talk:Lackadaisy (and edit war at the associated article) about whether or not TV Tropes is suitable as an external link. Additional opinions would be appreciated, thanks. -- El on ka 20:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems there has been some disagreement on the site as to what a trope actually is. As of late, many of the older tropers on the site have been renaming and rewriting old tropes, as well as calling new ones invalid, because they disagree with the notion that a trope used by a specific subculture, such as anime fans, is really a trope. Is it fair to say there is cronyism going on on the site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.232.88 ( talk) 04:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Yeah the place has been in a constant state of turmoil. Really terrible site with absolutely apalling moderators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.78.133.86 ( talk) 00:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Should there be a section on this page for criticism of TV Tropes? There is quite a large amount of criticism of TV Tropes from different corners of the internet, and a good portion of it is somewhat justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.210.95.115 ( talk) 17:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The article was recently edited, stating that tvtropes has 'closed'. Curiously enough this very article seems to be the only place where this is actually stated. Anyhow, a source for this claim is needed (especially since I suspect that the claim is false) 86.94.166.57 ( talk) 19:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know about this closure, but the site's been down the last few days. 173.66.211.53 ( talk) 17:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I have a problem. Ever since early morning, TV Tropes has been down for hours, and the entire site and its pages are wiped off the Internet! When will it be restored and fixed?! Here's the link to the site that has been down for hours. -- Angeldeb82 ( talk) 17:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the point of this page, it looks like just a big ad for a web page (which may or may not have closed). It's not the slightest bit encyclopedic, i.e. talking about tropes in the visual medium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.64.54 ( talk) 01:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it just describes the site. Language is not promotional in the least. -- Speededdie ( talk) 01:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
@ Speeditor: I am mostly satisfied with the sourcing of the current text now. Unless someone wants to say that the article is giving undue importance to a controversy that only two self-published sources mention ( WP:BALASPS concerns, basically), it might be OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Well @ Jo-Jo Eumerus:, I found a source on the forum of TV Tropes of Fast Eddie very rightly stating that the site using the license can waiver any and all of the individual rules of the license as the license is "free" and owned by TV Tropes Foundation. Whether its recommended or not by CC Corp, this would be a great addition as a rebuttal to the following, if you can find it. There basically was a discussion on TV Tropes in which some users debated this. A admin disagreed citing the specific content right-waiving rule and Fast Eddie ended the conversation with that rebuttal. Speeditor ( talk) 17:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@ Jo-Jo Eumerus:, found it. Took a good few searches to find again, but its there now and I've added it to the article. =D
Their entire content policy and the way the site owner talks shows they don't allow anything like that. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheContentPolicyAndThe5PCircuit The source doesn't even say anything about separating anyway. Gune ( talk) 17:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Check the history. Gune ( talk) 07:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request was not specific enough. You may consider leaving your comments on the Talk page or escalating significant issues to the conflict of interest noticeboard. |
An IP has just
changed "sexual" to "sexist" but the sources cited only discuss sexual tropes, not "sexist" tropes, so the edit should probably be reverted. It also seems to me that the article is confusing the "Google Incident" from 2010 (In October 2010, in what the site refers to as "The Google Incident,"
Google withdrew its
AdSense service from the site after determining that pages regarding sexual tropes, and particularly
rape tropes, were inconsistent with its terms of service.
[1]
[2]
) with the one in 2012, since the TheMarySue article is about an event in 2012 (
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheSecondGoogleIncident), but I can't think of a quick fix.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
16:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
In the case of sexual versus sexist, when we think of the word sexual, there can be an association with warm sensuality and love that comes to mind. This is not at all the depiction in these tropes — which are more often connected to violence and misogyny. I don't think many people would object to describing rape tropes as sexist tropes. But I'm not sure, was that the reason why the ads were initially pulled? Spintendo ᔦᔭ 00:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
"I can't think of a quick fix."Spintendo ᔦᔭ 06:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
In October 2010, in what the site refers to as "The Google Incident,"
Google temporarily withdrew its
AdSense service from the site after determining that pages regarding adult and mature tropes were inconsistent with its terms of service.
[1]
[2]
In a separate incident in 2012, in response to other complaints by Google, TV Tropes changed its guidelines to restrict coverage of such topics. Feminist blog The Mary Sue criticized this decision, as it censored documentation of sexist tropes in video games and young adult fiction. [3] ThinkProgress additionally condemned Google AdSense itself for "providing a financial disincentive to discuss" such topics. [4] The site now separates NSFG articles (Not Safe for Google) from SFG articles (Safe for Google) in order to allow discussion of these kinds of tropes. [1]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
You've done a wonderful job of explaining the background information, thank you for that. Now, if I could impose on you once more, could you explain what it is you'd specifically like done to the article, per WP:MINDREADER I cant immediately say what that is. While your text is full of context, what it's missing is instructional directions such as Please change this to this:____ Please advise. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 17:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
WP is not a fan-boy or fan-girl encyclopedia. Even, when the article is describing or informing readers about really cool pop-culture fan websites, such as, "TVTropes". Devolving the definition of "tropes" to "descriptions and examples of various plot conventions and plot devices, more commonly known as tropes", as the first sentence of the article does, is confusing to any serious student of the English language. Much as, the word "meme" has devolved into almost anything "common usage" deems appropriate, the word "trope" seems to mean something quite different here apparently, than the standard definition in the OED. (my Bible) -I have used "Bible" in this context funnily enough, as a "trope"- "Tropes" in general are: "1. a figurative or metaphorical use of a word or an expression. 1.1 a significant or recurrent theme; a motif."(OED) If this is the definition of "trope", to what does the opening sentence of the article allude? Yes, that question is purely rhetorical. The opening sentence of the article is lax and non-idiomatic despite it's pop-culture appeal to the fan-(person) of the day. Words may have new meanings for hip and "in" group writers, however, I hope the readership demo for WP is significantly larger than that. Bjhodge8 ( talk) 05:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
"my Bible" You mean unreliable collection of myths, legends and political propaganda, that have debatable historicity? Dimadick ( talk) 09:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I think you are underestimating the importance of motifs in narratives of any kind.
TVTropes discusses recurring elements in fictional narratives of any genre. Not limiting themselves to popular culture, a large part of the website is devoted to OralTradition, Legend, Fairy Tale, Mythology, and Nautical Folklore. Dimadick ( talk) 10:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
References
Hi, I just finished working on the german article on TV Tropes, which i loosely based on the en version. While translating, I've found some problems with this article that could be adressed imo:
Anyway, thanks for all the good work! Cheers -- AlanyaSeeburg ( talk) 16:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
(Disclaimer: I am a member of the staff there, but I am posting this in personal capacity) Doesn't this source run afoul of WP:USERGENERATED? The information seems to be based on user input. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I just updated the thinkprogress citation. It had been moved to their archive subsite. I kept the original `archive-url` (rather than changing it to one I just queried The Internet Archive to make). Does this matter? I didn't notice any substantial difference between the old archive and live/new-archive versions of the article... Macks2008 ( talk) 01:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Might be worth it to include their page on Wikipedia? [4] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Website/Wikipedia Sanchopancho02 ( talk) 11:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Is there any info available about the proportion of women on TV Tropes? It’s not stated on its website at all. 2406:3003:2077:173E:7CBB:693E:2EF5:9BC2 ( talk) 07:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Your Mileage May Vary has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 9 § Your Mileage May Vary until a consensus is reached. cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)