"WP:TVTROPES" redirects here. For the use of TV Tropes as a source, see WP:RSPTVTROPES.

For those not familiar, TV Tropes is a wiki that lists plot devices, tropes, and the like in all manner of fiction.

However, the fact that it is a wiki is where the similarity to Wikipedia ends. While Wikipedia does have articles on various plot devices and tropes, the intent is to give an encyclopedic outlook on how these elements are perceived.

Far too many Wikipedia articles over the years have taken the form "X in popular culture" (also: "X in fiction", "X in arts and media", "cultural depictions of X", etc.), which has caused many an editor to turn such articles into free-for-alls. Because a work of fiction is notable, that means that anytime anyone name-dropped it in another work, it's worth documenting, right?

While it is understandable on TV Tropes due to the nature of the wiki, that is not the case here.

Other elements that TV Tropes does that we don't:

  1. Long plot summaries
  2. Detailed character sheets that list every trope and plot device associated with a character
  3. Separating subjective content into its own sub-pages
  4. Giving trivia its own section, although it was prevalent and accepted here for a while
  5. Long-winded discussions about whether an article should be renamed, cleaned up, merged, or deleted... oh, wait a minute
  6. In-jokes, at least not within articles
  7. Lists of memes associated with the work
  8. CamelCase linking, although we did very early on
  9. Putting stinger jokes at the bottom of the page
  10. Allowing media analysis by editors; on Wikipedia, that violates the policy against original research
  11. Disregarding the notability of a subject as the mantra at TV Tropes is "There Is No Such Thing as Notability"
  12. Marking certain details as spoilers; Wikipedia has neither hidden content about spoilers nor spoiler warnings in articles
  13. Article titles for certain works and subjects are stylized if that is how they are officially presented
  14. Requiring an account for editing, as well as for accessing the edit history and discussion pages of articles
  15. Once a subject is deemed to be too controversial, inappropriate or no longer worth covering, it is not allowed to talked about or referenced at all
  16. Certain subjects are only allowed to be covered either in a limited capacity or once a specific time limit has passed
  17. References are not needed, as the work's plot is the reference, just like for our plot sections. However, references are not always featured in sections about real life, such as the work's production or reception.
  18. Relying on ad revenue, and consequently needing to moderate or remove certain content to remain advertiser-friendly
  19. Users can be suspended or banned without warning

In short, if you still want to visit TV Tropes despite these differences, you can go here.

On a closing note, "X in popular culture" can totally be a valid Wikipedia topic, if done correctly. That means that the article should be based on reliable, secondary sources which discuss the concept of x in popular culture. Additionally, TV Tropes can used as an alternate resource if necessary.

Compare the following examples of how such articles should not / should look:

See also

Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTTVTROPES
No tags for this post.