Talk:TV Tropes

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon internet.svg

This Internet related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png

mission[edit]

while I agree to some extent, why do we need an article exactly? ТyLonely. Ever so lonely. 02:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, this reads like ED-lite. ТySerious Business Guy 02:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Im a bit curious why we need a article on it as well; and i also agree on the second point. --il'Dictator Mikal 02:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Get rid of it. We don't need an article on this. Barely relevant.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I know that tu quoque is not exactly the best form of argument, but TvTropes deserves a page more than half of the wikis (Why does Encyclopedia Dramatic and Uncyclopedia have pages but this one is off mission) for two major reasons. 1.) The first I've already talked about, it's because of the "Fanboy Point of View" allows said Fanboys to push denialism and censorship on topics and persons of interest with real world ramifications under the guise of social harmony. Posting snark, let alone factual criticism of things like the O'Reilly Factor because that would be being rude. 2.) The second is because... uh, I don't really want to go into this too much because this is going to be opening a huge can of worms, but if you've been paying attention to peripheral sites TvTropes is starting to get a very sticky reputation (and unfortunately, it's pretty well-deserved) for child sexual abuse apologia. And not just from Internet Hate Machine websites, either. I tried hinting about it in some of the links and tried glossing it over with snark, but if it comes down I'd rather have an article with no venom and a factual look at those things than not have an article at all. --Dr. Swordopolis (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I saw little snark in that mess, just ED style "jokes"--il'Dictator Mikal 04:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree. Тysic semper 04:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

mission explanation[edit]

I wrote this article not because of the weirder tastes of the website like the Fetish Fuel wiki, but because the "fanboys are always right" POV allows utter denialist bullshit like the whitewashing of Rush Limbaugh. I agree that the article should focus more on that, but, that's not what the website means to most people. That's a pretty big concern, in my opinion.--Dr. Swordopolis (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

that would work if it didnt look, like TY said, a ED article. --il'Dictator Mikal 02:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
It's a bit snarkier than our usual fare, but treating this topic more "seriously" would just induce headdesk. Blue Talk 02:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Why? ТySerious Business Guy 02:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Because it's TV Tropes. Well, if you want to dial down the tone of this article, feel free. Blue Talk 02:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
All i saw was pointless jokes that didnt add anything. not really informative... like the random hate on voyager--il'Dictator Mikal 03:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, this: "TV Trope's page on Rational Wiki. We must admit, it prickles at the conscience to write this borderline hatchet-job article on that website when they spoke of us so well, but, that's just the way Rational Wiki rolls, mang. (*sunglasses*) "--il'Dictator Mikal 03:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I took out the Voyager jab. Blue Talk 03:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
If this focuses on things concerning the real world, it'll be fine, but I don't think this should be bashing people just for having "nerdier" tastes. Woodgod (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm still seeing nothing in this article which has anything to do with RW's objectives. Could you explicitly state which mission objective it hits?--BobSpring is sprung! 11:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm guessing he's talking about 3 and 4.ТyYes? 13:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not seeing it.
3 is: "Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism." I don't see the connection.
4 is: "Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media." I agree it's media, but it's still got little or nothing to do with "authoritarianism and fundamentalism".--BobSpring is sprung! 06:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
But TV Tropes is awesome!!! Scarlet A.pngpathetic 12:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal[edit]

People are asking why this is not on mission but ED and Uncyclopedia are allowed raise a good point. I say delete all three. - π 00:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Theres lots of articles about obscure one nobody cares about too. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
See, this is a rather stupid discussion, because - and I've said this over and over again - if we were to delete all of the articles that don't directly pertain to the mission, we'd be getting rid of hundreds if not thousands of pages. We really have to clarify our content standards. Blue Talk 03:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Sure, but in context of just clarifying what other communities are, I really don't see the point.. Perhaps this could be an article about 10% this long discussing what TVtropes has to do with crankery? Other than that, why would anyone ever care what rationalwiki has to say about TVTropes? In that context it should make sense to delete some of these articles. Don't succumb to slippery slope arguments. ERK! | Complaints Hotline 03:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
It's not a slippery slope, it's something I've been talking about literally for years. The "why would anyone ever care what RW has to say about x" test is a good one, but the fact that a significant portion of our content fails that test is undeniable. What you have to do is demonstrate this article is truly beyond the pale in order to delete it. Blue Talk 03:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Playing Devil's Advocate (secular-malevolent-force's-advocate?) here. Perhaps a thing to say about TvTropes is that it's a place where a lot of unvetted ideas and opinion are frequently passed around as fact. People come up with goofy conspiracy theories about their favorite TV shows of all things and then defend them to the death. People connect things to other things for no reason other than that they vaguely see the link but can't explain it. TVtropes might be viewed, no matter how entertaining its analysis of patterns in media/stories can be, as an example of how people will defend things that make them happy, no matter how silly/nonsensical/against-the-spirit-of-the-original their particular beliefs about those things are. Once again, not arguing for this article to be kept. Just sharing an observation about the goings-on there, and by no means do all tropers display this behavior. I myself find tropes entertaining... but I am not sure they really belong here on RW.KnightOfTL;DR (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
See, that's actually pretty much what I think a RW article about TVTropes should be. Not much else I can think of. ERK! | Complaints Hotline 04:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Though to comment on that don't you need to be balls deep in the discussion forums? I normally just stick to the main tropes pages, which is interesting analysis and only rarely and non-intrusively goes into the batcrap fanboy territory. I'm happy with that arrangement. Scarlet A.pngmoral 14:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Voyager[edit]

Voyager is for desperately lonely nerds, but Star Wars is for ordinary well-adjusted folks? How on earth does that make sense? I think anyone who feels the need to put down stuff that other people like is the one who's desperate and lonely.

I am just sick to death of everyone on the internet hating on Voyager. What did it ever do to you? Were you forced to watch it by someone you hate?

And TV Tropes itself hates on Voyager even more than this page did. Hell, they hate on Voyager like we hate on Conservapedia! Seriously. Try finding a TV Tropes page that even mentions Voyager without a disclaimer about how awful it supposedly is. Did whoever added this bit of the page even read TV Tropes? Did they even watch Voyager? Does anyone besides me care?

I know this doesn't really matter, and I know that ranting about Star Trek in talk pages really isn't helping the wiki any. I'm just sick of this everywhere on the internet. Wehpudicabok (talk) 04:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I've seen all of the Voyager episodes. Voyager was the only Star Trek show I actually enjoyed, besides the Next Gen films. So I sympathize. Blue Talk 05:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes me feel better. I still don't understand the hate though. I mean from most of the internet, not you. Wehpudicabok (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
It's an identity issue, or at least a lack-of-identity issue. It's instinctively easier to craft yourself around what you don't like, don't follow or just plain hate. Though this produces the Grand Nerd Irony/Paradox: if you hate something so much, you must avoid it at all costs, which means you haven't experienced enough of it to have good reasons hate it - and if you did, then why did you watch it if you hate it so much? Still, hating's easier because you don't need to actually put the effort in. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 14:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

DS9 was the best Star Trek. Well, maybe neck and neck with TNG for totally different reasons. Star Wars is for white hipsters who like tattooing Asian symbols on themselves. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion[edit]

This is still here? Pi 3:14 (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently... Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 05:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Why not just move to Fun? It's interesting and worth reading, and even though it's mostly off-mission I imagine some editors here could enjoy learning about it if they saw it in the wiki template. That being said, I'm not wholly opposed to deletion. Wehpudicabok (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
"Failure to further a mission goal" is a laughable reason for deletion. Nowhere is it stipulated that all of our content has to further our explicit mission. Blue Talk 06:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
It should do. I would rather 1,000 good articles that further the mission than 5,000 where 4,000 are bloated rot. Pi 3:14 (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Help:Namespace - mainspace is for "mission" articles. This can go to essay or fun unless there's anything genuinely mission-focused to be added to it. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 06:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
You misunderstand, I agree. I disagree with deletion outright; I think this could do well in funspace. Blue Talk 06:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Seems fine. ТyComplaints 13:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ja[edit]

  1. Delete, along with Uncyclopedia and Encyclopaedia Dramatica--"Shut up, Brx." 13:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  2. I support the brxbrx hattrick, or move them all to fun even though they are tedious and not fun at all. Pi 3:14 (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  3. Try Wikipedia. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  4. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 14:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  5. Delete, move or rewrite (don't much care which). The only thing even vaguely related to RW missions/themes here is the paedophilia apologetics, which is only mentioned in passing a couple of times & without links or examples. The rest of the article is just cruft. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  6. Changed my vote. As much as the troper community annoys me, the article seems a bit exaggerated and just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. And that "detailed" page on the supposed "pedo" anime, that's used as an example here, doesn't even exist on their site. Woodgod (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is still a mess and reads like one person's opinion of a website he doesn't like

Nein[edit]

  1. ТyNo 13:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  2. With some fixing or more work, this article can be a good show of just how uncritical and irrational people can be when it comes to things they're attached to. To me, tvTropes is a good example of juxtaposed analysis and failure of analysis. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRgarrulous en guerre 13:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  3. What she said. Omar (gibber) 14:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  4. In its current state, this is one of the only decent negative articles on TVTropes I've managed to find. Keep, because the Troper community desperately needs to be called on its shit. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 06:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  5. Keep per Knight and Stabby, but rewrite to focus on elements relevant to the real world; there's no point in spending this much of the article talking about Buffy and Star Wars. Wehpudicabok (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  6. I just don't like deleting long and historied articles. Blue Talk 13:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Why this article is shit[edit]

The "debunking" sections (the bad and the ugly) are morally judgemental and are considered bad and ugly based on the taste of the writer. The writer is infact the arsehat for being against people's rights to write freaky fan fiction or what ever they are into. Pi 3:14 (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It's shit because it's only here because a few cabalists made a habit of editing there. It's got nothing to do with anything here. Fuck it. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I was gonna say, Dr. Swordopolis is a cabalist? Actually I think the only troper here is Ty--"Shut up, Brx." 13:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't check the history. The way I remember it being rambled on about in the SB, I thought it had been here for years. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
You wish for the cabalists. This is the work of the third gen ocd-brats that run the show now. Pi 3:14 (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Dunno, but "...because it exemplifies Web 2.0 content and anything worthy of that buzzword is a waste of time by definition" I would nominate for one of the worst statements on this site. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 14:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that a better word than "mainstream" should be used. A lot of respectable works of art are more "indie" or "underground", and the articles for some of these aren't really much worse than the ones on Star Wars or Pokemon. It's not "mainstream" or "weird pedo anime". Woodgod (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Pedophilia[edit]

They're actually cutting down on this, hard. They've deleted pages on lolicon shows and their article on lolicon itself only talks about the idea of pedophiles in Japanese media, no examples, no defenses. I think they realized what the internet thought of them and are working on it. That being said, I'm not going to change the article itself because I don't have enough background information to know whether what they're doing now is going to be enough to save them. Wehpudicabok (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently their page on Lolita is back, albeit still locked. HolyKatana (talk) 06:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Or was it ever deleted? HolyKatana (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
According to the thread that's linked in this article, it was deleted. I think they restored it with a bit of cleaning up to remove anything that seemed overly sympathetic to the pedophile character and locked it to prevent such edits, which makes more sense than completely omitting a classic work of literature, IMO. Woodgod (talk) 08:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I never understood the crackdown. Yes, some of the works were disturbing, but last I checked, there was just a wee bit of a money-based bias. The work Dance In The Vampire Bund still had it's page last time I was there, but of course it would, it's officially licenced to be sold here. Let people have their weird tastes. Besides, it's an entirely different culture from a nation America kinda screwed up (our quick rebuilding of Japan is partially responsible for the sheer weirdness). Although, you know what is fun? Read this and the Perverted Justice article back to back.--PosthumanHeresy (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

"Most disturbingly, it's one of the few places on the internet where pedophiles aren't automatically banned on sight. "[edit]

Do people actually read this sentence? I guess that people are so brainwashed by the mass media that they dont notice the lunacy and sheer bigotry of that. We are talking of banning people for their sexual condition. Prohibiting people (many of them children and teens) to speak up just because of their sexual orientation. Please read what I said. Teenagers and young people ostracized because of their natural feelings that they didnt choose.

Banning anyone for the mere fact of being different is ATROCIOUS and should not be acceptable in any context whatsoever. We are talking of people here. Banning someone for their "condition" disregarding any actual behaviour is completely stigmatizing them.

Is saying "just because you are a pedophile you are worthless". "Just because you are gay/pedophile you dont deserve to give your opinion". Is wrong and is inhuman to hundreds of pedophile teens who want and need to speak up. — Unsigned, by: 95.211.153.115 / talk / contribs

No one bought those NAMBLA talking points when they were new, and no one is buying them now. --Revolverman (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Why not? What is wrong with being a pedophile as long as it doesn't hurt anyone? It is a condition beyond a person's control. It has nothing to do with morality. I hate NAMBLA, but being a pedophile is not wrong unless you act on it. 99.6.157.136 (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah Im sure those children and teen pedophiles surely deserve to be condemned for the monsters they are, right? I bet those 15 year old pedophile boys are member of NAMBLA in disguise. I mean, whats more disgusting than teens who have a different sexual orientation? We should totally shame them like we did with gay teens its not like they would feel bad or depressed or try to kill themselves or anything. — Unsigned, by: 93.182.129.86 / talk / contribs


Troll Corry (talk) 05:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess this kids are totally trolling fucking INSENSITIVE SCUMBAG — Unsigned, by: 89.248.173.112 / talk / contribs

The bolding was a nice touch, also sign your fucking posts. --Revolverman (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Gotta agree with this. Paedophilia is a recognized mental disorder, not a crime. Let's ban paranoid schizophrenics and people with bi-polar disorder next! Oh, and of course, can't keep those dangerous depressed people! Hell, let's just ban people for having any mental disorder! Seriously, discrimination based on mental disorders is something that really, truly pisses me off.--PosthumanHeresy (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

This article is still a mess and reads like one person's opinion about a website he doesn't like. It should be deleted.

Where have you seen the so-called ugly?[edit]

I have visited quite a lot of the site and I can recall not even remote references to what the article deems ugly. If you have, certainly you've been dwelling in the wrong parts of it. Atheoi (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

"You're reading the wrong parts of it" is not a good defense. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 22:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Neither is "Hitler was evil, and he was a German, therefore all Germans are evil". Atheoi (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
On another note, is there something about "fanboyism" that is inherently bad that it's listed alongside denialism and rape apologism? Blue Talk 12:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Authoritarianism and censorship[edit]

I think something needs to be mentioned in the article about the fascist authoritarianism on the website. You do as you're told on TV Tropes and if you do something that they regard to be against the rules, you'll be blocked without warning and you won't get an opportunity to defend yourself and you won't be told what you've done wrong. Also comments are often deleted while the history of a page is impossible to view on TV Tropes so that the administrators can conceal the prints of their sticky little fingers and consequently, censorship is rampant. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Fascism means absolutist authoritarian control. Do your research. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi, long-time troper here (under a different name). At one point, Fast Eddie locked the "Orwellian Editor" page for bringing up all his deletions and, well, retcons of history, and removed that. Need I say more? --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I love TV Tropes but Christ do I hate the sneaky little twats who run it. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Holy shit, yes. Fast Eddie is one of the most unpleasant twatterbags to ever exist. He makes Assfly and TK look humble and democratic in comparison. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg It wasn't easy, but nothing is; woo hoo! 22:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but the ban thing absolute bullshit. I've recently started editing there (mainly because there's a lot of misinformed crap) and I have seen some things at TVTropes that don't make the mods look good, but there's actually an entire thread for people to defend themselves if they're blocked (which is quite entertaining to read if you're bored). And it usually takes a lot to get a permanent ban (such as outright racism, ban evading or getting banned more than three times). Most of the people I've seen get banned deserve their bans (even if they're a bit harsh on people who don't speak English as a first language). And of course you get banned if you do something against the rules. It's a privately run site with its own rules, not a democracy. Honestly, after seeing the crap that was on the site before they got stricter (and I don't just mean Troper Tales and Fetish Fuel), I'm kinda glad they're not as lax as Wikipedia with thier ban policy. (I recently spend 3 weeks trying to get a persistent troll get blocked on Wikipedia, which only led to a 3 day ban). Look at how pathetically whiny a lot of the entires on the DarthWiki pages like Wallbangers and SoBadItsHorrible pages are. It's not good snark, it's outright nerdrage/fanboyism. I have no idea why people think that removing the opinions (both negative and positive) from the main pages is anything but a good thing. Not only do the pages look better without all the mini-arguments listed with every trope, but it prevents edit wars (which happen even with all of the restrictions). You have reviews and the aforementioned DarthWIki pages for personal opinions anyway. I've even interacted with Eddie, and while I don't always agree with his policies (such as not allowing mentioning critical and audience reception on work page descriptions), he wasn't tough and was even, at times, helpful (shocking, I know!). Woodgod (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion (again)[edit]

  • After nine months since the last contemplation of deleting this page, this still reads like somebody who doesn't like the site ranting about how much it sucks. 99.225.71.144 (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes[edit]

  1. Although TV Tropes does have a negative side, this article focuses on it excessively in a very caustic, sensational and condescending manner that stereotypes members as anime-obsessed pedophiles and losers ("anyone who has been longer on the Internet for more than one Planck time knows that many (or at least the most vocal) Internet nerds tend to get extremely sensitive and hysterical at any snark or parody towards their favorite works. So one person making fun of the plot holes and lazy animation moments of, say, Death Note would be seen as a troll and a wandal[sic] regardless of whether their analysis or complaint had any merit") and is overall inconsistent with the site's attempt at supporting rationality. Ideally, this article could be rewritten, but the fact that its tone has remained virtually unchanged for nearly a year means that the possibility of this article being rewritten is slim. In addition, the subject of this page has very little, if anything to do with the site's mission of promoting the scientific method and skepticism. 99.225.71.144 (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  2. --Revolverman (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  3. --"Shut up, Brx." 00:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

No[edit]

  1. Nobodydon't bother 01:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  2. TV Tropes is a decent resource, but there's no need to whitewash its past. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  3. No, and quit trying to Wikilawyer this to death. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  4. I'm not sure how wikilawyering is involved here, but I'll say no to deletion. I like TVTropes. It serves a useful and entertaining purpose. That doesn't mean there hasn't been a ton of bad stuff in its past and even now. Blue Talk 05:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  5. Is it too much to ask that there be at least one resource critical of TVTropes outside of SomethingAwful? Is it too much to ask that it be us? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 07:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  6. "Badly written and biased" is not an argument for deletion, but for rewriting. SophieWilder 11:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  7. Agree with the above sentiments. Also, I find the notion of entertaining a BoN's deletion request in the first place somewhat distasteful. Hydrogen and Time (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  8. As Soph said. Scarlet A.pngsshole 11:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  9. I agree with Osaka Sun, Blue and Sophie on this one.--Spud (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

goat[edit]

  1. Trop, c'est trop Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 14:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Pedophile apologetics[edit]

This article lambasts "pedophilia apologists", yet our own article on child sexual abuse notes that research and researchers that have found the purported repercussions to be overblown and inconsistent, the exact effects being hard to discern due to family environment. Maybe we should explain more about what the pedophilia apologists are saying? I mean, some of them could have a point. I'm digging myself a hole here, aren't i? Nihilist 21:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is not the place for that conversation. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 21:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
If we're going to go-after people who are defending something, or even possibly not coming down on it as hard as they "should" (note: i haven't read the darker pages on TvTropes where these pedo-apologetics are supposedly happening, so i don't know exactly what they're saying), we should note that legitimate scientists have found that one of our deep cultural assumptions — that adults having sex with children is always very damaging to the child — is wrong. Nihilist 21:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
hooooo-boy, here we go again. --108.180.91.182 (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
That is a road down which many of us do not want to go, and if we are to go down that road, this article is not the vehicle in which to do so. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 21:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
So we're saying "Yeah, scientific studies have found that child sexual abuse has effects much less damaging than assumed, but don't you dare be one of those, dirty creepy pedophile apologists".
Again, if we said what they were specifically saying instead of just labeling them as pedophile apologists, i wouldn't have a problem with it. Nihilist 21:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
If we were to deal with that kind of stuff, the place to do so would be in an article on child sexual abuse. Now, I'm not sure about the technological dimensions of this, but I think it may be possible to somehow create a bit of code that would allow the reader of this article to push a button or something that would allow him to go from this article, which is about a website, to another article, which is on a tangentially-related subject that comes up for discussion in this article. It sounds really out-there and cutting-edge, but I imagine with the latest innovations in computer science, a system like that might work. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 21:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
What if i said "Look, in this article i'm going to assume Christianity is the one true religion. If you want to see an article which discusses contradicting evidence, go to the Christianity article — we aren't going to discuss it here." Nihilist 22:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Troll Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 22:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
You should really read this. Nihilist 22:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Really, ToP? I wouldn't think you'd stoop to calling people who aren't trolling trolls just because you disagree with them. It makes my kitten cry. I may not agree with Nihilist but he's clearly not taking the piss. Blue Talk 22:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I was trying to make a simple point -- that an article about a comedy website is not a place to start what could only be a long, complicated diversion about an extremely controversial topic. I could not believe someone would be so stupid as to not understand that remarkably simple idea, so I assumed that you must have been trolling. Apparently I was mistaken about that. You weren't trolling. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 00:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

First: Why does where the discussion take place really matter? In this article's talk page, on that article's talk page…. Being offtopic has never been a problem for RationalWiki.
But more importantly: Maybe i didn't make this clear, but my point is that we should have some consistency. We don't need to have a long, drawn-out debate (though i personally don't see what's wrong with those; we have them all the time) — we could just make the article more concise and less judgmental, which i've already taken some steps toward. Nihilist 01:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
there are a few things so vile, they do not even warrant comment, much less support or "consideration", much less "studies". But if you MUST talk about it, then it really should go on its own page. Or make a forum, anthing but trying to defend the idea that we should be actually supporting anything that says "it might not be as bad as we thought". Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 22:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, I think there are two aspects of this. The first is that you're obviously not going to get some kind of psychological experiment for victims or perpetrators of child sexual abuse past an IRB, which is what I hope you're talking about. The second is whether child sexual abuse is so taboo a topic that critical thinking is not allowed in general, which is, again, kind of dangerous. The morality of child sexual abuse is not in question here. Now, I'll admit that I haven't read the dark side of TVTropes, nor do I really know what Nihilist is talking about here, but I wasn't sure what you meant when you said "[child sexual abuse is] so vile...[it does] not even warrant studies.]" Surely we can study even the vilest of things, in the spirit of scientific inquiry? How else would we know that Todd Akin was talking BS when he talked about "legitimate rape" and pregnancy? Blue Talk 00:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I know i'm close here to making y'all take a drink, but that's a really irrational view. No idea or belief should be sacred — and especially not so sacred that we shouldn't even study it. Nihilist 23:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
What is it this article says that annoys you so much? All I can see is that it points out that TVTropes contains some pedophile apologetic content, & describes this as "questionable" & "disturbing", things that maybe most of our readers would agree with. We haven't called for the site to be banned or anybody to be lynched. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Why don't we just change our article on pedophilia so that it doesn't look like Tisane wrote it?--"Shut up, Brx." 00:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I probably have been making a bigger deal out what's said on this article than i should have. I just removed most ofwhat i didn't like of the "The ugly" section. Nihilist

I think we kinda end up missing pointing out the angle of how Advertisers can enforce moral censorship, as not just the pedophilia, but ANYTHING sexual makes Google shit itself. --108.180.91.182 (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the all-too-common 'moral decency' of Google, a company i hoped would be more progressive, really sucks. When will people realize that sex exists and, guess what, it isn't a horrible thing? Nihilist 00:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"Google threatened to pull its AdSense advertising from the site"[edit]

That's bullshit, google never tells you when they are going to kill your site. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

@Human: What happened in TVTropes' own words. In order to qualify for AdSense again, TVTropes took most porn-specific tropes and either deleted them or put them behind a "click to verify your age" wall. This was followed by a second incident in 2012, when AdSense partners complained about a different one of TVTropes' pages, resulting in TVTropes hurriedly stuffing all pages discussing rape or sex in any way either behind another "click to verify" wall or down the memory hole entirely. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 07:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

ZombieRalph's edits[edit]

The article as it stands makes a lot of unsupported allegations and reads as a consciously crafted smear campaign against a site that has nothing to do with pedophilia, Is in fact actively hostile toward works containing the least indication of it. Not sure why Rational Wiki would want to have this biased, false article. I made an edit that turned it back into information, rather than a screed. I encourage you all to consider using it. ZombieRalph (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, we've never been quite sure what to do with this article in the first place. Most of us agree that TV Tropes is far from perfect and could use some healthy criticism; most of us also agree that this article is not healthy criticism. We just can't seem to agree on whether we should burn it or fix it, and if the latter, how.
So you're welcome to rewrite the whole thing if you like. Nobody seems to be attached to what you see now, at least as far as I can tell. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 07:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I did make an edit. It was reverted, then I was blocked. I didn't understand the culture here and failed to talk first, edit later. I'd be glad to restore it, if unblocked. Not sure how you go about getting unblocked.ZombieRalph (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't check the edit history before I wrote that. I personally don't think you deserved the block, but luckily it wasn't very long. (For future reference, even when blocked you are able to post to your own talk page; that's a good place to discuss possibly unblocking you.)
But back to the article. Rewriting and removing are two different things. The fact is, if there were no problems whatsoever with TV Tropes, we would just delete the article, because then it wouldn't be relevant to our mission. While I agree that the article is pretty bad in its current state, simply cutting out the parts you don't like isn't really a solution; try replacing them with more accurate coverage that still acknowledges and criticizes the site's known issues with sex-related articles. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 09:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 Well, as I don't believe there are any "sex related article" issues, I suppose the best move would be to delete the article. Unless someone has some actual evidence to present. ZombieRalph (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, normally people do make edits without "talking" first, but your edits look suspiciously like a whitewash. The Google episode should be covered. And if the article has nothing negative to say about TVT, then it shouldn't exist.--ZooGuardtalk) 09:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  I took a cut at it, primarily removing the unfounded pedophilia slurs.ZombieRalph (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
If you're going to remove the "bad" and "ugly" headings, then the "good and so-so" one shouldn't be there either. I would edit it myself, but it's probably going to be reverted again. Woodgod (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm. Something tells me that the TV Tropes article is in process of being "cleaned up" and neutered by Tropers who simply didn't the "negativity" in the article. Here, let me show a picture of Fast Eddie's stance on negative reviews: Link.98.148.26.192 (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
It's pretty much the same, minus the pedophilia thing. Feel free to edit it in if it's important. Woodgod (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This article reads like a smear job[edit]

No offense, this article is very one sided and neglects valid criticism that should be added. Here's what's wrong in a series of bulletpoints:

  • Fast Eddie is an asshole of a wiki moderator, and most of his staff aren't much better, a fact even the Goons at Something Awful will agree with. Articles on other wikis include criticsm of the management style of the wiki owners, more of that should be included as well, especially his policy of banishing any hint of negativity, even the beneficial variety.
  • The site is a horrible mess of badly modified wiki code. It's an extremely modified version of PmWiki that has had several glaring security holes throughout its entire recorded history, including a recent one where people could log out and gain moderator powers.
  • The part on the Wikia fork is also a one sided bash fest. Yes, they do allow all the articles censored or deleted by Fast Eddie, with the blessing of Wikia, which is also run by ads, but apparently as long as they don't include pornographic images, Wikia apparently doesn't mind the mere discussion of adult works in the context of tropes as long it doesn't go beyond that point. Also, I visited the Wikia fork, and the fork seems to be run on the premise of enforcing the bare minimum rules on manual of style, and the moderator there seems to be intent on avoiding crushing editors there under the heel of tons of rules like is done on TV Tropes, since a major criticism of TV Tropes is it's overly rule bound nature, especially in recent day, which is in stark contrast to its earlier years, where they were laid back.
  • As for the amount of content on the Wikia fork, important information is not noted. Due to a change in Creative Commons licensing, they can only use content from June 2012 or earlier, since TV Tropes changing to a license incompatible with CC BY SA in July 2012, so they have to use information from before July 2012, mostly from the Wayback Machine or a torrent archive linked on the Wikia fork's front page. The current moderation is also trying to clean up the site and has removed several articles that were plagiarized from TV Tropes, as in taken in whole or in part from after July 2012. Both of these limitations means they can't host as much content as TV Tropes. They also use different wiki engines, so they can't convert content in bulk, even from older sources. Also, Fast Eddie was quite opposed to the Wikia fork even though what they were doing was legal. Yes, that link is to Encyclopedia Dramatica, but it has a screen capture of information that was memory holed off TV Tropes that should add some valuable context to improving the article. Also this ED article has a lot of information about the various security holes on TV Tropes.

74.120.13.132 (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you're looking for here. You describe our article as a "smear job", then suggest we add content about admins being assholes and the site having bad code & security holes. Wouldn't that be making it into a smear job rather than the reverse? Whom do you think it's currently smearing? I also don't see the point in adding detailed content on the wikia fork unless it's significantly popular or controversial, neither of which seems to be the case. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Weaseloid, that wouldn't count as a smear job. A smear job is spreading rumors. The admins being incompetent and the site having security holes are facts, not rumors.98.148.26.192 (talk) 05:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Really all I'm looking for is a mention of the copyright problems described in this article by Brent Laabs. I switched from TV Tropes to All The Tropes (the Orain fork) not over porn but because I wanted to work on a literary analysis wiki that remained free. Should the article mention the license change controversy? --Damian Yerrick (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Better yet: We could cover its owners' crusade against Private Browsing mode, which is another thing driving people toward the fork. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

All The Tropes is back up on the Miraheze service[edit]

Here:

https://allthetropes.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page

Leaving this in case you guys want to redirect any links to a working site. Arcane (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEhaw! ALL THE TROPES CHAI VEKAYAM!!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Any Tropers out there?[edit]

That is, is there any RW editor who is also present there for more than simply browsing pages for hours? --Panzerfaust (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

TV Tropes as a drug[edit]

If I asked you to take meth for a year or read TV Tropes 12 hours a day for a year then stop, which habit would it be easier for you to break?