Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not TV Tropes
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
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's 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:
- Long plot summaries
- Overly detailed character sheets that list every trope and plot device associated with a character
- Separating subjective content into its own sub-pages
- Giving trivia its own section, although it was prevalent here for a while
- Long-winded discussions about whether an article should be renamed, cleaned up, merged, or deleted... oh, wait a minute
- In-jokes, at least not within articles
- Lists of memes associated with the work
- The term "lampshade hanging" for illogical moments/details that are acknowledged by the characters in a work
- CamelCase linking, although we did very early on
- Putting stinger jokes at the bottom of the page
- Disregard for the notability of a subject
- Able to mark certain details as spoilers. As for this reason, there is no spoiler warning in articles.
In short, due to these differences, you can visit TV Tropes 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.
Compare the following examples of how such articles should not / should look:
- Eco-terrorism in fiction: bad vs. good vs. TV Tropes
- Earth in science fiction: bad vs.
good vs. TV Tropes - Far future in fiction: bad (article's history deleted but still accessible at en.everybodywiki.com/Far_future_in_fiction) vs. good vs. TV Tropes
- Genies in popular culture: bad vs. good vs. TV Tropes
- Mars in fiction: bad vs.
good vs. TV Tropes - Neptune in fiction: bad vs. good vs. TV Tropes
- Space stations and habitats in fiction: bad vs. good vs. TV Tropes
- Supernovae in fiction: bad vs. good vs. TV Tropes
- Venus in fiction: bad vs. good vs. TV Tropes
See also
[edit]External links
[edit]- "We are not alone" index (list of tropes from TV tropes with a Wikipedia article)