Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:VP (policy))
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:VPP" redirects here. For proposals, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).
  Policy   Technical   Proposals   Idea lab   Miscellaneous  
The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.
If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try the one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.

« Older discussions, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114

Centralized discussion
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

AFDs and TFDs and CFDs[edit]

Subject was There should be a policy saying that AFDS and TFDS and CFDS shall be closed after 7 days open

I will not say anything more about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16:38, 22 July 2014‎

And I doubt anyone else will either, since you have given no explanation for your proposal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
No, they are closed as soon as enough people have given enough input to judge consensus. They generally remain open at least seven days to allow for enough people to contribute an opinion. But there is (nor should there be) any rule which requires them to be closed after seven days, sometimes they just need more input, and Wikipedia does not have a deadline. --Jayron32 16:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The policy is clear that discussion shall last at least 7 days. Sometimes there's extensive discussion, so it's permitted to continue. Sometimes there's not enough discussion, so it's extended. There's no way in hell that anyone will lock a discussion in to "7 days, no matter what", and it's a poor way to treat the community if we did the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Hooray! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI, IP seems to be upset about Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 22#Template:Infobox Simpsons episode. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I figured that, based on their contributions. I cannot fathom why they're in a hurry to have it closed, however. the panda ɛˢˡ” 18:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It is overdue for a mouth now. (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC) I am the same man as by the way. (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Add time and edits to autoconfirmed user criteria?[edit]

I think 4 days and 10 edits isn't enough. I don't have an idea yet, but I could get one with your help. I think there should be more time because,

  • Some people may not have enough experience
  • Some may just be trying to mess it up
  • Some may not understand the policies yet

There are a lot of reasons. EMachine03 (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

A long time ago, I thought it would be a good idea to add a pop quiz with 4-5 questions super basic questions, about things like the 5 pillars, TPG, AGF, Consensus, DR or whatever. Something more than nothing, to show a user is not only intersted in editing but also interested in learning. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
An underlying principle of Wikipedia is that it be easy to get started. That is why the bar for autoconfirmation is deliberately set pretty low. Most vandals don't have the patience to wait 4 days and make 10 good faith to vandalize their preferred target. Newbies should not be expected to be perfect in order to edit semi-protected articles, semi protection is used only to keep bad-faith edits away. I once proposed that page creation be restricted to autoconfirmed users, and I still think that is a good idea. That might be a better pace to start raising the bar a little. Anyone who takes 10 seconds to set up an account can immediately create an attack page with massive BLP violations, but they can't edit many existing pages. That has never made sense to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that is a bit concerning and seems to be an ongoing problem. I agree with Beeblebrox that it might be better to start from there.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I thought the WMF rejected that? With the ongoing "death spiral" they won't accept it this time either, in a desperate attempt to fix editor retention.
Turning to the main issue, I remember when I joined Wikipedia. I easily made those ten edits in the first day, and then had to wait for the time to pass, so I think time accounts for keenness, and edits for competence (since bad edits can be picked up in the 4 day period) – so at any rate the edit count should be increased. However, I don't see that there are sufficient problems being caused by the low bar to warrant an increase. As Beeblebrox said, autoconfirmation/semiprotection is a test of faith, not competence, and I would be extremely uncomfortable having some sort of exam – that would genuinely repel contributors. BethNaught (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you guys for all of your input. I believe that it should stay where it is. EMachine03 (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarification Primary Sources[edit]

This is not in regards to any dispute, just wanting to clarify the concept of WP:Primary for myself. In recent instances I've cited, or wanted to cite, primary sources because of two reasons:

  • There was little to no English language documentation available and what there was either conflicting or was imprecise to the point of ambiguity
  • There was a significant number of secondary sources, however, there was significant conflict between them that did not reflect the facts of the primary source

My question is, strictly in the scope of laws and case law, is it reasonable/common sense to use a primary source if it uses plain language and/or it is obvious that OR/Syth is not occurring? Examples:

  • Secondary sources that are creating synth by stating something like "It is clear by the ruling that the scheme was illegal" when the primary source states a far less hyperbolic position which does not support the statement. (fictional case) Is it proper to cite secondary hyperbole or a primary source in such a case? If the former, how does one avoid OR/Synth without echoing hyperbole one knows to be false?
  • If no English documents are available for a subject, or are not entirely reliable due to interpretation of translations that do not match primary sources, is it better to go to a primary source or risk citing a secondary foreign language source which may dilute/change the meaning when translated?
Primary Source Text Google Translate Primary Source Google Translate Secondary Source

Artículo 646.- La mayor edad comienza a los dieciocho años cumplidos.

Article 646 -. Begins Older age at eighteen years old.

Article 646. Senior age begins at eighteen years old.

The above case, while the words were identical, it ends up that lower case and upper case are interpreted differently when translated (at least by Google). "La mayor edad" and "LA MAYOR EDAD" translated as "the older", however, "La mayor edad comienza" and "LA MAYOR EDAD COMIENZA" translated differently as "The older begins" vs "Senior age begins". Senior obviously has a very different interpretation in English. Obviously this highlights the pitfalls of citing foreign language sources and I don't want to get side tracked by that - they are well known and English is always preferred. It does highlight the problem of sourcing information for which no English source can be found, or established to have reliability, especially as it relates to subtleties and secondary source perspective. Is it more appropriate in this type of scenario to go straight to the primary source or should one use a secondary secondary source with a potentially bad translation (and not knowing if it's an Onion or a seniors home)?

(feel free to skip the rest it's just background info) The reason for this example is that, in this particular situation, WP:OR was occurring citing a document which listed "Visa for Mexican minors (under the age of 15): $14", which of course is not saying all minors are 15 and under, just that those 15 and under pay $14 for a visa. The previous state was uncited, so it isn't really appropriate for me to correct something without knowledge & proper citation. Not finding any, I went to the primary source and comparing two versions the surrounding text made the meaning obvious in both (section is called "Tenth Of Emancipation and Major Age", chapter heading immediately before the article was "CHAPTER II Major Age - Article 646..."). It happened again shortly after with Colombia - again no English sources and conflicting secondary sources.

The Spanish wiki uses the term "Mayoría de edad", however, looking into it I found that can mean many similar things which have different implications. I'd come across secondary sources that appeared to be appropriate, it says Colombia in the top right and states the info without confusion, though it is actually about Argentina. I only knew this because the primary source was 1977 not 2009. I was able to find an index of formal terms in other languages indicating "age of majority" as translating to "mayoría de edad civil", this ended up being accurate. I still ran into the same issues found in English where the term is not used ubiquitously between regions. Also as found frequently in English secondary sources, they often confused terms or used informal terms so that "mayoría de edad" referred to ages of criminal/marriage/consent (among other things). — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMJimmy (talkcontribs) 05:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's a source for "mayor edad" meaning age of majority: (since it's talking about Spain, it says it's 21). --NE2 19:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
"Mayor edad" can also mean "senior", "older", "full age", "legal age", "majority", "oldest", "old age" etc depending on the dialect/region, sex, modifiers, or if used as a noun or an adverb JMJimmy (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
You should't use sources you don't understand. If you have to use a computer translation to try to make any sense out of it, you don't understand it. An editor who cites a source written in a language other than English should be fluent in the language the source is written in. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Untrue. While human translations are preferred, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources states "When using a machine translation of source material, editors should be reasonably certain that the translation is accurate and the source is appropriate.". With my experience sorting out the English definitions I was exceedingly careful not to use a source I couldn't verify. That diligence led to this question, the desire is to avoid citations I can't verify. My research for this article is going to require dozens of languages at minimum. 20:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMJimmy (talkcontribs)
The editor need not be fluent; however, for most European languages, it's easy to find someone who is. You can always ask for help if you don't understand a source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Definitely. I was eying some of the less common languages with active users on the translators list as a good place to start. JMJimmy (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Video/computer games - playing style[edit]

One of the most important things to game players is how the game is played, whether it's "table top," "third person" or "first person", etc. Yet whether or not this is mentioned on a wiki page is arbitrary, some put it in the intro, others in the game play section or in the right hand panel and more than often, it isn't mentioned at all.

I would like to suggest that all right hand panels mention the playing style.--Bwilderbeast (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

(I hope this is the right place to bring this up, I searched around and couldn't find anywhere better, if I'm wrong, point me in the right direction.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwilderbeast (talkcontribs) 17:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no one is stopping you from adding the information to the article yourself. You're quite allowed to make Wikipedia better. --Jayron32 18:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Just be prepared to have it changed on you. There's a lot of disagreements out there as to what type they fall into, genre issues aside (see Roguelike and Diablo 3), there's the problem of multiple camera options (Elder Scrolls has 1st or 3rd person, as do many racing games, etc), issues like isometric vs top down, third person fixed vs interactive vs tracking vs cinematic vs mixed, etc. I don't want to scare you off from adding the info, just want to make sure you know what you're getting into. JMJimmy (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
As a member of the VG project, we actually do encourage explaining the basic genre style of a game, that's part of our guidelines. The genre should be in the lead, and in the gameplay section, elements like if its a first-person perspective or third-person one, or top down/side view, etc. should be explained. It's probably inconsistent with newer editors. Though keep in mind we try to avoid making gameplay sections read like strategy guides - enough to give the idea of what's going on but not too much detail that will bore someone that doesn't play video games. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies and advice. I'll make an edit when appropriate but systematically going through them, especially as I've only played a tiny fraction and new ones are released everyday is a labour for Sisyphus. Also, if it's already in the guidelines, there isn't much more that can be done on a system level. --Bwilderbeast (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Muhamad Peace be upon him[edit]

Hi, I see quite frequently that random people, mostly IP add peace be upon him to every article that contains name Muhamad. Is that supposed to be reverted? And if so, with which reason? Thanks Petrb (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's supposed to be removed per WP:PBUH. Johnuniq (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Just remove it. Perhaps 'Wikipedia is not a prayer book' should be added to WP:NOT but I think this is adequately covered under WP:NOTPROMOTION. Dmcq (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Language and cross-cultural sensitivity[edit]

And RFC/!Poll is underway on questions of potentially offensive language, standard written English, etc. Input and any new ideas requested. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Bitcoin[edit]

As a longtime contributor of contents to Wikipedia, I was quite displeased reading today that the Foundation has chosen to accept donations "in bitcoins".
I understand that the Foundation is actually accepting dollars from Coinbase, that come from the sale of bitcoins that people send them. Still, this highly visible decision helps lend an undeserved credibility to bitcoin, that may induce unwary people to put their money into an investment of extremely high risk (to put it very mildly), in a market that is infested with scammers and incompentent entrepreneurs. Just at MtGOX, over than half a billion dollars were stolen from people who had trusted bitcoin, sometimes with all their life savings; and that was only one of hundreds of thefts and scams that have been reported.
Bitcoin was ostensibly desigedn to provide a method for e-payment that would be cheap, safe, convenient etc. It has yet to prove that it can do that, and the more it is examined and used, the more elusive that goal seems to be. But many of the most ardent "believers" liked it because they thought that it would allow them to evade bank and government controls, and thus be a safe way to pay for drugs and other illegal services, evade taxes, launder criminal money, and so on. Having realized that bitcoin is not at all "safe" in that sense, that segment of the community is quietly abandoning bitcoin and betting on other (hopefully) "truly anonymous" crypto-coins.
Another unstated but widely assumed promise of bitcoin was that, as a currency with no central managing authority, it would free the world from the oppressive oligopoly of big international banks and government monetary agencies. But the "mining" of bitcoin, which is the ostensibly volunteer and uncoordinated activity that keeps the system running, is already dominated by two or three large enterprises; so that the eventual success of bitcoin would merely exchange a few dozen poorly regulated international banks for a much smaller clique of totally unregulated "mining" corporations, whose owners are largely unknown.
Another class of early adopters hoped to pull the "private fiat money" scam: namely, create a currency that is not backed by any asset, convince some people to use it for trade, and, when it has become sufficiently well-accepted, take out of their closets a large stock of that currency that they saved for themselves, and use it to buy a fortune worth of other property. About 90% of all existing bitcoins are currently hoarded, perhaps more than half of them acquired by their current owners for pennies. For those early investors, the scam could pay off handsomely today, whether they sell their bitcoins or use them to buy goods through Coinbase and other processors. Their profit will come from the pockets of those who buy those coins, from them or from Coinbase; unless they too can find "greater fools" who will take over their loss by buyin their coins at a higher price.
It is worth reminding people that the price of bitcoin is not pegegd to anything, and no one can honestly predict what it will be next year, or even next week. Since last year, it has been determined almost entirely by speculative trading in the Chinese bitcoin-yuan exchanges. Since the all-time high of 1200$ last November, brought about by the opening of the Chinese market, the price has crashed to 400$, then recovered to 800$, then tumbled to 450$, then rallied to 600$, and is now again on its way down. All these swings were due to the Chinese day traders reacting to policies and events in China, that had no relevance to the world's or Chinese economy except to the Chinese bitcoin market. And its price is not connected to its potential utility as a currency of commerce, since such use has been prohibited in China.
For all that, and more, I hope that the Wikipedia Foundation will reconsider their decision and distantiate again themselves from this highly dubious enterprise.
--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree Bitcoin values are very volatile. It is more of a challenge I guess to "experts" who think they know when the right time to sell is. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
If turning bitcoins to cash is good enough for the US Government U.S. government to auction massive bitcoin trove I find it difficult to image that Wikipedia doing the same is going to have more significant impact on "undeserved credibility" of bitcoins. Jeepday (talk) 10:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The U. S. Government is required by law to auction all seized property. (And I have much more respect and admiration for Wikipedia than for the U. S. Government...) --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
That has the ring of untruth, see: Bureau of Prohibition CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Obviously "all seized property that can be legally sold to the public" --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Crazy idea, if you don't think people should donate to Wikipedia in Bitcoin. Don't donate to Wikipedia in Bitcoin. People far smarter than either of us have fallen for schemes much riskier or invested in ways far more volatile, it is not your job or Wikipedia's to decide what people do with their money. It is Wikipedia's job to remain in operation. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It is doing pretty well compared to every fiat currency in the world which are all currently diving towards zero. Chillum 16:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

lolwut --NE2 16:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia refused to accept donations in bitcoin before in order to avoid endorsing this highly dubious commercial enterprise. It was a good decision, and their giving in to the bitcoin salesmen is deplorable. That is it. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is far beyond the scope of any policy for the English encyclopedia, however for what it's worth I think the foundation should accept gifts of any currency. — xaosflux Talk 17:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but where should I voice my concern then? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I would start with the links on this page: Talk 17:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Also m:Foundation_wiki_feedback. — xaosflux Talk 18:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I will try over there. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
They're accepting donations in buttcoin, not speculating in it. I bet I could mail them a broken Atari ET cartridge and they'd accept it as a donation (meaning they wouldn't take the time to send it back). --NE2 18:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
And for something like BitCoin, they recognize it is volatile, thus are actually having anyone who wants to donate one sell it at market value (via Coinbase), and keeping a fiat currency. — xaosflux Talk 18:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Did you actually read the blog post? The WMF doesn't actually keep any bitcoin. It gets immediately converted to USD and then transferred to the foundation. Legoktm (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
If you are directing that reply to me: Yes, I know that WMF gets dollars from Coinbase (see the second parag of my post). I am upset about the way the Jul/30 announcement was worded, it read as an endorsement of bitcoin. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
PS And all the bitcoin media is now boasting that "Wikpedia now accepts bitcoin" or even "Wikipedia adopts bitcoin". --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Not seeing how this is a policy problem. You'd want to direct this comment to the WMF itself. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC , take 2[edit]

So I closed my prior RFC as it was suggested that it was malformed I've re-opened it here . Your input would be appreciated. Kosh Vorlon    10:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Europe 1 logos unable to move to Commons.[edit]

I noted than the logos of the Europe 1 are unable to move to commons, because there is a notice than the Treshold of originality, in France, is lower than in the USA (as explained in the correspondient description of the bellow files). But, As I seen, the logos are too, too simple to meet the Treshold of originality (them consist only in simple text using somewhat common font with simple background). I already moved the latest logo form fr:Wikipedia to Commons (without objections form french users and admins), because this file also I consider bellow the Treshold of originality.

Thanks in advance for your comments. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Replace most citations linking to TV Tropes[edit]

I have a proposal for improving certain citations on Wikipedia, but I have an obvious bias so I'm taking it here first.

I'd like to propose that most citations linking to information on the TV Tropes website be converted to citations at the All The Tropes website instead. All The Tropes is a wiki fork of TV Tropes content with content from July 2012, back when TV Tropes had a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. I am an administrator of All The Tropes.

However, I feel that All The Tropes citations would serve the Wikipedia community better in quite a few ways.

All The Tropes offers better attribution of content than TV Tropes
Because All The Tropes uses Mediawiki rather than a Pmwiki kludge, citations can link to specific versions of pages as sources.
When Wikipedia content is copied, a note will appear in the edit history. Correct attribution is highly enforced by the staff. In many cases, All The Tropes has a more complete edit history than TV Tropes, because history is periodically deleted at TV Tropes while All The Tropes maintains a full revision history.
TV Tropes continues to steal content from Wikipedia editors
Copying between Wikipedia and TV Tropes used to be legal, as they shared the same CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Many users did so. However, In July 2012, TV Tropes unilaterally changed its content license to CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0. As of November 11, 2013, they changed the license again, and now assert ownership retroactively over all its content. Some of this content was originally created by editors on the English Wikipedia.
Random example of unsourced copying on Wikipedia, because I only find these occasionally: Manhua/TheOne on TVT] and The One (manhua). (Internet Archive version, just in case.)
TV Tropes' actions are a clear violation of the CC-BY-SA license, and the creative and property rights of Wikipedia editors. A full explanation of this is available on my blog, and was a topic of discussion on Hacker News.
The TV Tropes Foundation has made the conscious and willful decision to steal content from its own editors, and from the editors of the various Wikimedia Foundation projects, including English Wikipedia. I emphasize that was not the actions of individual editors copying articles -- which was legal and ethical at the time it was done -- but actions of the administration and ownership of TV Tropes.
All The Tropes is more useful to the Wikipedia community
Because we use Mediawiki and the same license, content can be copied from All The Tropes to Wikipedia (and hopefully citations added soon after, 'cause, y'know). This promotes an open knowledge ecosystem.
Content from TV Tropes cannot be copied anywhere, because it's a potentially illegal mix of CC-BY-SA, CC-BY-NC-SA, and private ownership -- and it's impossible to know when or if pages were effectively relicensed due to a lack of use of a binding Terms of Service or license agreement on TV tropes. Simply by having links to it, Wikipedia could induce illegal copying of what is ostensibly CC-BY-NC-SA content, but is in fact infringing. Again, full explanation here.
All The Tropes is a noncommercial entity
We run no advertising; we have no income. All The Tropes is supported by the nonprofit Orain wiki farm. TV Tropes is a for-profit corporation distributing content with a noncommercial license.

So: It is functionally, legally, and morally advantageous to convert most TV Tropes citations to use another wiki.

There are other forks of TV Tropes which would be just as good for linking w.r.t. this proposal, but All The Tropes, and its official Wikia mirror are the only ones that forked more than a small portion of the TV Tropes content.

Some links to TV Tropes should remain as relevant to the specific site and its forums; all links should be checked to see whether they in fact serve as appropriate sources on either site. There are a significant number of link, see the list of links to TV Tropes (currently 1956 links).

Anyway, someone should let User:Speededdie know I brought this up, as it is his site that would be affected by this. BrentLaabs (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Question: Is the content of either of these wikis composed by professional journalists and authors, and selected for publication, after fact-checking, by an editorial staff? Does the content at specific URLs remain fixed once published, rather than changing over time so that citations could become inaccurate? If not, why are there citations in Wikipedia to either of these sites? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
The answer to this question would be no, as both wikis have a userbase little different than those on WMF projects. However, as to why such links are available, it would be because certain concepts, such as tropes and related topics have articles here, and for the longest time, TV Tropes has been the go to source for further research and citations, given it's level of notability. However, due to the reasons my colleague outlined above (I am also an admin on All The Tropes [both sites]), linking to TV Tropes for the most part should be considered inadvisable, and we offer our sites as legally tenable alternatives. GethN7 (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
To answer your question, Anne: the answer is no. Neither site would qualify as a reliable source. Resolute 23:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Good question.
- TV Tropes All The Tropes
Professional authors on an editorial staff same as Wikipedia same as Wikipedia
Selected for publication yes for tropes, no for works yes for tropes, no for works
Fixed URLs no and loses edit history yes (as Wikipedia)
The general idea is that tropes wikis make a good secondary source, but are not typically intended to be a primary source. They provide more information and research, but the original creative work is still considered the primary source, as well as any other linked information. In some cases, particularly webcomics and online works, they are very highly sourced on the page (e.g. xkcd). Pages undergo peer review in a process similar to every other wiki out there.
Tropes are selected for publication on the basis that the pattern exists in media, and specific sources ("examples") are provided. They're also selected on the basis of whether or not the trope is used for as a storytelling tool, or just incidental to human existence ("People Sitting on Chairs" is the classic non-qualifier).
Neither wiki has professional staff. Transfer of money should not be a requirement for an open-source, free content model site like Wikipedia. We attempt to run on the same pattern as the Portland Pattern Repository. If that's not good enough, Wikipedia should remove all links to the original wiki as well.
Hope that answers your questions! BrentLaabs (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, aside from articles that are about the sites themselves, I can see that links to the trope sites may legitimately be found in the "External links" section. I had a look at the list of links; well over half are to user pages and talk pages, so we wouldn't want to change those in any case. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
TVTropes is the pinnacle of an WP:SPS; there's no editor checking, and while the site users do try to maintain order, there's no verifiability or reliability. As such, save if we are talking about TVT itself as the site (as would be the case of its actual article) or a meta-aspect about TVTropes (for example if talking about a certain type of trope that has notability outside TVT, with these other sources point to TVT for some reason), we should never use the site as a reference nor should be included as an EL. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm... about being "professional": I agree that an author doesn't necessarily have to have been paid for a particular piece of work for it to be considered a reliable source - but there should be some kind of track record, training, or other reason to believe that they are an expert. On a lot of blogs and wikis people don't even use their own names, so it's impossible to tell what writing or editorial or fact-checking experience the person may have. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree with those who are saying that neither TV Tropes nor All the Tropes are the sort of reliable sources we would normally want. The question is... is there anything better? Is there such a thing as a reliable source for Tropes? Tropes are in many ways the ultimate "Pop culture" cultural reference... like many other pop culture topics, we are probably not going to find the sort of high level sources that we really would like. Blueboar (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
No, not really, and it shouldn't be our job to fill in this "blank" about pop culture. Most tropes do not simply get coverage, and effectively TVT is a home for WP:NEO. There are cases where TVT will follow available source - etc. such as for Jumping the shark but most of the rest are from popular opinion, and that's against how WP writes articles (specifically considering notability). And this is speaking as an editor there too.
That said, I will add one thing that came to mind that if we are talking about a specific trope that already has an article due to notability from other sources, then including the TVT link to that trope as an EL is similar to adding an external well-maintained Wikia link to a specific show/movie page, which we do allow as long as it's demonstrated the Wikia is well-maintained, and that's not a question for TVT. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point that linking to TV Tropes can be construed as inducing copyright infringement. I suppose that's more of an Office issue, though. BrentLaabs (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Above I asked of the two Trope wikis had fixed content at a specific URL, and the answer for All the Tropes was yes, like Wikipedia. But this is one of the things that makes Wikipedia not a reliable source: The text on a particular page can change at any time, so if an article is written and a Wikipedia page is cited as verification, by the time someone is reading the article and clicks on the link to a Wikipedia page, the content could be significantly different from when the link was created. This is in contrast to a newspaper, magazine or book, where once the text is published it stays the same in that edition, and can be quoted years later.
You mean like this this link here that will always have your last comment, and which even describes itself as a permanent link? Even the Tools section to the left says "Permanent link" for easy access. Because there is revision control, wikis are typically better at permanent content than newspaper websites, which update stories and occasionally change URLs. All The Tropes -- same software, same feature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrentLaabs (talkcontribs) 06:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)