Talk:TV Tropes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 20, 2008 Articles for deletion No consensus
December 8, 2008 Articles for deletion Deleted
May 15, 2009 Deletion review Overturned


Tvtropes is commercial? how come? (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Presumably due to the fact that it's funded by advertisemetns. (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, they have to afford the cost of maintaining servers, don't they? -- (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
That still makes them commercial. Look at us we're run through donations and don't have any advertising. I Feel Tired (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The "personal appeal from Jimmy Wales" is not really different from advertising. Does that mean Wikipedia is now commercial? (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes?Stargirl806 (talk) 05:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Serious necro, but appeals are different in that he didn't advertise some other company who is paying him for the ads. He was advertising this site, or its need for money… -- (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Watch out[edit]

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 (talk) 11:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

xkcd comic reference under "tvtropes will ruin your life"[edit]

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 (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, removed. Shreevatsa (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
On tv tropes, we use it either way though. it DOES waste alot of time... (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2012 (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)

Update: Found the year and month here. I'm still worried it might get cut from the page, but I guess we'll see. --DocumentN (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
It WOULD be deleted if it where to be put in the page (see WP:SPS). Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it qualifies as WP:ABOUTSELF (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

References to Wikipedia[edit]

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 (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say no, unless it's mentioned by a sourceable (and notable) third party. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, the irony [1]. -- (talk) 07:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, doesn't Wikipedia policy dictate that we shouldn't have a page relating to TVTropes, due to their slighting of us at every opportunity? (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
That "slighting" isn't particularly venomous, and is generally done in a very tongue-in-cheek manner; furthermore, it would be stupid of Wikipedia to have such a policy. --LordNecronus (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
We don't have a policy like that. If we did, the Conservapedia article wouldn't exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
As LordNecronus indicates, TV Tropes isn't hostile to Wikipedia. See, for example, their article on the different editing styles demanded by the two wikis, Dr Pedia and Mr Trope. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Meh. It's mostly done in a humorous sort of way, anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrospark (talkcontribs) 16:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
And for that matter, one can be both a Wikipedian and a Troper. I am.
Such a policy would be similar behavior to the policy on TV Tropes, where any content that criticizes the site is forbidden from being documented. (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

TV tropes will ruin your life[edit]

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 (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Both definitions are commonly used by tropers. "I just spend five hours reading articles. TV Tropes Has Ruined My Life." and "I just referred to my cat as a Magnificent Bastard. TV Tropes Has Ruined My Life." are both par for the course on the forums. Nyktos (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
It basically means that TV Tropes will ruin your life in general, both reasons are correct. However, we talk about how the site makes you more aware of tropes (and therefore less likely to enjoy fiction) because the "addictiveness" of the site is just an opinion. Unknownlight (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Um...isn't the idea of TV Tropes ruining your enjoyment of fiction just an opinion as well? It certainly hasn't ruined my enjoyment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that the addiction part should also be mentioned. Reaper21 (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe it's not as much an opinion as a localized meme. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
It is the title of a page on the site, where they mention the various effects of "seeing the trees instead of the forest" as mentioned, as well as the ridiculous addictive traits of the site. I think an article about the critisism of the site should include the responses defending the site. ( and TvTropesWillEnhanceYourLife for citations. ) (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
It's no different than the phenomon that occurs when you are a film student, or take advanced writing classes. Once you spend time deconstructing the media to understand the base concepts... ala tropes. It becomes difficult to not deconstruct every thing you see. Which is part of the reason I don't take "critics" opinion very seriously, because they only see the deconstructed aspects. Halcyonforever (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2010 (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 (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the source of the above assertions? -- 2001:558:6011:1:74F2:9421:4EFD:C243 (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I apologise if I sounded mean spirited. -- (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

An incredible resource[edit]

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)

You could always add it to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not/Outtakes. After all, that page already has such gems as "Wikipedia is definitely not Stonkers", so why not. :) — (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Added! Raekuul, bringer of Tropes (He does it without notability) 02:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually I don't think its so good a resource, since its fueled by the same people who fuel youtube: people who can edit it whenever they want. They don't even have to let you sign in, and of course its very "opinioned". User:Super Mario fan —Preceding undated comment added 00:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC).
True, TV Tropes is anonymously editable and sometimes opinionated, but then so is Wikipedia. If you think a TV Tropes page is opinionated, you can always refactor the natter in an example into brilliant prose. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 13:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Then again, wikipedia itself isn't that good of a resource is it? Some scandals caused by wikipedia even appear in the news sometimes. But wikipedia at least is complete knowledge, and no opinions, with references. But Tvtropes is much worse, its incredibly opinioned, it even says its informal on the main page, and Natter just refers to a conversation, as opinions can still be in there and theres still YourMilageMayVary which is of couse opinions. It has no references either, and it has theres no such thing as notability so that they count even FAN COMICS as notable examples or even arguments to prove their point. As it has no references, many of its "information" can be false, and is as I'e seen more than several times. User:Super mario fan 8:34 June 11 2010 (UTC)
I think it might provide a good external resource for practices in fiction such as Redshirt (same as Metal-Archives is good as an external resource for metal bands with pages on the site). I wouldn't say TV Tropes is particularly opinionated, though; they tend to be neutral, but humourous in their writing style (as far as a neutral perspective can take that). There are opinionated pages on there, but they tend to be marked as "subjective". --LordNecronus (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
While Tvtropes is INCREDIBLY entertaining, I don't think its a good external resource, for the main reason: you can't tell if its true or not. There are no citations and references. There are no way to tell if its true or not. Plus, Tvtropes is a wiki. Wikis are just in general not a good resource. They're edited by users as Super mario fan mentioned above, even more than wikipedia, due to not having to log in at all for any page. Wikipedia has some locked pages. Besides all sites like Urban Dictionary, Uncyclopedia, Encyclopedia Dramatica, Tvtropes etc. are bad resources. Youtube is actually better than all of them. And of course everyone knows wikipedia does not allow youtube as a resource. And its also very opinionated, if you compare say, the Super Mario Galaxy 2 article from here, and their Super Mario Galaxy 2 article. Finally, Tvtropes isn't even that well known. Tvtropes is actually pretty obscure to most people. (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Tv Tropes started requiring log-ins to edit a while back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
TV Tropes has quite a few locked pages. For example, try editing their page on Lolicon. Apart from that, though, you have a good point. Though from first-hand experience I can say that they're trying to tone down the opinionated things on the site; they probably won't ever succeed, considering how many people editing the site actually do think it's for them to voice their opinions, but they can give it a try. --LordNecronus (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, they have locked pages all right, but as they themselves say it, "They're not wikipedia, they don't lock pages often". Super mario fan (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
True, they do certainly lock pages less. Part of the reason for that may be because they don't need to lock pages as often as we do; being a smaller site, they have less trouble with vandalism and edit wars. --LordNecronus (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Really? I've always thought it was because they allowed it more often, and when things get out of hand, they ban them more than we do. But I guess thats not true then. Super mario fan (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Tv Tropes is indeed less formal and more opinionated. But generally when adding a work example to a trope page, unless the trope is inherently subjective (i.e. whether a scene was a Tear Jerker or a movie was So Bad It's Good), you are documenting a statement of fact: that Harry Potter had a lot of Chekhov's Guns or that Star Trek depended heavily on Redshirts. In those cases where the TV Tropes page could replace a Trivia or "examples in other media" section, referencing it should be a good idea.

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)

Robin Hanson[edit]

How is what he says about the site relevant for this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Because he included it in a reference book, and thus it helps establish the sites notability. — trlkly 03:09, 20 June 2010 (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 (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The above refers to a previous edit, which I hopefully fixed at least until proper attribution can be determined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:51, 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 ottersOne batOne 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! (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Number of articles[edit]

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) (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Try here:

The Great Crash and The Situation[edit]

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. (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. (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, The Great Crash happened several years ago, unrelated to The Situation. (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. (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant, it had a huge effect on the culture of TV Tropes. No one's suggesting editing this article every time TV Tropes goes down, but this was a big event. ♥ «Charles A. L.» (talk) 19:53, 21 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)

It really dosn't matter if it's "irrelevant to wikipedia", as this page isn't about Wikipedia, is it? The great crash was a major event, much like the PS3 hacking incident recentally. It wasn't just another time a website went down, literally all of the website was lost and had to be rebuilt from scratch. If the PS3 hack is on wikipedia, this should be too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joesolo13 (talkcontribs) 20:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it does matter if it's "irrelevant to Wikipedia", as the page is on this site. --UserJDalek 05:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

These two things would work great in a history section. (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Revert war removing/re-adding content: discuss, please.[edit]

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 (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)

Suitability as an external link[edit]

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. --Elonka 20:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

To be precise, the question under discussion there is: does this site come under the exception in WP:ELNO no.12 of having "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
As a followup, this is now being brought to a wider audience to try and determine a site-wide consensus on the matter, not just at the Lackadaisy article but at other articles as well. Interested editors are invited to comment at WP:ELN#TV Tropes. --Elonka 22:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Trope Renaming Controversy[edit]

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 (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 (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

can we get this site a temperary protection so the issues can be resolvedMeatsgains (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section?[edit]

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 (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If the criticism comes from reliable sources, then definitely feel free to add it. —C. Raleigh (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Please do. I'd like to see some of the criticism. (I have several myself) (talk)
Tried.A quick Google search found blogs and forums, nothing 'notable'.The biggest one was 'Encyclopedia dramatica', and it is not a reliable (or sane) site. (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
My apologies for resurrecting this topic, but would this source be considered sufficient, as evidence of criticism and controversy? Link. It is from ThinkProgress, which some Googling shows has been used as a source in some other Wikipedia articles, such as Global Warming. Ganonsghost (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
That link is about the "situation" as discussed above. It is controversial as to whether a decision to ban pornographic related material is bad or not. (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Troper Tale was controversial. It was a place for people to provide real life examples based on their experiences of tropes provided. This led to lots of disturbing content to the point it was removed from the site. Here's the discussion
The Rape Tropes incident was also controversial. followed the controversy, but I don't know how reliable it is [2] and [3]. I have seen websites like that to be used as a source of info by Wikipedia (ie. iO9 in Twilight's page), however I have never seen TheMarySue, nor GeekoSystem (they're related), although I might have missed it, so I wonder if it's reliable.
From the website mentioned above, if it's seen as reliable, there's some other problems in the site if you read the articles. (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Is there any reliable sites to make a Criticism Section? (talk) 04:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Tvtropes closed[edit]

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) (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the claim is false or not. The site is certainly down, and currently redirects to a CITI Financial-owned (edit: actually it's domain ( However, the question is whether it was seized and shut down or merely hacked. I think that without some reliable source we can't say much at all right now. --NellieBly (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
It should also be noted that the person who made those edits has not contributed to Wikipedia in any way shape or form beforehand. Something is a little fishy here. (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Currently, a post from TVTropesNews on Twitter seems to say that the site is suffering from a denial-of-service (DoS) issue; I'm hoping that the site can be restored to operational status soon. It appears that the site is still active, but just unavailable at the moment. Fenyx5 (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
There was a DoS attack, but the site is back up at present. The Sparkpay thing was a configuration error, not a spoofing attempt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm still ending up with the SparkPlay page, and I already cleared all of my IE cookies (still able to access as normal on Chrome). Is there something I need to do with IE10? (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about this closure, but the site's been down the last few days. (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

That may just be a problem on your end; I've been able to get on just fine. LostCause231 (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

TV Tropes is down for hours, wiped off the net![edit]

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)

It has a splash screen up now indicating that upgrades are underway. (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, I don't get the splash screen anymore, which means one thing: TV Tropes is finally fixed! Yay! --Angeldeb82 (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

A problem[edit]

  • Whenever I try to go to any page after logging in, it just goes to google search instead. This recently started happening & I'm wondering when they will fix it.--Dinner101 (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Can somebody please help me out? I'm wondering why I can't log into TV Tropes anymore. If anybody has anything to say about this problem, please do so.--Dinner101 (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Why won't anybody say anything about my situation? I seriously want to know why I can't log into TV Tropes! --Dinner101 (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia is not a discussion forum to talk about the topic, but to discuss how to write an article about it; this is a voluntary project, and people around here is not interested in answering that kind of help desk questions. You may try luck at the Wikipedia:Reference desk, although problems with accessing TV Tropes are best asked at that site itself. If you need an account for that, you should create a temporary one to ask your question or try it from a different computer to see if the problem is only at your side. Diego (talk) 12:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

What's the point?[edit]

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 (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion[edit]

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)

Hello, Speededdie. The problem is that the main parts of the article are only referenced to the site itself, but Wikipedia articles should be referenced primarily by independent sources. I've found that the article was recreated from deletion thanks to several secondary, third party sources. The article's text should be expanded with the content of those references (which are used to support a single sentence each), so that it won't be as reliant on primary references as it's now. I've added a few new sources, and I'm planning to work on that expansion, including what the third party references have to say about the site. Diego (talk) 11:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
So Diego, Speededdie, I've had a crack at editing the page, mostly to emphasise some of the negative aspects and a few postive aspects in the critique. But yes, using language like "even" sounds like you're trying to get people onto that site which is a big no-no. The main section still read like an ad until 3 hours ago where I used WP:NPOV to clean it up. It was not really written in a way to concisely summarise the facts from a neutral perspective. Speeditor (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Obligatory conflict of interest disclaimer as I am a member of the staff of that website. @Speeditor: Much of what you added regarding the license thing is WP:SYNTHESIS; the policy page you cited does not say anything of a controversy or about it violating the license terms. That needs a different source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus:, I appreciate your concerns. Its my belief that you being part of that website is not really a problem until it becomes one. In fact, it may help the article be better referenced and avoid libel/false vindication. I have a source of a left editor who names his concerns in a blog post. There is also a factual article on the license change being without the permission of users there. Not sure whether this may count as complete controversy or just some controversy so I will amend it to be "some controversy". As for the licensing, there is a chart on the Wikipedia policy on Creative Commons that states that they are incompatible. My two pence. I appreciate this criticism and will add the correct referencing to ensure this content is not actually a violation of the relevant Wikipedia policy. I would also ask that the page is tagged as containing problematic content rather than it being removed because it is referencable.
The sources:
As for the lack of a DMCA and attribution to imported content under the license, I will retract that comment as it is probably true but the policy not stating something is not something to mention in an article on the site under WP:SYNTH.
Thank you, Speeditor (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I would like you to also note that I have not included an assertion that the content is not compatible though the graph in the first source very clearly states so. Any thoughts as to whether this sentence is a violation of WP:SYNTH?
"According to the official Creative Commons license compatibility chart, CC-BY-SA content is not mixable with CC-BY-NC content. The requirement for ShareAlike in commercial applications is cited as the reason for their incompatibility.[#]"
"#. "CC License Compatibility". Creative Commons Corporation. May 31, 2013. Retrieved September 3, 2015. "
@Speeditor: That does not strike me as synthesis. However, upon reviewing the rest I have to wonder if we ought to talk about a controversy at all. These two blog posts are not particularly good sources; WP:SPS specifically says that blog posts are not acceptable sources. Mayhaps we'll have to stick to "TVTropes changed its license terms on so-and-so date from A to B"; the claims of stealing someone else's work are not exactly uncontroversial lightweight claims. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I named a selection of their more defined objections @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, listed that they are from All The Tropes and that their views are contentions and arguments, not fact or valid opinion. I think I am straying on the sanitary side, read it again. I have been very careful to define the inclusions as vague and not really as concrete as they were before. But I admit that the inclusions in the article are a work in progress and that blog posts are not strong sources to go by. However, there are zero substitutable sources to replace them with and showing that there are opinions against a topic like in Criticism of the Quran (I am Muslim and I believe the Quran welcomes people to actually take a reasoned try to disprove it). But that's a bad example as not many have actually objected to this change outside the claims.
Note that the sources may make such overblown claims as "theft" and "copyright violation" that are ethically and legally unsound. But these haven't been included in the Wikipedia article and won't be, assuming that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I apologize for not cleaning up the edits before. There is the fact that the blog authors, as TV Tropes editors defecting to All The Tropes, may count as an exception of knowledgeable people on their subject. Though the use of "contend" is clearly meant to imply that they pose an argument.
Speeditor (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2015 (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. The source doesn't even say anything about separating anyway. Gune (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

And...? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Check the history. Gune (talk) 07:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)