Talk:TV Tropes Wiki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 May 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

I think we need some footnotes to the show site's notability. That's why I added the tag. I personally think that all wikis should at least have a stub here, but we need to prove notability to keep this away from a VfD. -- trlkly 04:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could provide a citation for the Lost reference to the Wiki, but all I know about it comes from private communications between Gus, the original Wiki maintainer, and JJ Abrams, part of which were shared with me at one point. -- "Looney Toons" 152.138.227.55 (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If we could get a small excerpt from that communique, that would be nice. All we need is Abrams's permission to post it here... Ideally, we'd eventually have a quote from Abrams in an external source talking about how he's used the site. But, if I remember correctly, primary sources are allowed in limited quantities for certain situations. See WP:SELFPUB.

ETA: Oh, and I changed the reference markup to the one used by Memory Alpha. I was going to use it for a template for the whole page, but I'm a little worried with the {{sources}} tag...-- trlkly 02:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so we also could do with a transcript of the DVD commentary of Lost Season 1, so we can quote and explain. In fact, it's more important than an excerpt of the communique, as it would be a secondary source. Thanks -- trlkly 13:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Now we have our entry on the Other Wiki. Awesome. ^_^ -- Da nuke (talk) 07:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Spread the word if you can. We could probably use more people who have actually contributed to that wiki, as they'll know more about it. It's been relatively easy to source most comments. -- trlkly 14:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Media attention

The WeirdestInboundLinkOfTheDay may possibly have some things that could be mentioned. There's John C. Wright, at least.

WP:V#SELF currently says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Does Wright being a published trope-using author make him an expert in the field of tropes? --DocumentN (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You'd probably have to verify the fact that he is a trope user from a source that claims it directly, in order to avoid WP:SYN. -- trlkly 22:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, it was mentioned in the AfD that a source is always good because WP <3 SOURCES, but it might be logically impossible to write a tropeless novel... --Kizor 14:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It might have been better to say that TV Tropes is a website about the field of fiction writing, and that Wright's novels count as third-party-published work in that field; but I don't really know. The writer of the policy might have have intended for information in an article about a website to have citations from publications about websites, or from experts in that field. --DocumentN (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The only reason for Wright needing to be an "expert" is because his information about TVTropes is posted in his blog, which is considered a primary resource, and is not normally permitted to be used on WP. The reason for the AfD was that WLU did not feel any of our other sources actually "discussed" TVTropes, but merely mentioned the wiki. It doesn't matter if it's a publication about websites; it just has to be a "peer-reviewed". This means someone other than the author had to approve of the content before it was "published". Most of the time, a person can post anything, whether true or not, in a blog. If Wright is considered an "expert", then we might be able to give his blog the benefit of the doubt. — trlkly 08:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)