Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not TV Tropes

"WP:TVTROPES" redirects here. For the use of TV Tropes as a source, see WP:RSPTVTROPES.

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:

  1. Long plot summaries
  2. Overly detailed character sheets that list every trope and plot device associated with a character
  3. Separating subjective content into its own sub-pages
  4. Giving trivia its own section, although it was prevalent and accepted here for a while
  5. Long-winded discussions about whether an article should be renamed, cleaned up, merged, or deleted... oh, wait a minute
  6. In-jokes, at least not within articles
  7. Lists of memes associated with the work
  8. The term "lampshade hanging" for illogical moments/details that are acknowledged by the characters in a work
  9. CamelCase linking, although we did very early on
  10. Putting stinger jokes at the bottom of the page
  11. Disregard for the notability of a subject
  12. Able to mark certain details as spoilers. As for this reason, there is no spoiler warning in articles.
  13. Article titles for certain works and subjects are stylized if that is how they are officially presented
  14. Once an article is locked, only the mods and certain users are allowed to edit it.
  15. Once a subject is deemed to be too controversial, inappropriate or is no longer worth covering, it is not allowed to talked about or referenced at all
  16. The edit history of articles are unavailable to non-users
  17. Certain subjects are only allowed to be covered once a specific time limit has passed
  18. Users can be suspended or banned without warning. Furthermore, in addition to legitimate reasons, they can also be suspended or banned over minor and/or trivial matters.

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: