Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
Red links are perfectly acceptable in articles, as it leaves it open for the article to be made and will already be linked. Red Link explains this.
I know more about obscure 1990s Middle Grade Literature novels and dolls than most people.
^ That's fair enough. Though I don't know if it exactly justifies the lack of discussion or at the very least a note from the user on the matter. I'll be waiting to see what people have to say on the matter of edit warring.
I'll leave that to the mods, but the page on Edit Warring says:
We generally recognize exceptions to the edit warring policy in cases where the editor is making an article compliant with wiki policies, such as removing a YMMV example from a primary article, correcting formatting, or reverting vandalism (such as, but not limited to, unexplained deletions). That said, if someone is edit warring already, continually reverting their work won't help even if it's correct. Get the moderators to deal with the situation instead of fighting a pointless battle.
I think this falls under article compliance with policies, but I Am Not A Mod. Edit Reasons should still be used, especially when removing any data.
Edited by Nethilia I know more about obscure 1990s Middle Grade Literature novels and dolls than most people.
I’ll take it a step further and say that creating red links for works is not only perfectly acceptable, it’s actually encouraged and supported by site policy. The thinking is that if someone creates a works page, it will automatically connect up with the red link.
^ Be that as it may, please see the previous response to the previous user; They still didn’t even bother to try to talk to me about it or atleast inform me that I misread the policy and made a mistake in hiding it. Not even so much as an edit reason, even though it wouldn’t be enough unless they went to an admin member about it and cited it.
I will quote the following: If person A adds/deletes something, person B removes/restores it, and A changes it back, A is edit warring.
They added something, I hid it and left an edit reason to give context, and then they changed it back without any discussion or admin permission as far as I know.
I will admit that hiding it was unnecessary; I’m not oblivious to that and I’ll take more care with reading that particular policy…but an edit war is an edit war; there needs to be transparency to avoid misunderstandings like this.
Whether or not that is an edit war, I’ll leave up to the mods.
Edited by Stardust5099
^ I'm not casting aspersions in this particular instance here (which I don't want to get into), just stating policy. There are tropers who don't know this, and it seems like a reasonable thing to bring up here.
Edited by BoltDMC
Bumping.
^^^^ See Nethilia's post above, there is no need to talk if the edit is making an article compliant with wiki policies: in this case, Red Link ("always link to works and creators even if they don't have a page yet, unless the page would violate The Content Policy"). They should have used edit reason, yes, but they didn't violate Edit War. Well, I'll send them an edit reason notifier after this message.
On the other hand, hiding it isn't right action either. If you think nobody would made a page for the work then just dewick the link would be more reasonable.
Edited by Kuruni
^ It should also be noted that Nethilia is not a mod so she can’t officially declare that this is an exception. I honestly hope isn’t declared as such, but it is what it is. If the mods don’t say anything on the matter, I’ll just assume they would have come to that conclusion and mark this as resolved.
But here’s my concern, because I’m noticing this alot; how many times are we going to make exceptions to the rules on what constitutes as an edit war simply because the change was following policy? A rule and set of procedures on edit warring and editing etiquette is beginning to seem pointless if no one is going to follow them anymore given that it’s basically being excused because what they did was within policy.
The lack of encouragement of transparency even in exceptions is problematic. If a link and a citation was atleast left behind by the opposite party when making that edit, then this could have been avoided.
Regardless on the outcome of this matter, I get the red link policy and I appreciate your citation on the matter; Seems like the only way to remedy this problem is to create a page for the red link so that it’s no longer a red link. I’m not upset with anyone, I’m just frustrated because the lines of edit warring are beginning to become blurred for better or for worse, and it’s just a tad bit confusing.
Edited by Stardust5099
I don't think any line is being blurred here. What constitutes an Edit War hasn't changed; it's still add-delete-add or delete-add-delete. I think that when it comes to cases like site policy, we have to take that into consideration.
That being said, weredragon didn't site any policy when undoing your edit, so I can understand why you would be frustrated with that. They may not even know about the red link policy.
Regardless of whether it pertains to policy or not, weredragon should have reached out before undoing your edit.
I never stated I was a mod, only that I remembered one of the major exceptions to "this is an edit war" is if the edit is to put an article into sitewide policy.
(Also I do not use they/them pronouns. I understand that's a default for gender neutrality, but I use she/her or zie/zem.)
Edited by Nethilia I know more about obscure 1990s Middle Grade Literature novels and dolls than most people.
^^^ "But here’s my concern, because I’m noticing this alot; how many times are we going to make exceptions to the rules on what constitutes as an edit war simply because the change was following policy?"
Always. The problem here is that Legendaryweredragon should've use edit reason (btw, they acknowledged it in response to the notifier).
"A rule and set of procedures on edit warring and editing etiquette is beginning to seem pointless if no one is going to follow them anymore given that it’s basically being excused because what they did was within policy."
That's slippery slope fallacy. Most of people who committed edit war aren't adhered to policy at all. The usual excuses are ignorant of the rule, forgot about their previous edit, or just because they think they're right.
Edited by Kuruni
^ I appreciate you acknowledging that they should have used an edit reason. However, my second statement is not a fallacy; it's a legitimate concern. It’s still important that people should atleast discuss these sorts of things with another even in the cases of an exception, or at the very least, leave a notifier to the other party so that they know what they did wrong. Otherwise, how are we supposed to learn from or understand each other here?
^^My apologies for that, Nethilia. I’ll make the fix on my comment immediately. I forgot that most people put their pronouns on their profile, and profiles on TV Tropes I tend to not look at too often since very few have them here, so that’s my bad. I’ll be more diligent with that next time, rest assured.
^^^ Thank you, Arctimon. I appreciate this. I tend to be very on guard with that sort of thing, especially when it comes to webcomic pages, so thats why I came to ATT in the first place. Personally I would have come here first if I had been on the opposite end of this scenario; I’m of the belief that its always important to confide with fellow tropes just incase.
In any case, so far no mod has chimed in so I think at this point it might be best for me to just declare this case to be resolved and just drop it. The community has pretty much declared this an exception so I see no point in me dragging this on any further, especially since there’s a more pressing matter I wish to bring up later.
Thanks to everyone who chimed in, and have a good day.
Edited by Stardust5099
A while back, legendaryweredragon left a red link on the page way back in 2021
on the Peter & Company page that said the following:
"The comic also has a sequel called Peter And Whitney which skips ahead to the characters in their college days after the guardians have left them."
I had decided to hide it
due to the fact that I remember reading that red links were frowned upon. I check the page a while later and I see that, without any sort of discussion or atleast an edit note, they undid my edit
which I'm pretty sure is considered edit warring given the lack of the former reason. Was there any sort of discussion either on ATT or in PMs with someone apart of admin before this change was made?
Edited by Stardust5099