Although some of the users have authored published works, most of the shows and books documented on the website are not "theirs". Also, not every article is on TV Tropes is a trope. Only entries in the namespace Main/ are tropes.
Line 1:
Line 1:
−
A wiki devoted to classifying every minute detail of works of fiction. It contains an entry on Conservapedia, treating the site as one of its shows or books, in which Andrew Schlafly is treated as a character in order to mock his values.
+
A wiki devoted to classifying the tricks and trades of writing fiction. It contains an entry on Conservapedia, treating the site as a show or book, in which Andrew Schlafly is treated as a character in order to mock his values.
==Problems with TV Tropes==
==Problems with TV Tropes==
===Bloat===
===Bloat===
−
Users of the site have too much time on their hands and are obsessed with television shows, such as the vacuous occult teen drama ''Buffy the Vampire Slayer''. Consequently they need excuses to make new pages. As a result most of the entries are over specialized variations of other entries. Effectively every individual scene, character or theme, no matter how specific, is classified as a "trope" and turned into an article.
+
Users of the site have too much time on their hands and are obsessed with television shows, such as the vacuous occult teen drama ''Buffy the Vampire Slayer''. Consequently they need excuses to make new pages. As a result most of the entries are over specialized variations of other entries. Effectively every individual scene, character or theme, no matter how specific, can be turned into an article, even if they are not tropes as such. The official policy is that "There Is No Such Thing As Notability", the only qualifying factor for page creation is that the subject must actually exist.
===Soapboxing===
===Soapboxing===
A non fiction educational wiki has been shoe-horned into TV Tropes as a way for the liberal editors to criticize it.
A non fiction educational wiki has been shoe-horned into TV Tropes as a way for the liberal editors to criticize it.