Is No New Stock Phrases too strict?

Over on TLP Crash Rescue, we were debating whether the No New Stock Phrases policy is too harsh. Personally I believe that the policy should not infringe upon Clear, Concise, Witty, as perfectly clear titles for tropes that are not about stock phrases (at worst they are about dialogue patterns) have been contested simply for having personal pronouns or things that could sound like phrases in the title. Pronouncing My Name for You is one recent example, as it is about dialogue but not a stock phrase and using impersonal pronouns would muddle the clarity (as you'd have to use "they" for two subjects). And now recently is the draft No Wrong Answers Except That One, which has rotated through a variety of title suggestions due to possibly sounding like dialogue, but has a clear preference for the current among the community, because it clearly summarizes the kind of comedic conversation that happens with the trope and most other suggestions are too vague.

We talked about the latter in TLP Crash Rescue and are wondering if we are too strict on what counts as a stock phrase, as not everything that sounds like dialogue or even has certain pronouns is a stock phrase, and stock phrases are even still pitched but with titles that are not just dialogue. I think we need to focus this rule more on the trope itself and not just the title.

Edited by mightymewtron on Jan 9th 2022 at 6:57:09 AM

Yeah, I think the stricter wording was a necessity back when it was created, but nowadays it just stifles creativity and makes it harder to find decent titles. I especially think No Wrong Answers Except That One only counts on a technicality because it's a phrase someone might say, but it's also the best title and the only one clear enough on what the trope is.

The reason the rule exists is to curb new tropes being meaningless phrases that characters just say. But people cite it for every name of a draft that sounds like it could be dialogue. Even I might be guilty of it.

To be fair, the rule explicitly bans titles that sound like dialogue, so that's just people doing what the policy says to do.

The policy might have been a little rash but it was a problem with "stock phrase tropes" being proposed and going through because, hey, it is a common term. But there is a distinct difference between something as dry as Present Company Excluded (often just a meaningless gag) and something with more meat on it like You Are a Credit to Your Race (which says a lot more about the relationship between the characters), and I think the policy has unfortunately stifled better trope names from being used just because it sounds like a stock phrase.

The policy was meant to curb stock phrase tropes, but if a trope has a perfect name in a stock phrase that shouldn't be as big of an issue. Good examples should offer a little more information than "character says x" anyway.

Edited by EmeraldSource on Jan 9th 2022 at 5:53:54 AM

"Stock phrase" and "dialogue" shouldn't be interchangeable. Rarely does a stock phrase really make for a great trope name, because it's usually the title of a trope about that stock phrase. But a dialogue-ish title that summarizes a common type of interaction doesn't seem harmful to me at all.

For example, one of the mod-approved exceptions is Two Words: I Can't Count which is a dialogue title for a trope about dialogue, but it reflects something more than just the phrase being said (that the speaker is not counting correctly, probably due to being The Ditz), which is reflected in the self-demonstrating title.

Also, we need to make a distinction about a stock phrase trope and a dialogue-y title. The rule is meant to prevent people from making stock phrase tropes, but in practice it's mostly just used for making people change their titles.

The reason we have a rule about trope titles that look too much like lines of dialog is that they invariably become confused for that specific dialog rather than the underlying meaning or intent.

That can be contextually dependent, though. Something like Pronouncing My Name for You isn't likely to become a pothole magnet because it isn't very commonly said in works nor would it be likely used by tropers in conversation.

I've chafed against strict interpretations of the policy. If the stock phrase-y title is the most clear and concise and the reason for rejecting it is only a matter of principle, then an exception should be made. (There were no title alternatives on the Pronouncing My Name for You draft, and I argued against it being a stock phrase, or even a quasi-stock phrase.)

Is Pronouncing My Name for You a stock phrase, though? I can't remember ever hearing it said. Just because a trope title reads like part of a sentence doesn't mean that it runs afoul of that rule.

That's the issue, Fighteer. The way the page is written, any trope name that sounds like a line of dialogue is banned, regardless of if it qualifies as a stock phrase.

There is just no clear and obvious distinction between a stock phrase, dialogue and actual terminology. Tropes like Don't Explain the Joke may have a number of examples that use that term or something close to it, but also has a number of other great examples that aren't as on-point. Just because a number of examples use it as a stock phrase shouldn't preclude adopting it as a title, especially if the description and examples are clear it isn't just something that is said. Some tropes like My Favorite Shirt have done perfectly well because the trope is innately about more than just shirts.

I've been bothered by the rule since I came across this draft, which is very strong and has been around for years but hasn't been able to get off the ground because it was called Swords to Plowshares. Personally, I don't think that parable is common enough that it would be misused, and the times when the parable is seen would almost certainly be examples of the trope... but it's a stock phrase, so the draft has stalled out.

The current proposed name, Tactical to Practical, is cute but nowhere near as descriptive, which is why no progress has been made on it. I honestly feel like the rules are heavily constricting a viable trope for arbitrary reasons. The only argument against the original title in the comments is "because the mods said so".

There have been many, many titles that ended up being chosen lately that I quite honestly think suck, and yet they “had” to be chosen.

I get it on some level, because it was the problem with tropes like Not So Different, but some of these are so much more specific or full of context that they aren’t going to get used every time that string of words is written on the wiki.

Or maybe we're too eager to launch new tropes. Carefully examine whether what you're putting in TLP really adds a necessary distinction.

…huh? I have to say, Fighteer, I’m not sure how that relates to this discussion.

Yeah, I don't think that's really a fair assumption to make. The TLP hasn't had a bad track record lately in producing decent tropes, the biggest issues are people being too eager on the launch button. The titles of those tropes aren't indicative of their overall quality or purpose...

Yeah, trope titles usually aren't the biggest problem with new drafts recently, though they can be a big one. It's usually problems with a bad description that isn't resolved yet.

Edited by mightymewtron on Jan 9th 2022 at 11:04:59 AM

Agreed, it's more important to enforce stuff like the example/wick standard IMO. And I do believe that this rule is a bit too strict... Obviously I get why stock phrases don't work and there's no changing that, but just being a parable or a figure of speech that doesn't sound like dialogue is not a stock phrase.

Edited by Piterpicher on Jan 9th 2022 at 7:33:52 PM

It's also important to read the entire page rather than just a part of it.

The issue with dialogue names isn't just that the tropes bearing them have each use of the stock phrase shoehorned into them. The issue is also that dialogue trope names are harder to use in sentences, which reduces their usage in comparison to non-dialogue trope names. And there is the issue that we are naming a thing in a work of fiction, not inventing titles for a page. Subtle distinction that can be important sometimes.

Edited by SeptimusHeap on Jan 10th 2022 at 11:07:40 AM

I think this best sums up how I feel... with this in mind:

Technically, No Wrong Answers Except That One does run afoul of this. Potentially, tropers could see the pattern of dialogue ("No answers are wrong!", <insert "wrong" answer>, "Except that one!") and trope the pattern, when really, it's about that wrong option. I think the biggest problem with No Wrong Answers Except That One is that it relies on Exactly What It Says on the Tin, which may encourage people to focus on the dialogue pattern instead of what really matters — which is the nature of the answer that makes it "wrong" for scenario that triggered the dialogue pattern in the first place.

And that's what made me flag it. In the case of that specific draft, I think the best solution is to scrub the Exactly What It Says on the Tin reference from the trope description completely, so that the description stays focussed on the nature of the answer rather than the dialogue.

In general, however, I do think we've become a bit too strict, but it seems to be more about defining the boundary between what might make an acceptable dialogue-style title and what may be veering too far into stock phrases or a dialogue that disguises what's really being troped. I think the fact we don't really have that boundary is why we've become increasingly strict — we end up erring on the side of caution, and the more we do that, the stricter we become. I suspect, whatever is decided, that we'll have to accept there may be an element of "case-by-case basis" involved.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Jan 10th 2022 at 9:27:04 AM

You might want to take that argument to the draft then, otherwise you'll go unheard.

Okay, thanks for the link. I don't know my way around TLP, so I don't comment on drafts very often (I often can't find them if people don't link me to them)

So some things like Swords Into Plowshares are not necessarily stock phrases, but the rest of the description implies that the draft is about the phrase itself. For example the page quote and image are all about the phrase "beat their swords into plowshares." As the mod in that draft explained, there was actual evidence in the example section that the phrase was being troped rather than the concept behind the original quote.

Looking at the fix for Not So Different, we have options like "Not So Different" Remark for resolving would-be stock phrase dialogue tropes, so I don't see how No Wrong Answers Except That One couldn't become 'No Wrong Answers' Gag, since the trope is about the joke itself rather than someone saying "except that one." (After double checking, the leading rename option is 'No Wrong Answers' Failure.) The draft that started this debate has many quote-heavy examples, some of which are only the quote. This is evidence of a problem with the draft.

So in general I'd say that if a title sounds like a piece of dialogue itself, and if the description, ^note e.g. with the use of Exactly What It Says on the Tin quote, and image all point to the phrasing as what the trope is, then we have to tread carefully. We need to look at the examples, and if they are quote-heavy or if they already have stock phrase misuse in the draft, then we should change the name and revise the description.