This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Korval: So, if simply removing the example and leaving a comment on the discussion page is not a good idea, what is the alternative in cases where people simply get an example wrong? That is, they "simply" misinterpret something (quite reasonable for semi-coherant works or Mind Screws) as being an example of the Trope but it isn't.
Tanto: "Get an example factually wrong": Remove example and leave comment.
"Don't like having the example on the page because it casts your favorite show in an unflattering light": Suck it up.
The Defenestrator: So, is this one going to have examples from inside this wiki?
Phartman: If so, you'd need to recommend potty breaks every 200 pages. I wouldn't do it.
Love your name, by the way.
Justifying edits provide greater context for the examples, and are infinitely superior to the other tack, of just removing the example and leaving an angry comment about it in the discussion section.
Tanto: I dunno, I find these kind of irritating. What usually happens is that some fan takes a funny, snappily-worded example and ruins it with a lot of defensive nitpicking.
Ununnilium: Indeed. How about this instead?
Lale: I hate these. It's like people take every entry as an accusation of poor writing unless there's an explanantion about how it's used. Did I mention I really hate these?
Phartman: Wait, what about something like the Leave Him to Me! clause in Highlander? That actually does need to be explained, because to whole point of its use is to gain another Immortal's power by beheading him in one-on-one combat. Were 1 to 100,000 at this point, but it still goes to show that there are exceptions.
Lale: That's a valid justification, but there's a difference between valid justification and justifying because one takes a personal offense at a perfectly valid plain ol' entry. MST3K Mantra.
Phartman: It's kind of hard to spot the difference most of the time. Sort of like when Indy outran the big stone ball instead of just running underneath the railings; he'd have been trapped in there had he let the ball plug up the entrance. I don't even think that ever occurred to Lucas and Spielberg -they just wanted a cool action scene- but it's still a nice way for them to skirt around the Fridge Logic involved.
Red Shoe: Okay, what I didn't want to do was to express annoyance in the actual article, especially since I know I've been guilty of the Justifying Edit myself on occasion. That said, I still think it's superior to just yoinking examples you disagree with.
Lale: Just as long as you don't write an essay defending the writers from something you feel they must be defended from because it's such a great show!
Phartman: We've all done it at least once, nothing to feel guilty about. Even if I think the show sucks, it can still be pointed out that the writers at least bothered to invent a reason for employing the trope. No harm in that.
Jefepato: I have to confess, I'm still a little unclear on where we draw the line between a Justifying Edit which should be avoided, and legitimately pointing out a Justified Trope. What makes a justification sufficiently valid?
Tanto: I personally feel that justifications should be avoided in almost all cases unless it's extremely relevant, but not many people seem to agree with me on that. We don't need to know about every exception, special case, and half-example for every series, and we especially don't need long-winded walls of jargon explaining in fancrufty detail why the creators chose to do what they did. Conciseness is next to godliness.
Lale: Saying a show used a trope is not criticizing it. There's nothing wrong with being listed in Examples. Justifying edits defend trope usage, but it's not necessary to defend anything.
Scrounge: Well said, Lale. Some of the most-cited shows on this wiki are also some of the most highly regarded. There's no shame in using a trope if you use it well. Using a trope badly, on the other hand, is something you should be ashamed of, but that's another kettle of popcorn entirely.
Ayalaof Borg: Surely a Justifying Edit would be one in which additional spaces are placed between words in order to have both margins match up?
Nibbles: In response to Jefepato's valid question, I'd like to say that I disagree with the claim that Tropes Are Not Bad. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. Narrowing in specifically, some uses are justified and some are not. That is a meaningful difference. One example is a use of a common story element, the other is an example of a common mistake or an author getting lazy and letting so-called "genre conventions" destroy the coherency of the story. Some tropes require no justification because there is nothing logically wrong with them, but some very much do.
I think this article properly refers not to marking a trope as justified or unjustified but rather to enumerating a trope's possible justifications when any of the following are true: 1) The justification is entirely superficial, and is itself logically flawed. That is, even after this information is taken into account, the trope is illogical and inconsistent. 2) The troper is misunderstanding justified/unjustified to mean good/bad or interesting/boring. Being justified means that a trope is reasonable and not a continuity mistake. That doesn't mean it's good. You can Jump the Shark by having all the characters start talking backwards because they have a bet to do so amongst themselves...it's perfectly justified, but it's also terrible. These two qualities do not inherently conflict.
Cosmetor: I suggest you stop pretending there's a line at all and stop whining about people getting in the way of mockery with facts and logic.
When I last came to this article, it wasn't automatically bad because someone tried to superficially limit the definition, it was automatically bad because some people decided they didn't like it for no good reason and decided to spew bloody rage at everyone who fixed their mockery.
Yes, I've seen cases where a justification is unnecessary and breaks the flow of the article. I've also seen cases where the added details make the article much more interesting, or where an article is outright insulting. Really, the sort of behavior you're attacking (adding details) is what makes the site worth reading.
Shrikesnest: It's simple. If your "justification" boils down to "A Wizard Did It" (see: every justifying edit on a Star Wars entry in the entire wiki) then it's a bad justifying edit. Saying "It makes sense because the characters are magic!" doesn't rectify anyone's suspension of disbelief. A good justifying edit reveals contextual details that affect the reader's understanding of the work.
BritBllt: The thing is, there is never a good reason for a justifying edit. If the justification is so strong that it negates the trope being an example, then the example should just be removed. If it's not that strong a counterpoint, then listing it just comes across as Comic Book Guy-style nitpicking ("Justified in that Aquaman's long-lost son cannot breath underwater, thereby clearly proving that mermaids use magic!"). If an example needs to be fleshed out or given some context, it should just be edited, not bullet-pointed with commentary.
