Drafting a clearer definition of "Fan-Speak."

I agree with Triple Elation in that I don't see much point (or indeed even a useful method) to differentiating "Fan Speak" from YMMV and Trivia.

Well, then you two aren't of any help to us here. Thanks for chiming in.

Oh. That's... well.

What is the difference, then?

edited 26th Jan '11 4:36:05 AM by TripleElation

As stated earlier, it is a class of critters we don't want examples for but do want definitions for.

I get that, but what's the criterion for a page that makes us decide "meh, not even a subjective trope- just an opinion, we don't want examples for this"?

The examples cause discussions that are essentially opinion-listing, all without advancing the understanding of how to tell stories in any way.

edited 26th Jan '11 4:45:48 AM by FastEddie

Almost all the YMMV articles can fit that definition. A couple of Trivia ones too.

Well, the Trivia items are in a different class. We can take examples for trivial items because they are not opinions. They are either a fact or they are not. Not a fact? Not on the list. Easy enough.

There are a number of YMMV things that don't have annoying example lists. There are also a number that need to be reclassified as fan-speak, meaning that their example lists are annoying.

Care to make a list of those?

edited 26th Jan '11 5:27:29 AM by Killomatic

We'll have to do that before this is done, of course. First we need to nail down what the name of this 'fan-speak' class is, if 'fan-speak' doesn't work. It works for me, but there may be a better idea.

So the difference between regular YMMV and this class of critters is that it tends to have annoying example lists which consist of people just listing their opinion? Then we're not talking about Fan Speak, we're talking about Soapbox Bait.

I know what you mean, in that I've personally put some effort into trying to keep a few of those in check.

edited 26th Jan '11 5:51:04 AM by TripleElation

Differentiating between YMMV and Fan Speak based purely on how much tropers abuse them (which sounds like what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong) strikes me as a bad idea. Among other reasons, it would create perverse incentives. If you don't like a YMMV item, then just start lots of Nattery edit wars on the page, and get it "banished" to Fan Speak.

Also, it kinda seems like prematurely surrendering a front in the War On Natter, which is really still in its formative stages. We've had a lot of good ongoing anti-Natter initiatives that I think should be given time to work.

You'll get banned for starting edit wars.

The war on natter has been underway longer than the War in Iraq. Literally. Time to enhance the tactics. Zapping examples for natter-magnets has been a useful tool that seems to work pretty well, in terms of stopping natter.

The big things that need to be done for the wiki:

• Returning trope lists on works to being lists of storytelling tropes, which means pulling off all the opinion stuff to one tab or another.
• Killing natter before it kills all the people trying to control it.
• Do all that without losing the fun parts.

By the way I still think we can just kick the more negative ones to Darth Wiki. Being in a different namespace will be helpful when we finally get that in-page notification for non-tropes installed.

I think it's fairly clear where the distinction lies; the same people who bitch about the wiki becoming Serious Business are the ones trying to argue for Death of the Author and "but Subjective Tropes really happen".

Classification time, okay. Here's my opinion.

• Tropes: Elements of storytelling, production, and characterization that occur within a work. Recurring patterns, narrative elements, interactive elements. These either occur or they don't (or are subverted, inverted, played with, etc).
  • Subcategories like Characterization Tropes, Setting Tropes, Special Effects, etc.
• Trivia: Factoids that occur during or around the production of the work but do not inform its final presentation. Casting choices (unless they actually are relevant to the story), who did what to whom on set, Throw It In!, etc. all count as Trivia.
• Opinion: What people think, say, or write about works. Liking or disliking works, characters, narrative elements; comparisons of quality; Shipping and all other fandom reactions. Subcategories of opinion, which may be additive:
  • Fanspeak: Terminology used by fandoms. These may or may not be related to actual tropes, and while we define the term, we don't invite nattering over examples.
  • Flame Bait: Opinions that are so controversial that adding examples is a guaranteed edit war.
  • Complaining
  • Gushing
• Administrivia or Wiki Tropes: Stuff related to the wiki or the Internet in general, not necessarily to works themselves.

edited 26th Jan '11 6:54:19 AM by Fighteer

I hate to bring this up again, but where to gameplay "tropes" lie? They're not really part of storytelling, production, or characterization, but they're not subjective or trivial, either.

edited 26th Jan '11 6:47:58 AM by ccoa

Gameplay elements are tropes. They are elements that are objectively present in the game; they are chosen by the game's developers; they define how players interact with it; in short, they satisfy all the criteria. People who nitpick about this annoy the hell out of me.

That's fine, but the definition people in charge keep giving of "trope" tends to exclude them.

Not intentionally. It's just that people who quibble over it tend to take an overly narrow view of what constitutes a "narrative element". How about, "interactive element"?

edited 26th Jan '11 6:54:01 AM by Fighteer

Minor issue here, but if we're not calling these "tropes" anymore, don't we need new page types for non-tropes? And while we're on it make "subpage" an additive flag like "index", since there are now half a dozen types of them.

edited 26th Jan '11 6:54:44 AM by Killomatic

Yes, but by and large they aren't subjective either which means they can just fall under normal tropes. They're just weirdly meta.

Also, I do not think we need to toss away everything on the YMMV tab. A lot of what we've put there has started to stabilize as being less natterful now that it's got a warning saying "May not be 100% absolute truth as you see it."

edited 26th Jan '11 6:54:28 AM by shimaspawn

Eddie- can you please list a few legit subjectives and a few "annoying list of opinions" subjectives with a short comment on what swayed your judgment? Maybe we can pin down this whole thing better with a few case studies.

I think it's less a too narrow definition of narrative, and more not stretching it in new and unusual ways. It's pretty hard to say Cartography Sidequest or Cap are narrative tropes while using the definition almost everyone has for "narrative." In fact, I tried soft splitting them as an experiment on Nippon Ichi, and the page actually seems cleaner that way. They do seem to be a different taxonomy of trope than Chracter Tropes or Setting Tropes.

However, I won't derail this discussion any further. If Word Of Admin say they fit, then that's all I was looking for.

edited 26th Jan '11 7:17:05 AM by ccoa

I'm pretty much with Fighteer, although my classifications would be slightly different, I think.

• Tropes: recurring patterns, elements, techniques, and progressions that the creator put into the work to add information of some nature or to elicit a particular response or reaction from the audience. Tropes should have open-to-editing lists of examples,unless the examples list needs to be locked for a very good reason.

• Subjectives: Things that the audience puts into the work in the course of consuming or experiencing it. Subjectives should have one or two clear and notable examples, (so that someone reading the page can say "Oh that. I get it.")on an otherwise-locked example list.

• Trivia: Interesting but largely irrelevant information about a work. Openly-editable examples.

• Fan-speak: a glossary of terms used by members of a fandom. The page should be a clear definition, followed by a locked example list of a few notable examples, if examples are needed at all. Like Subjectives, the examples are there to provide an "Oh, now I get it!" to readers of the wiki who aren't member of the fandom.

• Administrivia/Wiki Tropes: as per his definition. No example list.

edited 26th Jan '11 7:18:18 AM by Madrugada