All-Purpose Policy and Meta discussion: Administrivia.Trope Repair Shop

Well, the issue is that until right then genres were sort of considered to be tropes. Which is why there were disagreements over how to write them. This issue goes back a long time.

Like, nobody was ever asking about pages like (as Fighteer brought up) Literature of the 1980s. It was always about things like Horror, Yuri Genre, and Sitcom.

Edited by WarJay77 on Mar 16th 2024 at 3:58:14 PM

We determine what is an index mainly but what the pagetype says (which anyone can edit but genrally aren't allowed to). I'd rather hold off genre pages until the discussion linked earlier settles what to do with them, maybe we come up with a new pagetype that combines indexes and tropes.

Edited by Amonimus on Mar 16th 2024 at 11:05:22 AM

In that case... I'm going to refer that question to that thread, then. I also have several issues regarding that issue as well.

Past In The Rear View Mirror's thread is history, so paging ~Master N and ~Ferot_Dreadnaught regarding Opening a Can of Clones.

Basso Profundo is done, so ~Nitro Indigo is up next according to the Queue.

In 2022, I raised an issue regarding Queer Character, Queer Actor. There appears to be a consensus on the thread that the definition needs to be refined to minimize the possibility of including examples that, while within the definitions of the trope, are in discord with its spirit, such as "non-het played by non-cis" cases. These examples consist of only a small portion of examples on the trope page, but exist.

To raise this to TRS, do I still need a wick check to prove the "misuse" exists? The emphasis isn't about whether a wick check is needed, but how it should be performed.

You'd need a wick check to show how it's being used (in this case, showing that it's being used too broadly and that there are examples with the character and actor not having the same sexuality and/or gender identity).

Edited by GastonRabbit on Mar 29th 2024 at 1:39:25 PM

Closed Ain't Too Proud to Beg's thread (at least pending a resolution on Trope Talk) because of the clock.

~War Jay 77 is up next.

Coming up soon.

Shouldn't Network Red-Headed Stepchild be Trivia? Guess the thread reason is "has nothing to do with the content".

That name also seems obtuse to me - why not just “Network’s Oddball” or something like that? That might not be a problem though if people aren’t misusing it or taking the name literally, which I don’t see, although I do see that it’s listed on some main work pages, and other trivia pages. Eh, take it to Tropes Needing TRS if you want.

Edited by Lymantria on Apr 4th 2024 at 2:37:46 PM

Yeah, the name made me think it was something like "Network's Unfavorite" rather than "Network's Oddball". No idea if it's lead to misuse, but it feels obtuse at least.

Does The Plot Reaper just sound like complaining? Or is it just me?

It'd be better to wick check if examples are complaining or not and let others check. As of whole the page doesn't look problematic.

So with Shana Clone having long since been disambiguated, and Char Clone most likely following suit in a few days, I figure it's high time we give Rei Ayanami Expy a look and see if it's suffering from the same issues.

As I've mentioned before, if there's one Troper that can masterfully wick check Expy tropes such as these, it's ~Ayumi-chan.

A couple cases where I'm not sure if a wick check is necessary:

• "Uh-Oh" Eyes is an index, but is being added to example lists as a trope. Would it still require a wick check to rename it?
• Beam Me Up, Scotty! and God Never Said That are about people misquoting a work or creator, respectively; since these are definitionally done by an audience, is a wick check still needed to change them to YMMV?

For "Uh-Oh" Eyes a usage check might be useful to see if the "examples" fit any of the corresponding subtropes or if reconstituting it as a supertrope might be an option.

I agree.

I agree that Beam Me Up, Scotty! and God Never Said That should be YMMV, but I think you'd need wick checks to back up the argument that they should be YMMV, particularly in terms of how the examples are worded (mainly whether the examples mention Audience Reactions instead of background information, which I have seen in the wild when simply reading the wiki, but would need full checks to confirm). I made Sandbox.Check These Wicks Scotty and Sandbox.God Never Did A Wick Check a while back, but never got around to finishing them (I just compiled lists of randomized wicks and never got around to checking them), so you're welcome to finish those wick checks if you want.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Apr 7th 2024 at 10:37:04 AM

Might as well page ~mathfreak231 to the above post (since I don't think it was ever made possible to edit a ping into a post) to let them know that they can finish the unfinished wick checks I made instead of needing to start from scratch.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Apr 7th 2024 at 10:38:55 AM

I've noticed other issues with Beam Me Up, Scotty! as well—the scope has been broadened (possibly unilaterally) over the years to include lines that are said with a different inflection or are less prominent than the audience thinks, which invites complaining/nitpicking, and I've questioned the tropeworthiness of it overall, though that's a topic for down the line. I'll help with the check a bit later today (I don't know that much about God Never Said That, though).

A TRS thread could handle that as well.

For a while now I've had concerns about Super Title 64 Advance, Cleavage Window, and She Is All Grown Up. I've felt that Super Title 64 Advance and Cleavage Window were Chairs-y, and that the "Noticeable Reaction" part of She Is All Grown Up was being ignored. Problem was that, on all three wick checks, I made the mistake of counting individual examples on the pages instead of the pages themselves. I asked on the Wick Check Project thread if someone else would pick up the three checks...and got nothing but radio silence.

I personally was a bit confused by the issue. I still kinda am. If it's just a miscount, that's extremely easy to fix by just going back over the data.