Don't Shoot the Message: example section?

I wandered onto Don't Shoot the Message and discovered it has no example section. There's no indication in the history that it ever had one, and it's not on No On-Page Examples.

Any objections to doing some crosswicking?

I'm fairly certain it's example-less because it would be a complaining magnet.

If that was true, it would be marked Flame Bait or something. If there was no discussion about examples, it doesn't make sense to assume there was a motive beyond "people just never added them".

It looks like originally, people were asked to add examples to the long-gone Troper Tales page. See also the original YKTTW which was launched to a page using the also-long-gone ptitle system and didn't follow it to the current URL.

Edited by MorganWick on Jan 20th 2024 at 3:25:52 AM

I think adding examples would be fine. It's more of a wider audience reaction. Alternatively, a rename would be useful.

Edited by artman40 on Jan 22nd 2024 at 3:28:56 AM

Okay, so that sounds like the page's lack of an example section was a product of the wiki's Wild West period rather than a proper consensus decision.

Guess I'll see what I can do about crosswicking an example section later.

Also, I think if it was a complaint magnet then it would also be not allowed to be listed on YMMV pages, yet it is.

The thing is, it isn't the type of thing that people like to complain about. Sure, the picture is an instance of complaining. But the trope is about things that embarrass people. Those sympathetic to the message want to forget it, and those antagonistic are happy to think it represents their contras.

I've started Sandbox.Dont Shoot The Message to collect wicks.

Can I add examples to the sandbox?

~Unicorndance: I finished mining the YMMV tabs for wicks and put the finished product on the main page already.

Many of the examples just added are misuse. Don't Shoot the Message is not just disliking the message, but those who want to like/agree with the message disliking how it's so poorly done it hurts the validity.

Permission to remove that misuse? Or is there reason to not?

Sorry if I added the ones you're referring to, but I thought the whole point of it was "disliking the work but liking the message", because "the message is badly written" would be redundant with Broken Aesop.

Broken Aesop isn't "badly written message", but "moral is broken by the work's own narrative".

If you think you see misuse, go ahead: I did my best to prune what I could but I freely admit I may have missed some.