History Sandbox / TRSQueue

# '''@/{{themayorofsimpleton}}''': BuryYourArt (can be launched without me '''with credit''')

[[folder:Bury Your Art]]

(by @/{{themayorofsimpleton}})

[[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/discussion.php?id=on3bwu9x3uk4h9dkvou146qo Courtesy link to the original TLP draft]].

'''The problem''': BuryYourArt is a very new Trivia item, having been created in 2022 as a result of the OldShame [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=1655162121044984900 TRS]]. The item is specifically about when a creator attempts to suppress something they made due to CreatorBacklash. Per the description:

[[quoteblock]] CreatorBacklash is bound to happen to any creator who's around for long enough. Many works, whether decades-old or released yesterday, may not best represent what they can accomplish now. It may seem embarrassing or regrettable now, but, for a lot of people, the old adage of "Live and Learn" rings true.


However, what if they ''can't'' live with it? It's one thing to publicly dismiss your work, but if one can go out of their way to act like it never existed, then it could be like it never happened. This is where Bury Your Art comes into play.

...

'''Note:''' Please keep in mind that this isn't just any work that happens to be out of print or not easily available. There needs to be external factors, usually statements from the creator that they are trying to suppress the work, to count as an example.
[[/quoteblock]]

The TLP draft's Laconic, however, implies both a creator and a company can count--something not backed up by the description:

[[quoteblock]] A creator or company refuses to re-release or pulls from circulation a work because they don't want the world to see it. [[/quoteblock]]

Despite this, this Trivia item, most likely due to its vague name, is attracting misuse for any art that a creator tried to bury, including art buried for reasons other than CreatorBacklash, art buried by a corporation or creator's estate, and so on. As early as last year, I noticed misuse building up, and I wanted to do a wick check, but decided to wait a year to see if the misuse got worse.

I started a TropeTalk [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16706946410A18240000 thread]] about the subject, and was being informed that a corporation burying the art may not count.

Per Tropers/MorganWick:

[[quoteblock]] Someone involved in the creation of the work regretting it and wanting it to go away is, to me, clearly different from executives who may never have wanted the work to exist to begin with or simply don't think it has value and use the tapes to record something else, governments or mobs who actively attempt to suppress it or hold book burnings, or a website deciding to take it down for whatever reason or simply going down and taking the work with it. I agree, though, that the new name makes this less clear than the old ones did. [[/quoteblock]]

Per Tropers/{{Noaqiyeum}}:

[[quoteblock]] ... "Bury Your Art" does make it sound like a particularly extreme kind of Creator Backlash that attempts to keep it out of the hands of audiences entirely, not just any creator-driven circumstance that leads to Keep Circulating the Tapes. But the third especially seems valid, because often an artist's appreciation of their own work changes in response to its public reception, and the other two are plausibly justifiable as well. It's worth suggesting to TRS, at least. [[/quoteblock]]

A little under a year later, I eventually did the check.

'''Wick check''': [[Sandbox/BuryYourArtWickCheck Link here]], but here's the quick results:

* 19/50 wicks were correctly used (with the creator burying art due to CreatorBacklash), or 38%
* 9/50 wicks concerned a creator burying art for reasons other than CreatorBacklash, or 18%
* 6/50 wicks didn't say why a creator buried the art, or 12%,
* 9/50 wicks were of a corporation or a creator's estate burying the art, or 18%,
* 1/50 wicks were of other use, or 2%,
* 5/50 wicks were zero-context examples or unclear, or 10%, and
* 1/50 wicks were unclassifialble, or 2%

Totaling correct and incorrect use together, that's

* 19/50 wicks correct, or 38%, and
* 30/50 wicks incorrect, or 60%

'''Analysis''': There was a lot of correct use, which is good--that rules out a cut or disambiguation. However, 30/50 wicks being incorrect is still really bad. I noticed there were two big categories of misuse. The first were creators burying art for reasons other than CreatorBacklash (with reasons including as a protest against a bigoted creator, backlash from the audience rather than the creator, controversy, and other reasons). The second were corporations or creator's estates burying the art, rather than the creator. There is a not insignificant chance some of this misuse was due to sloppy OldShame wick cleanup, but I know for a fact some of the misuse dates back to the TLP draft, with some misused examples [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/discussion.php?id=on3bwu9x3uk4h9dkvou146qo#comment-4t62b530cd7a753 appearing]] [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/discussion.php?id=on3bwu9x3uk4h9dkvou146qo#comment-tk62bb59406a0cf in]] [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/discussion.php?id=on3bwu9x3uk4h9dkvou146qo#comment-7162d2c93f5c5e2 the comments]] of the draft.

'''Possible solutions''': I've got two.

* One possible solution would be to expand the definition to explicitly include corporations burying art, along with creators burying art for non-backlash reasons. I am in favor of this solution, although to what we would expand it to would require discussion.
* If not that, we could rename this trope to make it clearer that it's about the art being buried due to backlash. BacklashInducedCreatorSuppression (based on the original name in TLP), maybe?

What does everyone else think? Any other ideas or suggestions?

[[folder:Every Helicopter Is A Huey]]
EveryHelicopterIsAHuey

(by Tropers/{{supernintendo128}})

'''Category''': Duplicate Trope

'''Issue''': At first glance it seems like another "stock object depiction" trope, but it's actually a trope for when Hueys are used in situations where they shouldn't be, which [[Administrivia/TheSameButMoreSpecific heavily overlaps]] with ArtisticLicenseMilitary. Like other tropes of this nature, it turned into simply "A Huey is used" even when it makes sense for a Huey to be used. It's not doing well either as it only has 62 wicks and 10 on-page examples.

'''Wick Check''': The majority of examples are either misuse or zero-context. I think the reason for this is the vague criteria as to what constitutes as "inappropriate usage" (i.e. the work takes place after the Vietnam War and countries that have never flown Hueys are using them). In addition, sometimes people will use the trope to list off different models of helicopters presented in the work, even though the trope page says ''not'' to do that. View the detailed wick check [[Sandbox/EveryHelicopterIsAHueyWickCheck here.]]

To Summarize:

* Correct: 17/56
* Aversions: 6/56
* Justified/Intentional Depictions: 6/56
* General Misuse: 6/56
* ZCE: 13/56
* Potholes: 6/56
* Unsure: 2/56

If we only factor in the 17 correct examples, then this page is starving.

'''Proposed Solution''': Just cut it and move any applicable examples to ArtisticLicenseMilitary or JustPlaneWrong.

[[folder:CavalryOfTheDead]]
[[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13590429520A15060100&page=103#comment-2553 Too similar]] with TheCavalry?

Sandbox/CavalryOfTheDeadWickCheck

[[folder:All Men Are Perverts]]
'''Category: Needs Help'''
(by Orbiting)

(This is a thread for both AllMenArePerverts and AllWomenAreLustful)

AllMenArePerverts and AllWomenAreLustful are supposed to describe a work portraying men/women as being obsessed with sex ''by default'', with AllWomenAreLustful's description pointing out that an individual character being sex-obsessed is misuse (with ReallyGetsAround being said to be the generic promiscuity trope). In practice, both tropes are mostly being used for exactly that, describing individual characters who are perverted rather than large groups or talking about how a work portrays that gender as a whole. On the other hand, both tropes are also listed as TropesInAggregate, implying that it's the ''amount'' of works with perverted male/female characters that is notable, not how the work itself treats them.

[[Sandbox/AllWickChecksArePerverts Wick check is here]]; the results are:

!!AllMenArePerverts (60 wicks checked):
* All (or the vast majority) of men are perverted: 25%
* Individual men are perverted: 37%
* Other misuse: 10%
* [=ZCEs=] and unclear potholes: 28%

!! AllWomenAreLustful (50 wicks checked):
* All (or the vast majority) of women are perverted: 22%
* Individual women are perverted: 40%
* Other misuse: 10%
* [=ZCEs=] and unclear potholes: 28%


AllWomenArePrudes is also listed on TropesInAggregate, and all three were added seemingly unilaterally, making me dubious if any of them actually belong there. Nonetheless, they're there and that muddies the waters as to what the tropes '''are'''.

Personally, I think AllMenArePerverts and AllWomenAreLustful should be removed from TropesInAggregate, as 'work has a perverted character' really doesn't seem notable in any way unless its called out as being expected for their gender. I'm not sure what to do to stop further misuse, as the names both seem pretty clear that they're about more than individual characters. If we want to keep them as tropes in aggregate, the definitions will need to be changed to fit that.

[[folder:I Shall Return]]
By @/{{Zaperex}}
!!Category: Unclear Description/Ambiguous Name
IShallReturn's Administrivia/ExampleAsAThesis description makes it difficult to ascertain how exactly the trope is defined. The first line of the description states that "There is a moment where a hero, such as a soldier of an elite commando force, barely escapes a high security headquarters '''with the help of fellow prisoners who have risked everything to help him escape''', and now have to be left behind."

The laconic says "The hero must leave the people '''who helped him in peril''', but vows to come back and save them."

Both suggest that the character they promise to come back for is someone who helped them escape from captivity/peril. However, literally none of the wicks checked match that rather narrow definition.

Interpreting it more loosely as 'a character must leave someone behind, but promises to return for them', there's still a lot of misuse where the trope is used for any instance of 'character promises to return', with no escape or rescue involved, likely due to the vague name.

!!Wick Check
A wick check was conducted [[Sandbox/IShallReturnWickCheck here]]:
* 0/50 (0%): A character must leave behind the people who had helped them escape, but promises to return for them.
* 9/50 (18%): Character promises to return for someone, but there's no mention that person helped them to escape.
* 27/50 wicks (54%): Character tells someone they'll return or meet again someday for whatever reason, no mention of any escape/rescue.
* 6/50 (12%): Other/unclear.
* 8/50 (16%): ZCE.

None of the wicks checked included the strict definition of the trope where the character they promised to come back for helped them to escape. Over half the wicks also misuse the trope by using it for any type of promised return, likely due to the trope's name.

!!Suggestions
The description and laconic should be rewritten, defining it as a character who promises to return and rescue someone, without the requirement of that person helping that character to escape. The trope should also be renamed to something more specific.

[[folder:Four Is Death]]
By @/{{AlleyOop}}
!!Category: Lots of Historical Misuse, Needs Cleanup
[[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16159068790A70062000&page=1#6 Short-Term Cleanup Thread]] on the matter (at least until it gets bumped off), and a more detailed [[Sandbox/FourIsDeath Sandbox with the wick check]].

I made a thread about it earlier but it died before it could get unlocked. Anyway, while the page description for FourIsDeath makes it clear that it is only meant to be used for examples where the "four" association is fairly significant, there's still a great deal of misuse of it for any instance of four being associated with various possibly coincidental negative things (either to themselves or their enemies), or former examples of what is now known as EliteFour. As there are currently 1922 wicks it's a lot of wicks to comb through manually to check for misuse. So I was hoping to get some help on that.

And possibly make some changes to the trope description to cut down on future misuse.
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Bad to the Bone]]

Category: '''Duplicate Trope'''

Based on the trope's description, BadToTheBone feels especially redundant with StandardSnippet -- examples of well-known songs that appear during "appropriate" times, and StandardSnippet both came out a year before BadToTheBone ''and'' sees more usage. The only degree of specificity I could find is if BadToTheBone is meant to describe songs that are lyrically appropriate for whatever film/TV show/media context they're applied to, but in my wick check, I could find ''zero'' examples that properly write it as such or use the trope "correctly". A vast majority simply say "a song was used here" without providing any attempt to connect the lyrics/tone/anything to what media it's appropriate for. Not only that, a not-insubstantial amount of wicks are [[ShoutOut directly referring to the trope namer]] (George Thorogood's "Bad to the Bone"), and there's also a somewhat embarrassing amount of entries that misinterpret the trope entirely and think it's referring to ''literal bones''.

[[Sandbox/BadToTheBoneWickCheck Wick check here]], and here's a summary of my findings:

* '''(27/50, 54%)''' Examples list a song name but no other descriptive context of the song or the scene.
* '''(14/50, 28%)''' Simply referring to the trope namer/using the name as a stock phrase.
* '''(5/50, 10%)''' Assumes the trope is about literal bones.
* '''(3/50, 6%)''' ZCE.
* '''(1/50, 2%)''' Other misuse.

So, yeah, not looking good. I suspect StandardSnippet itself suffers from a similar form of widespread misuse of not giving enough context to the song or media it's they're in to describe why the connections are relevant, as well as tripping on Administrivia/ThereIsNoSuchThingAsNotability, but for now, BadToTheBone seems like a hard cut because there are no "correct" uses to salvage with a merge.
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Hollywood Thin]]

Really no clear definition of what this trope even is.

According to the description its: "the media's tendency to present women far skinnier than the average person as attractive, healthy and average/normal."

Actually im kind of uncomfortable with that description anyway-- since its pretty much saying that women significantly skinnier than average are NOT attractive and healthy. Then it goes on to talk about shoulder width and rib cage depth, which, again, are not healthy OR unhealthy, theyre neutral genetic traits. Its also unclear if "giant breasts" is part of the requirement, or just noting that they are also unusually common in hollywood.

There ''could'' be a trope in "average women in movies are far skinnier than the real life average" or "every (attractive) female character in this show is very slender", but if there is, it sure isn't present in these examples. ''Maybe'' 2/50 fit that description

The laconic says its when underweight is presented as average, which, again, ''might'' be a trope, but is totally not what the rest of the page talks about.

So, what ''are'' the examples about, then?

(paste folders from Sandbox.HollywOodtHin)

[[/folder]]

At 18 wicks (not counting here and Sandbox/TropesNeedingTRS, SandersonsFirstLaw is starving quite badly, but it's had a whopping 10,000 inbounds since 2012, which is probably the most lopsided wick/inbound ratio I've ever seen. As it has no on page wicks, this might be better moved to Analysis.BrandonSanderson.

OP in progress. Sandbox/UnequalPairingWickCheck.