Example Sectionectomy and "No Examples, Please"

I'd personally love to have a editor feature that finds wicks and reminds you that they must conform to how they may be used. For example, with respect to work pages:

• "This wick goes to a YMMV item. If this is In-Universe, type InUniverse or [[invoked]] to mark it as such. Otherwise, move to the YMMV subpage/tab."
• "This wick goes to a Trivia item. If this is In-Universe, type InUniverse or [[invoked]] to mark it as such. Otherwise, move to the Trivia subpage/tab."
• "This trope only allows examples that are In-Universe."
• Other messages for different tropes on a case-by-case basis.

Contains 20% less fat than the leading value brand!

Until we can edit examples as distinct units rather than the whole page being treated as a single block of markup, that won't be practical.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Yeah...

Contains 20% less fat than the leading value brand!

I'm referring to this post, and specifically:

I'm reading that as "no on work pages, yes on trope pages." Am I missing something?

The trope (singular) page. For example, Character Derailment has over a dozen subpages full of examples.

---

Edit: Also, the proposal as currently written is

Edited by crazysamaritan on Apr 26th 2019 at 4:26:11 AM

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

So, do we discuss whether tropes are Omnipresent Tropes, here, given my ATT that pointed here?

Wanting an opinion on Flat Character, currently without an examples list.

Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576

I would like this thread to discuss which category to put certain tropes in, yes. Flat Character is "no on-page examples" based on my rule of thumb, and I'd prefer it to be on Definition-Only Pages. Any work without a Minimalist Cast is going to have several flat characters because they don't have the time to develop them, even those with Nominal Importance. It's also a term commonly used to disparage writing, and not listing examples should allow us to reference the term without causing Flame Wars.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Move Example Sectionectomy's "Too Common to List" section, to Omnipresent Tropes?

Which would allow listing aversions and subversions / inversions on their page, though...

---

Also, note that there's an Exceptions-Only Index TLP...

Edited by Malady on Apr 28th 2019 at 12:11:19 PM

Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576

Omnipresent Tropes isn't really functioning as a part of Example Sectionectomy right now. That was part of why I was making the "exceptions only" and "definitions only" sections in the sandbox.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Game Over... Should it list aversions or subversions?

Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576

As a medium-specific omnipresent, I'd prefer Invoked Trope and Subverted Trope examples, banning straight examples and averted examples.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

It's been two months since the proposal, with generally positive responses. It's been a month since the last complaint, which I was able to address in private. I've enacted the new general policy, although I still think some of the details (which page belongs on what index, such as in the more recent posts) needs to be addressed.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

I intend to go through and determine which ones I want to permit or prohibit off-page examples.

Contains 20% less fat than the leading value brand!

Do Asian Index, Black Index, and This Index Is Brown really belong on Definition-Only Pages? They're obviously indexes, and no indexes have work examples.

Keet cleanup

"Pages that become Example-less Super Tropes go here; they index subtropes which collect examples and crosswicks as normal."

It seems to be consistent with the policy stated on the page.

Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.

An In-Universe example of Fetish Fuel was removed from Recap.The Nostalgia Critic S 7 E 7 with no explanation other than "dewicking"; I don't understand why.

Keet cleanup

I'm not sure what an In-Universe example of Fetish Fuel would look like, but "reviewer asserts that a movie is fetishy" isn't it.

Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.

- Administrivia.TRS Wick Cleaning, I assume.

In the case you said, I think it's covered by a trope.

Ah. Yes. In-Universe examples are just Main.Fetish.

---

In fact, it seems like all the other 42 wicks might be valid and Fetish Fuel can be moved off the list.

Anyone else agree?

Edited by Malady on Jun 5th 2019 at 7:33:30 AM

Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576

Not sure if it changes anything, but the Critic actually used the phrase "fetish Fuel" in the review; as Lady X, he says "Launch out of my vag! There's enough fetish fuel in this movie for everybody!" It Makes Sense in Context.

Keet cleanup

Remove Fetish Fuel from what list?

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

From the TRS Wick Cleaning list — the suggestion is that the cleanup is complete and no longer needs active effort.

e: I'd say no. That's a Discussed Trope, I suppose, but I've gotten no impression that we want to collect examples of discussed fetish fuel either.

Edited by wingedcatgirl on Jun 5th 2019 at 7:49:39 AM

Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.

It doesn't look like Alan Fridge ever had examples. Why not? Also, Best is Average, Better is Best does have two examples despite being on Definition-Only Pages; I don't see why it can't have examples.

Edited by rjd1922 on Jun 17th 2019 at 9:36:59 AM

Keet cleanup

Tomboy is on many character pages, so I think it should be moved from Definition-Only Pages to No On-Page Examples. Also, Definition-Only Pages says that Trope Example Laws is more Just for Fun, so why isn't it in the JustForFun/ namespace?

Edited by rjd1922 on Sep 4th 2019 at 10:33:22 AM

Keet cleanup

All Men Are Rapists and You Would Make a Great Model belong on No On-Page Examples, too.

Contains 20% less fat than the leading value brand!

• ~rjd1922's Post: Given that the number of wicks went down since you posted that, I'm going to say it's outside of this thread's jurisdiction.
• Post:
  • I don't know why Alan Fridge never had examples.
  • Best is Average, Better is Best has below the minimum number of trope examples (see Three Rules of Three). Wicks to the page number less than 100 wicks, so it got categorized as "no examples anywhere". Do we have a dozen or more fictional examples that can be added?
• Post:
  • Tomboy has over 2000 wicks, I don't recall why it was added to Definition-Only Pages. I agree with your proposal.
  • JustForFun/: I have no clue why there are pages indexed under Just for Fun that are not in that namespace. I did not add that to the page, ~Luc did it without discussion and didn't provide evidence for consensus.
• ~Brainulator9's Post:
  • All Men Are Rapists had failed the benchmark of 100 wicks. Given the Unfortunate Implications, do we want it to be wicked on work pages? I'm fairly against it and would prefer to remove those wicks.
  • You Would Make a Great Model also failed the benchmark test, but I'm more okay with a plot-based trope than I am a characterization trope appearing on works. I note that it is under an administrative lock, and may be due to the Google incident(s). I think taking it to TRS would be better to determine its future.

[Bottom post warning]

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.