Archived Discussion

This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.

Working Title: List Item Repetition: From YKTTW

Jesin: I think the VG Cats pagequote is more Don't Explain the Joke than Department of Redundancy Department.

Mr Etaoin Shrdlu: I removed most of the "this very wiki"s, but left the other repetition gags (like the indexes) in place.

What about when people repeat things for emphasis? I know a lot of 'rules of' lists I've seen have included repetition, sometimes as a gag.

Is the double-addition of Comedy Tropes at the end intentional? Either way, it made me laugh.

HeartBurn Kid: C'mon, don't remove the "Repeatedly used on this very wiki"s. They're funny.

Brickman: I know it's funny, but does anyone else thing that this page is a complete mess, and not just because of the "Repeatedly used on this very wiki" parts?

HeartBurn Kid: I don't, because somebody stripped out all the funny parts without so much as a discussion (including the "Repeatedly used on this very wiki" bits). Fine, it was hard to navigate before, but... we're at least keeping the quirky media titles, damnit!

Billybobfred: We're repeating the entire page, really? I somehow don't think this is necessary...

  • It's not. For one thing, it means that a lot of edits to one section (but not the other) will result in two versions of the page within the same page, so in the end it sucks.

Rebochan: I took out the other repeat. It's amusing in concept, but the joke isn't nearly funny enough to justify the headaches of maintaining that.

St Fan: This trope being rather well-defined, I'm wondering if the "repetitive titles" examples (Kaitou Tenshi Twin Angel, A.I Artificial Intelligence, Stargate SG-1...) are fitting in there. Maybe they'd deserve there own trope... (and maybe it already exist, but I know only of Repetitive Name).

These were moved to Repetitive Name:
  • 20th-century philosopher John McTaggart Ellis McTaggart, author of The Nature of Existence.
  • There's also sci-fi writer Thomas T. Thomas. This troper wonders what the "T" stands for.
    • How much are you willing to bet that it's Thomas?
  • Also, the writers William Carlos Williams and Jerome K. Jerome.
  • Catch-22 has a character called Major Major Major Major. He was briefly Private Major Major Major, but got promoted directly from Private to Major due to a computer's desire for symmetry.
  • How could anybody forget A Series of Unfortunate Events Dr. Montgomery Montgomery?
  • And don't forget the famous wise neighbor from Home Improvement, Wilson. Last name? Wilson. Oh, so then what's his first name? It's Wilson. Oh yes, Wilson W. Wilson. Guess what the "W" stands for...

Mr Etaoin Shrdlu: Could we include one, just one "repeatedly used on this very wiki"? It is, in fact, true, and we don't have to make it into an Overly Long Gag

itsmeyouidiot: They Changed It, Now It Sucks. I'm turning it back to an Overly Long Gag, and I am prepared to start an Edit War with anyone that tries to make it any different.

  • Qube: Seconding the TCINIS opinion. Folderizing the whole damn article ruined the very "A, B, C, D, A" joke that the article was designed to explain. This was one of the few articles that I actually enjoyed reading through the whole damn thing.

Sharm Hedgehog: The fact that it's near the end of the page and that some things are completely irrelevant make it really slow to get through that part. Even if this is about redundancy, it really is annoying.

itsmeyouidiot: No, it's funny. And thus, the Edit War began.

Johnny E: So, uh... why does Repeatedly Used on This Very Wiki link to this? Is it purely for the sake of an in-page joke? Because it seems like a Stock Phrase and genuine Wiki Trope should have a page of its own.

macroscopic: From the main page:
Great. The quote above has been twice double quoted. Now that visual picture needs to be fixed/repaired. Remove this statement that was written in writing when done/finished.
Really hoping I'm not just being a moron or an idiot and missing a joke here as I don't see anything wrong with the image because it looks like there's nothing wrong with it. And yes, I see what it's doing with repeating itself and being redundant. The image itself owns by the way because it's awesome.