This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Working Title: The Newest Ones In The Book: From YKTTW
Silent Hunter: I think 1980 is too far back. I'd go for 1990 instead.
Sackett: Again launched despite majority opposition in YKTTW, see the YKTTW above for specific objections
Lord TNK: I don't count a majority, especially since there weren't that many replies to begin with. And half the objections were based on the belief that this would directly overlap with the oldest tropes, and the description takes care of that.
Insanity Prelude: Do we really need this trope?
Lord TNK: The point of this site is to note tropes for both fun and for reference. If it's a trope, it needs pointing out. If some tropes are really new, it needs pointing out. Some might be interested to know what tropes are recent.
Large Blunt Object: It's not a trope. It's completely arbitrary (mostly shoehorned) nonsense. Emo Teen is far from a new concept - only the word "emo" is from the last twenty years. '90s Anti-Hero is a fad for a specific type of anti-hero. It even says on that page: Not all such characters were created during the 1990s, but that was the time when they were most common and most popular.
Yet another page pushed through despite objections and without any kind of consensus, needs to be cut.
Lord TNK: That only gives reason to remove two examples from the list. It does not prove this isn't a trope, unless you can prove every single trope existed before 1960.
Tropes have gone through despite objections, or consensus, and have lasted for quite a while, so that isn't a reason to cut this.
And again, most of the objections were based on the false belief that this would directly overlap with the oldest tropes, when the ykttw description stated it stars with the early 1980s, while the oldest tropes end at 1960, so there cannot be a direct overlap, therefore those particular objections were invalid.
Dookie: I agree with Large Blunt Object. It seems superfluous and it would simply beg for people to add examples that belong in Older than You Think and similar tropes. "New tropes" doesn't seem like that significant a category or have as much potential because it would be very hard to catalog things such as literary trends and the like except in hindsight. It could also age fairly quickly and there would likely be controversy over what constitutes "new" (as there already is), as well as disputes over the origins of tropes. I think the 1990's is too soon to begin classifying "new" tropes and the 1980's doesn't seem right either. Maybe it could be redone into simply "Modern Tropes," starting with the 1960's simply because it would be easier to catalog things from forty years ago as opposed to things that may not be widespread enough to even be called tropes. The Newest Ones in the Book just doesn't seem like a valid trope to me.
Lord TNK: What the hell? The complaints on the ykttw were about the belief that this starts at the cutoff for the oldest drops, and now doing just that is the solution?
And you're assuming it will be hard because you haven't looked at the criteria. For one, the Trope Maker has to be after the cutoff, or it's not the trope maker. For another, if it's a trend, we don't have to rely on just ourselves. Some of us can do research, so for them it wouldn't be that hard.
Seanette: I fail to see any reason not to have this one. It's informative, interesting (to me at least), and at least as worthwhile as pages for specific fictional characters, stuff like Newer/Older Than They Think, and the roughly zillion gradations of Oldest Ones in the Book. I really don't understand the level of anger this one's generating.
Lord TNK: New rule: any example must have an explanation for why it is new. It will be deleted if it has no proof.
Lord TNK: I'm thinking this could be an index, but the explanation rule still applies. Some indexes have further text added, like Unexpected Reactions to This Index.
arromdee:Deleted:
- Sixth Ranger: The first well known example was the Green Ranger from Mighty Morphin Power Rangers in 1993, (DragonRanger from Zyuranger in 1992)
The Five-Man Band didn't originate with Japan. Ignoring earlier versions like the Newsboy Legion, it really got started with the Challengers of the Unknown in 1957. The fifth member (The Chick, June Robbins) was something of a Sixth Ranger, since she didn't share everyone else's origin and wasn't a full member until the 1970's. After Challengers, there were a number of imitations: Cave Carson, Rip Hunter, Sea Devils, the Doom Patrol, and the Fantastic Four. Most of them stayed with four members. The Doom Patrol, however, later added Mento and Beast Boy (yes, that Beast Boy) who were definitely Sixth Rangers. So the first one is either June (1957) or Mento (1964). If you require a literal number six, it's Beast Boy (1965).
As for whether they're well known, I'd say yes, at least among anyone interested in comics of that time. The fact that the Four Man Band was a trend around that time is likewise well known. Beware Small Reference Pools.
