Created By: WestrimJune 4, 2011 Last Edited By: WestrimAugust 21, 2014
Nuked

discard Do Not Post Just The Trope Name

Don\'t comment on a YKTTW with just a trope name, say why it is the same or should be looked at

Name Space:
Main
Page Type:
Trope
A proposed Predefined Message.

An integral part of the process of making a YKKTW is making sure that there isn't another trope that fits the description or that seems similar and can cause confusion. Not only does it prevent duplicate tropes from being created, it also refines the definition of the trope being proposed. Should a troper realize that a proposed trope is similar to or the same as another, they are encouraged to note the trope and explain what the issue is.

What's not okay is writing only a trope with no explanation, not even "This is X", especially if bolded. Even if entirely correct, it comes across as rude and dismissive, and bolding text is considered equivalent to raising ones voice or yelling in most of the internet. It forces anyone working on cleaning up the YKKTW to go to the trope page and attempt to discern why the poster found them similar and respond to an argument that has not actually been made. Some just ignore posts of this variety altogether which does not help the conversation along. Posting only a trope name slows and frustrates the process and the tropers involved, and should be considered comparable to X Just X- just because the poster knows why the trope they wrote means the YKKTW should be removed does not necessarily mean anyone else does.

Community Feedback Replies: 49
  • June 5, 2011
    Stratadrake
    It's probably more comparable to X Just X.
  • June 6, 2011
    Valentine
    If this was launchable it would need a considerable rewrite - the onus should be on the person launching to explain why their trope is different to what somebody else thinks is the same trope. If somebody thinks your trope is exactly covered by a trope, you should read through that trope. Either they're correct (in which case why should they need to do more than say "This is X"?), or they've spotted a very similar trope which you should be working into the description to explain the difference anyway, in which case you're going to need to read the trope.
  • June 6, 2011
    SKJAM
    Howsomever, I've noticed that some folks continue to just post a trope name even *after* the OP clarifies what they're talking about, as though the new poster hadn't even bothered to read the discussion or revised opening. (And in a couple of instances had clearly not read the opening post at all, since the just the trope name response doesn't even come close to the intended subject.)
  • June 6, 2011
    Westrim
    Valentine, the problem is even the most established trope is or can be interpreted differently by every reader. The onus is on the trope proposer to explain why their trope is different, yes, but that does not remove the responsibility of the commenter to say why they're the same.

    Additionally, the practice of writing only the trope inhibits critical thought, as the commenter only has to think of the trope they find it similar to, write that, and be on their way. If they have to explain why they think the proposal and existing are the same, then a more than cursory analysis of the proposed trope or at least a rereading of the trope that is thought to be the same to back up their memory is required, which leads to either a clear understanding by all parties or the realization of error. We don't see all the times that people actually do the latter already, because they no longer need to comment.

    And this is a collaborative effort. If the commenter think there is a distinction that needs to be made clear, they can go ahead and write it into the proposed trope's intro. If they aren't sure, they can ask.
  • June 6, 2011
    Valentine
    Westrim, you're quite wrong that a well-defined trope should be interpreted differently by each person.

    There are an awful lot of proposed YKTT Ws, and it does happen often enough that the trope is definitely something that we already have, or a Ridiculously Similar Trope. If I read the description and can see that it is already covered I often just say "This is covered by X". Much more often than not, the author either says "Oh well", or just lets the YKTTW drop off the bottom or discards it. Reading the trope should be enough to convince the author that the tropes are the same. If it's not, we can discuss it when they explain why they think it isn't the same trope.

    I disagree that someone objecting should be discouraged from initially just pointing out the trope a YKTTW is a duplicate of, it's a very long-standing and widely used method, and your proposed Administrative Note seems to be completely skewed by an argument you had over someone answering one of your YKTT Ws this way. At this stage, I'm tending in favour of discarding this altogether.

  • June 6, 2011
    Westrim
    Valentine, you just gave an excellent example of how two people can look at the same thing and see different things. I said "is or can be interpreted differently by", 'can' meaning that it may or may not happen and it's up to those involved. You interpreted 'can' as 'should', conflating the two terms despite quite different meanings, due to your own experiences with their usage.

    Obviously we can't go explaining each word we use and explaining the explanation into oblivion. But even a couple words showing the commenter's thoughts on the similar trope (beyond just "these two are similar" or "This is covered by X") can be of great help, whether noting that it's an issue of degree, that the proposed trope is too narrow and falls under the existing one or that they're really the exact same thing. Something that gives the proposer an idea of what the issue is.

    If this isn't clear, I'm not saying that this is inherently bad; like every trope, it can be used well. But Just The Trope is overused and has become a crutch for some, leading to SKJAM's observations.

    And then there's politeness. If someone wrote a paragraph or two describing a potential trope and it turns out to be another one to a tee even on rereading and checking the established trope, it's still kinder to write a full sentence of explanation in response (not four words and a trope). That may not always seem necessary, but I'm sure that the troper who makes the error appreciates it. I know I did when someone explained a YKKTW I made a long time back already existed as Technobabble.

    As for other conversations of mine, I've had this in mind for a while now but never bothered looking into it and just focused on resolving the disagreement at hand at the time. I created this concurrently with the conversation you allude to because I wanted to use it and realized there wasn't already a predefined message about it- same way that many other YKKTW's get made. My forum signature says something long about not assuming emotional content.

    Lastly, I realize that the primary reason for this practice is practical; why say something long when you can say something short and get the same result? I agree with that in general (that may seem surprising given this post length, but when I'm having a conversation I want to be thorough), but overuse has led to diminished effectiveness due to many occasion where it was not, in fact, the same trope- and if the commenter had been more careful, they would have seen that.
  • June 6, 2011
    jaytee
    I don't think we need this.

    Besides the fact that it's a predefined response to a response to a message, which just seems inane, posting Just The Trope is pretty accepted. I don't think anyone who does it is trying to make an argument beyond "maybe these are the same or at least related."

    Basically, if this practice irks you, ignore it. We don't need a policy against it just because you think it's annoying.
  • February 17, 2012
    AlexSora89
    Thanks for bringing it up in the YKTTW discussion. This is a good trope to me, and deserves to be treated as the Wiki Trope it is.

    It's basically Please Elaborate, but more cleverly written, a good rule for YKTTW and, for a variety of reasons, not deserving to suffer that fate we all hate that instead killed the Please Elaborate trope.

    Also, justifying a trope's presence in an article is a good way for avoiding any instances of Square Peg Round Trope. Well done!
  • February 17, 2012
    ccoa
    I think we do need a warning/policy against it, or at least the virulent worst form of it, which is when someone responds to a YKTTW with nothing more than a bolded trope name.

    Some Trope Name

    Picture that through the eyes of someone new to YKTTW. What does it mean? Why is the poster shouting at me? What do I do now?

    We should be wary of developing an internal "language", because it's confusing and excludes people who are new to the culture.

    Additionally, at the very least you should be explaining enough to give a person something to go on. For example, use "I think this is covered by X" for when you think they're identical and "This seems very close to X, could you elaborate the difference" when you're not sure.

    And that's not even touching on the problem that frequently people who simply post a trope name and leave haven't bothered to fully read the YKTTW, trope they're linking, or both.
  • February 17, 2012
    MiinU
    I've noticed this on actual Trope pages as well as YKTTW's, and have spent a fair amount of time trying to fix it when possible, providing I'm familiar with the series the example comes from.

    Like on character sheets, I'll find something like:

    character name

    Yet there's nothing there to explain what makes that character an extremist, well intentioned or otherwise. When I find these kinds of examples, I either add context to explain why the trope applies to that character (assuming I'm familiar with them) or (if I'm not) I simply delete that example since there's nothing to justify it being there.

    So I agree, we could use this.
  • February 17, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    Does this differ enough from Zero Context Example?
  • February 17, 2012
    Catbert
    Zero Context Example is about examples on work pages. This is about people's response to YKTTW pages.

    Specifically, it is about the current practice of indicating we already have something by posting something like

    We have this: Trope Name
  • February 17, 2012
    Stratadrake
    ^ The heck? I don't know what the hell that page is supposed to even be.
  • February 17, 2012
    TomWalpertac2
  • February 17, 2012
    randomsurfer
    I'd like to point out (so I will) that this runs counter to the Predefined Message Yes We DO Have This One:
    Typically a response takes the form of a single link to the trope page, with no explanation. There may even be simultaneous posting [sic] by multiple experienced tropers. Again, ideally, this should be sufficient to end the conversation. Yet people can and will continue to post afterwards, particularly if the thread has already gained a large number of posts that newcomers don't bother to read through before replying. Bold Inflation was proposed as a potential cure for this epidemic of illiteracy not long ago.
  • February 18, 2012
    SeptimusHeap
    I rather thought that this could be a trope page counterpart to Just A Face And A Caption - i.e a trope with examples and a name but no description.
  • February 18, 2012
    Catbert
    @Tom/ We already have Zero Context Example for that usage.

    @randomsurfer: It would appear that you are correct.

    Given that this goes against the existing policy, and it seems to be confusing a lot of people as to what it means, I'm going to discard this soon unless someone can come up with a pressing reason not to.
  • February 18, 2012
    SeptimusHeap
    I restored this mostly to see what it gives. Maybe it can be repurposed into something not redundant to Zero Context Example.
  • February 18, 2012
    Catbert
    It has nothing at all to do with Zero Context Example!
  • February 18, 2012
    Catbert
    At a minimum, this needs a rename because everyone seems to be confused about what this is.
  • February 18, 2012
    SeptimusHeap
  • February 18, 2012
    Catbert
    Septimus, I'm trying to think of a polite way of asking this, but are you sure you are reading the description and not just the title?

    This is not about Examples on a work page!

    This is about people replying to a YKTTW draft with

    This Trope

    As a way of saying Yes We DO Have This One
  • February 18, 2012
    Westrim
    I'm going to try to address some of the many thoughts flying around in here.

    I've edited the Laconic to make it clear this applies only to YKTTWs, since several people haven't picked that up from the explanation or didn't bother to read it.

    Zero Context Example is specifically for media put on trope pages and tropes put on media pages with no explanation of why the media has the trope or the trope applies to the media. There is no conflict with this YKTTW.

    Yes We DO Have This One is a specific Predefined Message meant solely for responding to another specific predefined message. Again, no conflict.

    The paragraph cited by randomsurfer should be removed or massively edited. Bold Inflation as a tactic for gaining attention to a comment in a YKTTW (with the dubious objective of preventing further example writing or conversation) has to my knowledge gained no support in the thread regarding YKTTW overhaul, and is generally seen as rude and insufficient.
  • March 7, 2012
    Westrim
    Bumping. I'm going to do a bit of rewording when I have time later; it shouldn't be noting what's happening 'currently.'
  • March 11, 2012
    TBeholder
    Catbert> We have this: Trope Name

    ...and that demonstrates what the real problem here is: not bothering to look up even a ready link. ;]
  • March 11, 2012
    Catbert
    @Westrim: This Needs A Better Title if you want it to be a meaningful predefined message. If you don't want us to expect people to bother to read and understand the content of linked articles, than don't make a predefined message that requires people to read and understand the associated article in order to understand it.

    Something like Do Not Just Post The Trope Name would make much more sense.
  • March 11, 2012
    Treblain
    Are fly-by posters who don't bother to explain themselves really going to check the draft again to see that they've been scolded? I don't see how helpful this will be as a predefined message. Just edit Yes We DO Have This One and the YKTTW Guidelines to make clear that this form of contribution is not helpful.
  • March 11, 2012
    TwinBird
    No.

    The wiki is large, not everyone's seen everything, and very often posting the trope alone will suffice, and posting more would be worthless excess. Only when a genuine controversy arises, or when an emotionally attached OP becomes purposefully obstinate, is more typically needed, or should it be welcomed, let alone required.
  • March 13, 2012
    MorganWick
    ^Posting the trope alone, though, can be seen as rude and can mean multiple things. Even "This is Trope Name" is an improvement. Or "I don't see how this isn't Trope Name." Or even "You're looking for Trope Name."

    Drive By Trope Name?
  • March 13, 2012
    TwinBird
    It's well understood at this point that the trope name, in bold, is an organically-developed shorthand for "the page I am linking to is trivially close to the one you're proposing," and rightfully draws attention to a fact that can and frequently does stop a proposal in its tracks. Not to mention that this is the second time you've tried to submit this, with a slightly different approach, with your blind-in-one-eye "consensus" backing you up.
  • March 13, 2012
    Treblain
    ^ A lot of people have been saying lately that they don't like people just posting Trope and not commenting any further. The use of bold was supposed to stop people from ignoring people who tell them their trope already exists, but when that doesn't work, the sponsor gets defensive and keeps arguing, and now there's no grounds to convince them to give up. Plus, the person who just posted Trope assumes it's over and ignores the draft, and other people have to waste time arguing with the sponsor. And that's not even getting into the possibility that the person who says Trope is wrong.

    I still don't think a predefined message will change anything. The YKTTW Guidelines and the common practice here present this as okay, and that's all you can reasonably expect people to follow. If we want to do something, change that.
  • March 13, 2012
    MorganWick
    ^Also, will newbies to YKTTW understand the convention, especially since people generally don't read the YKTTW Guidelines?
  • March 17, 2012
    Westrim
    Edited the second paragraph, it should be clearer now. I used Catberts title suggestion, but it may be a bit longish, so perhaps Drive By Trope Name could be a redirect.

    ^^^Personal attacks really weaken your case, Twinbird. And I'm not seeing anything similar in my YKTTW history, so what exactly are you referring to?

    I expect that when/before this launches (maybe even now), any pages that support bolding or leaving only a trope name will be edited to not do so. I understand the concern that some of those inclined to leave only a trope name will not be inclined to check again and thus see the message, but I think that's true for many Predefined Messages, and it can still be used in P Ms if someone is noted to persist in the practice. They aren't just for offenders, they're also for others looking at the page to know that a practice is discouraged enough to have a dedicated message responding to it.

  • February 1, 2013
    Westrim
    Renewing this YKTTW.
  • February 1, 2013
    SeptimusHeap
    This looks very unnecessary. Let's face it, a Predefined Message in response to another?
  • February 1, 2013
    Westrim
    What is the Predefined Message it would be responding to?
  • February 1, 2013
    SeptimusHeap
    None. But I see that a conversation like "Trope <-> Some Message" is more likely to be harmful.
  • February 1, 2013
    Westrim
    Considering the number of YKTTW I've seen derailed by arguments over a bolded trope name (see for example, No Resume Inertia), that would have to be quite a bit of harm to be true. Starting with a bolded trope name is essentially starting off by yelling "You're wrong, and it's obvious why!" and it needs a predefined, wiki backed response that this is not the way to good debate. The uses of Predefined Messages I've seen, even potentially antagonistic ones like Repair Dont Respond, always get mellow responses, since at the end of the link is a clear, unmistakable message instead of a subjective trope.
  • February 1, 2013
    elwoz
    I'm going to chime in here just to say that I am not a fan of the Boldface Trope That This Duplicates, No Explanation style of objecting to proposed tropes, and I think that asking people to write a sentence - just a sentence! - explaining why they think the proposal duplicates trope X is not too much to ask, and will lead to a friendlier and more productive YKTTW.
  • February 2, 2013
    Westrim
    That you're saying that over half a year after this YKTTW went dormant says something to me about how much this is needed.
  • February 2, 2013
    SeptimusHeap
    ^^I feel that a Wiki Talk thread does this better.

    Also, let's get down to it: People get constantly reminded that this isn't acceptable. Why would a Predefined Message do it better? Especially if they don't come back to read the objection.
  • February 2, 2013
    Telcontar
    What about making an entry on the YKTTW Guidelines and/or Yes We Do Have This One stating that it's not preferred? More complete policy pages means more to read and keep track of when it's really not needed for everything.

    Oh, and I don't think it'd be helpful to have someone go Trope Name and the next to go Do Not Post Just The Trope Name.
  • February 5, 2013
    Westrim
    So long as it gets entered as official policy so a persistent troper can get pointed to it, that works for me. I'll keep this up until someone adds it to the guidelines or I do.
  • February 5, 2013
    Sackett
    I disagree with this policy. "This is Trope X" is perfectly fine. And no, I don't tend to use bold myself, but claiming it's the same as yelling? That's just silly. Speech edict and written edict are different for a reason.

    You're offended by things like that? Toughen up. People disagreeing with you is not being rude. People being short and direct in their disagreement is not being rude. Just stop getting offended.

    I don't get offended by a short statement that helps point out a trope I hadn't seen or that forces me to more carefully explain why my proposal is different.

    If people call you nasty names that's different, but this is being over sensitive.

    There are enough jerks running around the internet to get offended by, getting offended by things that you don't need to get offended by is a waste of energy. And trying to police comments because they aren't nice enough is too much effort. Lets worry about people who are actively mean, and not those people who fail to be actively nice.
  • February 6, 2013
    SeptimusHeap
    Wow, mate, dial the done down a bit, please.

    Trope doesn't mean anything to people who aren't expert of YKTTW conventions. And it comes off as rude.
  • August 21, 2014
    Westrim
    Reviving this.

    Proposed YKTTW Guidelines addition under the 'Contributing' section:
    • When proposing that an existing trope is the same or in some other way related, do not post only the Trope Name, and especially not in bold text. That is a Zero Context Example, and more likely to lead to confusion and conflict than enlightenment- it cannot be assumed that everyone will read the YKTTW and the mentioned trope the same way. Bold text is commonly used on the internet to infer shouting, which is rude in most conversations and circumstances including this one.

    Yes We Do Have This One needs some modification in light of this, mostly where second paragraph where it discusses usage.

    I agree that making this a Predefined Message may be counterproductive; though there are other Messages specifically meant to be responses to other Messages (Yes We Do Have This One), making it a guideline may make it more likely to be followed, read, understood, and cited, and as a Message it may simply be used in a cycle of antagonism.
  • August 21, 2014
    DAN004
    Someone really dislike bold linked text, I assume.
  • August 21, 2014
    Prfnoff
    The OP still claims it's a Zero Context Example, though another troper claimed two years ago that it had "nothing at all to do with Zero Context Example." I think the analogy is mistaken: trope pages can be expected to provide context for tropes, even though work pages cannot be relied upon to give sufficient context to explain examples.
  • August 21, 2014
    Westrim
    After looking this over, I decided to be bold and make the proposed edits (Yes We Do Have This One needed more than I thought), so I'm discarding this as no longer necessary. Thanks all for their input.

Three days must pass before this YKTTW is Launchworthy or Discardable