At the Trope Repair Shop, we only look at tropes that have a demonstrable issue with them, typically proven by checking how off-page examples' use the trope (what's called a "wick check") or pointing to the page's low wick count. For this reason, we prefer limiting a thread to a single trope that has been shown to have a problem or be problematic in of itself. It also helps keep the discussion focused, allowing us to come to a decision and implement it more smoothly than if we had to juggle multiple tropes with multiple different issues at once.
That said, there are times when the discussion of one trope raises questions about similar tropes that currently exist. It is not uncommon for a discussion of one trope's issues to reveal a larger issue that spans multiple tropes or that changing the TRS'd trope is likely to have knock-on effects to closely related tropes. Addressing these concerns may require an expanding of the thread past its initial scope and intentions. But doesn't bringing up these concerns conflict with our "one trope, one thread" preference?
Not necessarily, though there are some things to consider:
First and foremost, bringing up past TRS'd tropes to refer to the decisions that dealt with them, is always fine and helpful to establish consistency in decision-making. This is just referring to precedence. What is actually sometimes problematic is bringing up tropes that haven't ever been through TRS. In such cases:
- Avoid fallacious logic: just because Trope A has a problem and Trope B is similar to Trope A does not automatically mean Trope B has a problem, and even if it does, it doesn't mean it's the exact same as Trope A's problem. The difference between Trope A and Trope B that makes Trope B similar but not the same may be what saves Trope B from the pitfalls of Trope A. And contrary to what some believe, TRS does not seek to cut or change tropes if it does not have to. Before any changes to Trope B can be discussed in concrete terms, we need evidence that the same issue does in fact plague Trope B, even if it seems highly likely to be the case, which typically requires a wick check in its own right.
- On the flip side: just because "similar-to-Trope-A" Trope B exists and isn't up for discussion, does not mean Trope A is therefore free of issues and cannot be changed in any way. This is classic "whataboutism
", and it fails because just as there is no evidence that Trope B does have the exact same issues as Trope A, there is no evidence that Trope B doesn't have the same issues as Trope A. The issues of Trope A are proven, but the lack of issues for Trope B are not. Trope B is essentially a black box until it can be properly analyzed in its own right, so trying to decide courses of action on Trope B in a thread created just to tackle Trope A and conversely, avoiding doing anything to Trope A because the same hasn't (yet) happened to Trope B, should be avoided.
That said, if there's a proposed change to a trope's definition and other tropes rely on the current definition, it is ok to bring up these other tropes to discuss the scope of the issue and the ramifications of the changes at hand. This is most likely to happen in threads related to Super Tropes and group-dynamic tropes (tropes that only make sense in the context of a specific group dynamic and that group dynamic might be redefined). But even in such cases, the "demonstrable issue" clause takes precedent: we need to see something concrete that the issues will impact the other tropes as proposed. In these cases, a mod may place a thread on hold or even temporarily shelve the thread:
- until a second wick check is completed on the potentially impacted trope, after which the thread will continue, either just focusing on the initial trope (if the wick check didn't show the issue) or with both. This will more likely be the case when it's only one other trope rather than a whole group of tropes.
- in lieu of a separate Trope Talk thread to discuss the issue in more detail. TRS is for problem-solving, but in these cases, the problem has been revealed to potentially be much bigger than initially thought. The Trope Talk thread allows us to reconsider the original TRS'd trope in the context of these other tropes to figure out once again what the actual problem is and how widespread it is. In these threads, an additional wick check or even multiple new wick checks may be needed. And it's not always the case that what was once thought of as a wider problem is actually shown to be a wider problem. Either way, the outcome of the Trope Talk thread will decide when and how the old TRS thread will proceed.
Special Note on Batch Threads: "Batch thread" refers to a single TRS thread being opened to deal with multiple tropes at the same time. These are slightly different from what's been discussed until now, i.e. threads that were initially made to deal with one trope possibly expanding to deal with more tropes as discussion happens. While these are mostly avoided for all of the reasons stated above, there are times when such threads can work out.
- The tropes are clearly related in some way.
- Wick checks were done on all of the tropes being put up for consideration.
- The number of tropes up for discussion are relatively few.
- The issue and solution are relatively simple and straightforward.
