Rename so we can blue shift it.: X Just X

I prefer something like Explain Your Examples, Example Needs Expansion or No Context Example over Fan Myopic Entry. Fan Myopic Example just sounds kind of rude.

edited 24th Oct '11 10:36:37 PM by Gillespie

[The rest was unintelligible.]

Examples Need Text maybe? I dislike dialogue, because it'll just get misused like what happened with X Just X when it was blue, or used like Elaborate Please.

Fight smart, not fair.

No Example No Trope? Showing what's wrong with it and that it should be removed at the same time?

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

I think X Just X is actually undergoing Trope Decay. In spite of being a red link and having no examples on its page, it seems to be used more and more as an all-purpose excuse for deleting examples based on ill-specified standards of explanation.

Standard of explanation: the example should explain both what the example is, and how it's an example. From this, one should be able to extrapolate a rough approximation of the definition of the trope.

Fight smart, not fair.

Perhaps that should go on the page. I feel the trope is a bit disorganized.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Again, there are some tropes which do not need explanations for their examples, like Alliterative Name.

Then the name is the example. If you know what the word alliterative means.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

One Word Examples is now a redirect. Is this thread needed anymore?

I'm not crazy, I just don't give a darn!

One Word Examples has been a redirect since April. Besides, that still doesn't really clarify what it's about. Examples can have more than one word and still be X Just X.

Examples Need Text seems to be good; we'll just have to make sure to mention that there are some pages that don't call for much explanation.

Yeah, unwritten rule number one: follow all the unwritten procedures. - Camacan

My concern is that names like this encourage the same kind of usage that became a problem for wicks like Please Elaborate.

The question is, "Would names like Explain Your Examples, Examples Need Text, Examples Need Explanation, etc. encourage Conversation On The Main Page from people demanding more context for any examples?"

Names like Name-Only Example, Example Without Context, and so forth, I believe, are better because they make for useful notes to read on a page's edit history, and, more importantly, identify and give a name to the actual problem at hand, as opposed to "vaguely telling people what they should be doing".

Which is why I suggested No Example No Trope.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

I made a crowner so we can decided weather or not to rename X Just X.

I'm against most suggested renames of this.

X Just X is supposed to be the sort of concept that reaches out to the drive-by editors and sticks*

. The title should make it clear exactly what was wrong with the example, without fancy in-group-isms that force people to go read an administrivia page. Most visitors don't know what a "fan myopia" is. Most visitors believe they did just add an example, so No Example No Trope makes no sense to them as a criticism.

So, if we do end up renaming, I'm for something like No Substance No Example, or No Description No Example. Anything that puts it in plain English what the problem is.

edited 1st Dec '11 7:58:15 AM by TripleElation

Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate to

Hold on, when you're saying those tropers believe they did add an example, are you talking about the "episode 26" type of example, or do you mean when they write a sentence that does anything except explain how it is an example?

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

He means that when people add a trope example that is only X Just X, seeing the phrase No Example No Trope wouldn't tell them that they did anything wrong because they would already be inclined to believe that they had just provided an example, anyway.

edited 1st Dec '11 8:00:13 AM by SeanMurrayI

No Description No Example does nothing to distinguish a true X Just X from something that needs no description, like most Title Tropes.

. Except the format in Examples folder is not "example", it is "trope name: example" or "work: example". Writing out an example is the point of this trope. If you don't put anything in the example part of the entry, the trope part of the entry will be removed.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

The whole entry is the example, at least in the eyes of less active editors. Creating fine-grained distinctions doesn't really work with people who aren't familiar with the jargon.

Yeah, unwritten rule number one: follow all the unwritten procedures. - Camacan

I never said people who make X Just X entries and call them "examples" are right. I only said that that's what they believe. Fact remains that No Example No Trope wouldn't tell anybody who writes up an X Just X example what exactly it is they did wrong or what they should do differently, and it would probably only spark arguments and Edit Warring whenever someone invokes such a phrase on a main article.

The problem that we're seeking to address doesn't involve editors leaving "no examples", anyway. What we're looking to address are editors leaving "inadequate examples". There's a difference.

edited 1st Dec '11 8:54:37 AM by SeanMurrayI

Except X Just X is about editors who leave blank examples, not all inadequate examples. So you're not actually helping the rename, but asking for a rewrite.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

X Just X, in its existing form, addresses all examples with inadequate or not enough explanation or information about a trope occurrence/work/character/whatever else is being called an example.

X Just X does cover the "blank" examples, as well, but those are not the only type of bad examples that the page is used to address.

edited 1st Dec '11 11:03:17 AM by SeanMurrayI

No, it doesn't, in its current form. Here's an example of an explanation that it doesn't cover, but is inadequate.

Hot-Blooded Sideburns: Isaac Asimov has huge sideburns.

The example is inadequate because it does not tell us anything about his personality, but it fails X Just X because it is telling us something about why he fits the trope.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

But if you wrote it:

Hot-Blooded Sideburns: Isaac Asimov

Then it would be X Just X but if you removed it with the message No Example No Trope, people would edit war because they see just having written the character name as having given an example. That's in fact the most common form of X Just X.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick